Tag Archives: dialogue

Internal dialogue

I find it interesting how the voice in our heads can be so loud. Sometimes it’s like we live two different lives, one in the 3-dimensional world and one in the ethereal space between our ears. Both lives playing out simultaneously and each distracting ourselves from the other.

Sometimes they sync and we become a singularly focused person… both lives becoming one in moments of joy, love, anger, or gratitude, as examples. But often those are high and low moments that draw our mutually focused attentions. Most of our lives they seem to be in minor conflict with each other, fighting for our full attention.

I like the moments when my internal dialogue is quiet, and more focused on being present in the physical world, but there are times when this seems impossible. There are times when the internal dialogue is a complete distraction from reality, in a full on battle for attention. When I’m in this space, the internal dialogue usually wins. These are times that I’m more comfortable being alone than in the presence of anyone. Yet, I don’t feel alone… I’ve got an internal voice keeping me company.

This is neither good nor bad, this is determined by context. If I’m thinking of something dark or gloomy, it can be a bad headspace to be in. But if I’m deep in thought and excited about some new learning or ideas, or if I’m creating or writing, then I could be in a fantastic headspace.

My internal dialogue is like a second world, a second life that lives inside my head, and can be on a continuum from fully engaged in the physical world to almost fully ignorant of my surroundings. Both extreme cases can be wonderful, but it seems I live most of my life balancing the two worlds as best as I can.

Subtle shades of difference

Yesterday I went for a bicycle ride with a friend whom I hadn’t connected with in months. We had a great ride and we talked about a lot of different things going on in the world today. Our views differed on a scale from slightly to considerably. There were some topics we talked about that tend to spur arguments in public discourse, but for us it was just good dialogue.

That’s a huge challenge today and news media makes the situation worse. The news does not try to make stories nuanced, media stories work to polarize views. Subtle shades of difference don’t draw attention and clicks, conflict and contrast does. The result? Every story is a problem, and every conversation is a debate. The middle ground is a no man’s land that is attacked by the extreme views on both sides, and everyone is either for or against a view.

Nuance is missed… and not just by news media, by me, by my friend, by you! We all get stuck looking at issues from the extremes and not seeing the complexities of issues that are very nuanced.

My friend and I were able to break down a few hot topics into the complicated issues that don’t sit on the extremes. We were able to partially agree and disagree with each other. We had a conversation, not an argument. Discourse rather than disregard.

It was refreshing to have this conversation. I hope that we can figure out a way to make public discourse more about sharing different ideas and less about defending extreme points of view without being able to see the spectrum that ideas fall into.

I know that the first place to start is with myself. It’s not good enough to blame the media, it’s important to recognize how I’m triggered by listening to polar opposite views, and for me to hear other perspectives without getting too hung up on how those perspectives differ from mine. I need to look for nuance, and recognize that there can be middle ground that becomes the starting point for good discussion and discourse.

Having hard conversations

Last night I joined a conversation on Clubhouse that was really challenging.

Because I am writing this before 6am, and don’t plan on writing for a couple hours, I’m going to leave the topic out of my thoughts below.

The conversation was hot and a participant (who was in my opinion immature) created a bit of a mess. I wasn’t planning on speaking but thought I could give some insight to the challenging topic this young man brought up. I said what I wanted to, then I made a tangent point to another argument. This tangent, to be blunt, was uninformed (read as ‘ignorant’ if you like), and it was further misunderstood in a way to undermine everything I said before this error. My fault. My communication was poor.

Then a second crap-storm broke out. I sat silently while other people argued for and against a point I never intended to make. About 15 minutes later the moderator created a space, invited me, back into the conversation.

I was careful to apologize, tried to explain what I was really trying to say. Then again acknowledged that what I said was wrong. I didn’t want my explanation of intent to be perceived as an excuse, so I was happy to end with a second apology.

But others still wanted to talk about the point that was contentious, even though there was a window of opportunity to move on, and the discussion became a convoluted argument. More people misspoke and the conversation was filled with people triggered by the previous speaker. Then some of them got upset with the moderators who where trying their best to keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Hard conversations are hard to have… or they wouldn’t be hard! But we need to learn to have them. We need to understand that learning conversations might involve not just disagreement, but hurt. We need to be willing to set aside egos, and not take things personally, when there isn’t intent to hurt. We need to make conversation spaces places where we can misspeak, where we can apologize, where we can disagree, even in places where topics make us feel uncomfortable.

We need conversations to be safe, and understand that topics won’t always feel safe. This is tricky. This is something some people won’t agree with. But if the conversation can’t go to uncomfortable places, to places that feel uncomfortable, then the learning is hindered. The ability to make mistakes and learn from them disappears. The conversation becomes a ‘safe space‘ but it is no longer a rich learning space. Hurt is no longer something that can be healed, instead it is interpreted as hate. Perspectives become polarized, rather than recognizing how ideas are on a spectrum:

“We want to live, thrive, and love in a pluralistic society. We just need to recognize that in such a society we must be tolerant and accepting of opposing views, unaccepting of hateful and hurtful acts, and smart enough to understand the difference.”

Hurtful words are not always hurtful or hateful acts. Opposing views are not always personal attacks. And opposing views are not ever changed by attacking the person who holds those views. If we let the words, said in error, said in misunderstanding, and even said in ignorance, hurt us, we can not do the work to reach, or help others learn. We do not leave the room for insight or apology. We do not create any space for an opposing view to change.

Instead, we create a space where we can only feel wronged, where there are feelings of injury, and words are said in anger. Conversation gets lost, words get weaponized, and opportunities for learning diminish. If we can’t have conversations about difficult topics, because they don’t feel safe, then what is the alternative? Ignorance? Violence?

Words can hurt. If we hold on to the hurt, if we only see hate, words don’t ever get to heal. While we prevent the potential for hurt by avoiding challenging and charged conversations, we also never get to a place where minds can change… where conversations are hard, but where authentic learning can happen… where dialogue can bring people together, rather than keep people with opposing and different views apart.

They do not know

Children do not know they lack the wisdom of age.

An adult does not know when more information and knowledge has ceased to provide more wisdom.

When blind privilege provides an advantage it does not know that this advantage has been bestowed.

When ignorance is spoken it does not know that it is spoken while lacking relevant information.

Anger does not know how it clouds rational thought.

Hate does not know how to foster love or forgiveness.

A biased person does know their subjectivity lacks objectivity.

An irrational person does not know that their judgments are clouded.

The delusional does not know their view of the world is altered.

The hypocrite does not know their words do not meet their own standards or revered beliefs.

The fool does not know when they are being fooled.

To tell a child that they they are too young to understand; To tell an adult they are not wise enough to understand; To tell the blindly privileged that they are privileged; To tell the angry or hateful not to be angry or hateful; To tell the biased, irrational, or delusional of their faulty perspectives; to call a hypocrite a hypocrite, or a fool a fool… These are vain and futile attempts to share what you know with someone that does not know.

To be noble in principle, thoughtfully persuasive, and influential in a way that can be heard is no easy task. Knowing when you can be convincing and when efforts are futile is not always clear. To believe that you can change a fixed mind is a fool’s errand, but to give up on a fixed mindset that can be changed is a lost opportunity to have meaningful influence.

Related post: Ideas on a Spectrum

Is it just me?

I know I’ve been writing a lot recently about QAnon, anti-makers, and anti-vaxxers. I’m going to continue that today with a bit of a rant:

Is it just me that thinks these conspiracy theory spinners are just idiots? I mean one crazy idea leads to another, which leads to another. They tie so many BS ideas together that you can’t keep track. And when one idea is debunked or one deadline for catastrophe is missed, it doesn’t diminish their fervour for the next conspiracy… debunking one idea does not phase their beliefs on the topic or any other topic, despite the fact that they are the ones making the connections. What’s worse, they seem to always want evidence, but refuse to believe any evidence provided is real.

Is it just me that thinks police should take water guns filled with blue food colouring to anti-mask protests and spray it all over them? If protesters are going to endanger themselves, let’s paint their faces blue for a couple weeks so that we can keep our distance from them when they return to normal society. That way when they come back from the protest and put masks on, and we usually can’t tell they were participating in risky behaviour, we would still know to keep very clear from them.

Is it just me that thinks we should enforce travel bans on people that refuse the vaccine? And while we are at it, if they end up in a hospital with expensive covid related issues after refusing the vaccine, they should have to pay medical bills for being stupid and adding an unnecessary burden to the Canadian economy.

Is it just me that wonders how in an age of unlimited information, stupidity can travel faster than intelligence? What is it about the human brain that makes not just dimwits, but also otherwise smart people too, believe that every government leader can be absolutely corrupt and yet only a single whistleblower is brave enough to come forward? The news is filled with scandals all the time. Humans don’t know how to keep a secret, but somehow there are cabals filled with rich people who live lives surrounded by servants, who can keep global conspiracies a secret for decades.

Is it just me that wonders if the threat of terrorism is greater from within our borders than from outside? That anti-common sense, extreme nationalist, and hate groups pose more of a threat to our societies than fundamentalist religious wing-nuts? The internal threat of stupidity is greater than the external threat of tyranny.

Is it just me that is fed up with cliff jumping lemmings calling me a sheep? I feel like I’m calling out the morons the same way they call out people who actually care about things like actual research and scientific facts. I know that this little rant won’t change anyone’s ridiculous beliefs in conspiracy theories, and will do nothing more than convince these delusional idiots that I’m somehow lost, or blind to some fantasy land reality they live in. But I feel good getting this little rant off my chest, and I’ll work on more convincing arguments again after today.

Here is the thing… it feels good to rant sometimes, but is it just me that thinks dialogue is the only way forward? That we actually have to engage and try to convince people that their loony ideas are wrong? Am I the only one that thinks it’s not good enough to roll your eyes and let these people believe their baseless theories without providing counter arguments? The answer to the spread of bad ideas is to counter them with good ideas. It’s painful to engage, but if we don’t have dialogue, if we don’t provide counter arguments, then we really are sheep, or lemmings… Then we are allowing a small group of small minded people to influence and engage with more people likely to follow them down a path of poor thinking. Is it just me that thinks this?

Bad arguments

First of all, let me get a couple things out in the open.

1. Yes, I’m getting the vaccine. Vaccines are a proven technology that saves lives.

2. And yes, I’m pro-choice. Women have a right to choose if they want to bring a life into the world or not, and religious beliefs shouldn’t be imposed on others that do not have those beliefs. (Ie, if your religion tells you differently, you can choose to follow those beliefs.)

Given these points, I think there are people that agree with me, who are choosing bad arguments to justify these points.

Bad argument #1: “I don’t care what’s in that vaccine, I’d do anything to get out of these lockdowns.”

This argument takes all the science and care people have done to study the vaccine and ensure it is safe and lumps it into a category of, “Anything is better than this.” With the word ‘anything’ including all kinds of fear and misinformation about what could happen after taking the vaccine. This argument says nothing of the efficacy of this vaccine, or any vaccine. This doesn’t focus on how many millions of flu vaccines have been taken yearly for decades, and the lack of any statistically harmful effects, juxtaposed to how many people die from flus each year… or how many people have already died, and will continue to die, or have lifelong adverse effects from covid-19.

Bad argument #2: “If you really are pro-life, then why are you against social programs that would support single moms, and why aren’t you willing to adopt a child that a mother isn’t ready or able to raise?”

This argument suggests there could be a perfect world, where every expectant mother could have choices to have the baby, and thus not need the choice to not have it. Absolutely, there should be better social programs to give expectant mothers more choice when faced with an unwanted child. But the idea that if those external choices are all there, the mother will then no longer have a choice to not have the child… this is no longer a pro-choice argument.

Both of these arguments are examples of taking positions unhelpful towards making a valid intended point or choice. Both do not convince anyone with opposing views that they should change their minds. They are bad arguments that do not help support the very points they are making.

Want to argue with someone that disagrees with you? Start with a valid argument that actually supports what you are saying.

Know your audience

Social media is filled with people who are ‘preaching to the converted’. There is nowhere that this is more evident than in politics and religion. I’m amazed at the blindness with which people spew their ideology.

Basically, what I (mostly) see are two ignorant camps:

1. I don’t care what you think.

2. You don’t think like me, so you are an idiot.

Neither of these deliver a message that comes remotely close to convincing anyone of anything. Neither of these pander to an audience beyond those that already agree with the perspective being shared. Neither of these promote thought or dialogue.

Sure it might feel good. Yes, it’s nice to be in the company of others that completely agree with you. But social media shouldn’t just be about screaming into an echo chamber, and there should be opportunities for dialogue that goes beyond winning a point against a foe whom doesn’t even acknowledge your point.

I keep coming back to the realization that ideas lie on a spectrum, and the reason I keep coming back to this is because most of us don’t sit on the extremes, even if that’s where we argue our points from. We don’t really wish ill of those that oppose our view, we don’t really believe that our neighbours are unneighbourly because they view things differently than us, politically, religiously, or ideologically. Yet that’s what it looks like on social media.

Are you trying to share your view only with people that already agree with you? Or are you trying to share your view with others who think differently? If your answer is the latter, then think about your audience, and share a message they can actually hear.

I miss the conversations that used to happen on blogs

I can remember blogging and getting 20 to 50 comments that made the post into a conversation… a dialogue that I learned from. That rarely happens anymore. Part of this is that the conversation has moved. For example my Daily-Ink posts generate conversations on LinkedIn, and on Facebook. But I miss rich feedback that made a blog post feel like an engaging conversation. That doesn’t happen much anymore.

What made me bring this up is that I had two people, Brad and Bill, comment on my post about ‘Trying to find the Truth‘, and this conversation reminded me of the kind of commenting that used to happen more frequently.

Twitter conversations are fun, but the richness isn’t there like it is in a longer format blog post and follow up conversation in the comments. Facebook seems to invite compliments like, ‘thanks for sharing’ or ‘I really enjoyed this’, but seldom anything deeper as an add-on to a shared post. LinkedIn seems to have the better conversations coming from blog posts, but they get lost in the stream as opposed to being curated with the blog post.

Perhaps I need to make the effort Aaron Davis does to ‘Read Write Curate‘. Interesting timing that I went to find that link and stumbled on this quote Aaron curated from Bill Ferriter:

Here is Aaron’s full website, Read Write Respond.

Anyway, I’m going to make a commitment to comment more on the blogs I read. If I want to see this kind of conversation more frequently, I should also participate more myself.

Ad Hominem Attacks on Social Media

Ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. (Wikipedia)

It used to be that an ad hominem attack during an argument was a (weak) defensive move, but that is no longer the case… especially on social media. Don’t like someone’s ideas? Attack their character, their physical features, their business acumen, or even their choice of clothing. As for the point they are making, the very thing that was upsetting, this is not dismissed with any points of merit. No, instead it is simply assumed that the opposing view is already a lost argument with no need to fact check or provide counter evidence or opposing rationalization.

I’m not sure when this became so acceptable? It is a weak and counterproductive approach to disagreeing with someone’s ideas, and yet it is pervasive on all social media platforms. While ad hominem attacks used to be used as a poor, defensive response, now it is done as a knee jerk reaction with little thought as to how it undermines any points made in conjunction with it. While ad hominem attacks used to be used by weak people avoiding having to put forth a weak argument, now it is used as fuel to feed the rage that social media can invite. ‘Here is my point, and here is a personal attack I’ll add for good measure.’

Ultimately, here is the problem, an ad hominem attack is literally an argument that preaches only to the converted. It undermines any valuable information or argument that is shared along with the attack. Sure it scores a point with the people who agree with the person on the attack, but it does the opposite with those that disagree, those that the attacker would actually want to convince otherwise. Think that through to its logical conclusion: Ad hominem attacks are great for convincing people who are already agreeable, while angering or being fully dismissed by those that disagree. What does this accomplish?

____________

Addendum: Sarcasm works the same way, pandering to those who need not be convinced, while being dismissed by those that it would be desirable to influence.

Also, this brings me back to the post: Ideas on a Spectrum.

Ideas on a Spectrum

The world seems so bipolar right now! Topics that used to be on an ideological or political spectrum have become dichotomies.

di·chot·o·my. /dīˈkädəmē/

noun ~ a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.

It can be dangerous to take a spectrum of ideas and polarize them. We do not live in a Yin or Yang, black or white, world. Where the greatest danger lies in this polarization is in the importance of having a right to free speech. As I said in My one ‘ism’:

“We want to live, thrive, and love in a pluralistic society. We just need to recognize that in such a society we must be tolerant and accepting of opposing views, unaccepting of hateful and hurtful acts, and smart enough to understand the difference.”

It is getting harder and harder to do this because people find opposing views, equally as hurtful as hateful acts. This is delicate, and very problematic. This is where we need some bipartisan cooperation. 

bi·par·ti·san. /bīˈpärdəzən/

adjective ~ of or involving the agreement or cooperation of two political parties that usually oppose each other’s policies.

Right now there are untouchable (un-discussable) topics that make dialogue impossible. 

di·a·logue. /ˈdīəˌläɡ,ˈdīəˌlôɡ/

verb ~take part in a conversation or discussion to resolve a problem.

In a civil society, dialogue is the one problem-solving strategy that should be sacred. To do this, free speech is essential. But right now there is a culture of ‘attack the opposition’ that is very scary. This seems to play out at its worst on Twitter:

~ A prominent person tweets something insensitive or careless and they are attacked as if every fibre of their being is evil.

~ A little-followed user tweets something ‘inappropriate’ and suddenly they are famous in the most infamous of ways. 

~ A person with an unpopular opinion tweets that opinion and they become ‘memed’ as the poster child for ridicule on the topic. 

We can’t live in a civil society where dialogue is shut down, because at that point hate and violence are too easy to be responses, where dialogue should suffice. We are seeing this happen on different ends of the political spectrums, such as: 

~ undemocratic societies shutting down/arresting/killing opposition to those in power.

~ extreme right wing groups being unabashedly hurtful. 

~ extreme left wing groups physically attacking journalists and public figures with opposing views.

None of this moves us towards a freer, more open and accepting world. None of this fosters conversations and dialogues that can help us grow as a society. None of this creates an environment where middle ground can be found, to allow the vast majority of us to coexist in a civil society. 

We are living in a time when the extremes seem to be the voice of everyone. That’s scary! If someone has a centrist view they are identified by the extremes to share the opposing extremist view. Or, they are considered collaborators, co-conspirators, or unacceptably sympathetic to the other extremist view, (sometimes by both sides simultaneously). And so the vast majority of people that do not hold extremist views are either pushed out of the conversation, (forced to be silent for fear of some form of retribution for holding a ‘wrong’ view), or they are attacked in unfair and hurtful ways. 

I don’t pretend to have answers, but I’m pretty sure that two things can move us in the right direction:

  1. We need to recognize the difference between opposing views shared in discussions and hurtful acts, and treat them differently. When someone does or says something harmful to a person or group of people, legal responses and a judicial process should prevail. When someone says something hurtful (as opposed to hateful/harmful/prejudiced), the response should be dialogue. That dialogue might not bring about any kind of consensus or agreement, but it is what we need to do in a civil society that allows freedom of opinion and speech.
  2. We need to move away from public attacks and shaming as recourse for every wrong-doing. Treating every mis-step and error a person makes as unforgivable is harmful to our society in two ways: First, it does not provide the space for apology, forgiveness, and learning; Secondly, it actually waters down the response when someone does something truly unacceptable and deplorable… if they are treated no worse than someone who mis-spoke and is apologetic. 

We can not let the extremists and the misguided be the voices for the masses. Most people in a civil society have opinions that lie on a spectrum, and not at the polar opposites of each other. To focus on the extremes is to move us towards a society that is less free.

“We want to live, thrive, and love in a pluralistic society. We just need to recognize that in such a society we must be tolerant and accepting of opposing views, unaccepting of hateful and hurtful acts, and smart enough to understand the difference.”

More on this idea here: Having hard conversations