- This topic has 50 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 34 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“Are we genuinely inviting our ideas to be challenged, or are we so invested in being understood on our own terms that we struggle to entertain the possibility that someone understands us perfectly well and still thinks we’re wrong?”
I can only speak for myself when I say that I genuinely invite my ideas to be challenged. In fact, the ideas I hold today are honed from a lifetime of their predecessors being challenged, successfully, and gladly modified or discarded as a result.
Of course, if anyone wants to challenge an idea of mine they hold to be ‘wrong’ and can accurately summarise what that idea is, I’m all ears.
If on the other hand, they avoid giving that summary, constantly divert attention elsewhere or just purposefully muddy the waters of rational discourse, I’ll just assume it’s their own counter-idea which they suspect to be wrong and they don’t want to bring it out into the open air to find out.
@nips2lips, I think that’s an important distinction. Being open-minded doesn’t mean being obligated to accept everything or engage indefinitely. Sometimes agreeing to disagree is perfectly reasonable. And sometimes moving on is the healthiest choice. I just hope we don’t get so quick to dismiss people that we miss an opportunity to understand something we hadn’t considered before. ❤️
@barnie I’m beginning to think your definition of being open to a challenge comes with a rather impressive list of terms and conditions.
You say you welcome disagreement, yet repeatedly reserve the right to decide whether someone has understood you, whether their challenge is legitimate, and now, apparently, what their hidden motives must be if they don’t engage on your terms.
That’s quite a convenient arrangement. You get to present yourself as intellectually open while retaining complete authority to dismiss anyone who questions you.
And there’s a certain irony in accusing others of muddying the waters of rational discourse while confidently assigning motives to people whose thoughts you cannot possibly know.
Intellectual humility isn’t measured by how often we announce our willingness to be wrong, Peter. It’s measured by whether we can tolerate the possibility without immediately explaining why everyone else is.
As always, thank you for your remarkably generous contributions to a conversation about self-awareness. The irony has been absolutely priceless. 😎
I think there are a few things going on that is causing discussions to turn into fights. The rise of social media and the anonymity of the internet has allowed society to say things online they would NEVER say in person, the so called “keyboard warrior” which, in and of itself, is an insult thrown at people online. Also people have become conditioned to listen to respond, not listen to comprehend. They are forming their rebuttal in their mind without even making sure they understand what you are saying. Then they throw out their rebuttal and you start forming your rebuttal to their rebuttal after the first couple words. It’s a mess lol. I remember in school being given a topic and having to debate another student and defend our position. Then the teacher would make you switch sides and you would have to come up with points to debate the other position. This really helped people learn to have healthy conversations, because you weren’t emotionally involved in the position. You actually looked at it objectively. People definitely treat a differing opinion as a personal attack. Unfortunately, this leads to people avoiding those with differing opinions and the formation of “echo chambers”. Everyone has the same opinion and anyone who doesn’t gets insulted and bullied into either submission or retreat. Then everyone thinks “Obviously my position is right. Everyone else agrees with me, so I must be right” What a lot of people need is a good old “get your head out of your ass” and maybe a spanking, but that’s a topic for another day 😉
“And there’s a certain irony in accusing others of muddying the waters of rational discourse while confidently assigning motives to people whose thoughts you cannot possibly know.”
There’s no irony in not knowing the thoughts of someone because they are constantly muddying the waters of a rational discourse by which those thoughts might possibly be known. If the motive for that is to protect those thoughts from being challenged (and potentially changed) only the person running that protection racket can say. But that doesn’t stop my curiosity about why that might be so.
It may just be, for example, that the person concerned has not managed to successfully separate herself from her thoughts – to the extent that a challenge to one is felt to be the same as an attack on the self. If so, accepting a benign invite from another person to openly share and evaluate thoughts can seem like an extremely risky proposition… one to be best avoided at all costs and with whatever strategies are to hand.
I am normally always wrong and make mistakes frequently…so no argument from me (Unless someone’s safety is involved, or you are are oppressing or insulting others, and a few other things)! I just love learning about people!!!
Bill, I LOVE that exercise of having to switch sides in a debate! Imagine how different some of our conversations would be if we had to make a convincing argument for the very position we’re disagreeing with. 😂 It takes a certain amount of intellectual humility to do that, and I think we could all use a little more of it.
And you’re right about echo chambers. Being surrounded by people who agree with us might feel wonderful, but it doesn’t necessarily make us any wiser.
As for your proposed spanking, I’ll leave that particular educational technique up for debate @sirise92 😉
Peter, we’ve now progressed from questioning another person’s comprehension to speculating about “her” psychological defenses, emotional vulnerabilities, and unconscious motivations. All while presenting this as an exercise in rational discourse. How fascinating. 🙄
There’s a rather important distinction between being curious about someone’s perspective and constructing an entire psychological explanation for why they won’t agree with you.
What’s particularly interesting is that you’ve offered several explanations for why someone might resist your argument, but haven’t entertained the equally reasonable possibility that they understand it and simply find it unconvincing.
You cannot claim intellectual humility while repeatedly positioning yourself as the examiner and everyone else as the subject in need of evaluation.
You’ve been wonderfully committed to illustrating my point, @barnie! Such dedication to the subject matter is always appreciated. ✌🏻
Well, I think you’ve discovered the secret to avoiding half the arguments in the world @anroc! Being comfortable admitting you’re wrong and genuinely curious about other people is a pretty lovely combination. Although I hope you give yourself credit for being right occasionally, too! 😉
I am right on a rare occasion, but is that really necessary and worthwhile to share it if the other person or people are not happy?
“There’s a rather important distinction between being curious about someone’s perspective and constructing an entire psychological explanation for why they won’t agree with you.”
There’s no distinction at all, one follows on from the other. Being unaware you what it is you won’t agree with me on and unable to get you to be forthcoming with that information, my curiosity has nothing left to turn to but a plausible psychological explanation for your reticence. Sulking achieves the same end.
@anroc 🫶🏻
I think it depends on what’s at stake. There’s certainly something to be said for knowing when being right simply isn’t worth the argument. But I also don’t think someone being unhappy with our perspective automatically means we shouldn’t express it. Sometimes the most meaningful conversations involve a little discomfort. The trick, I suppose, is learning the difference between speaking up because something matters and speaking up simply because we want to win.😘
@barnie, I think we’ve arrived at a rather revealing point in this discussion.
You’ve repeatedly described yourself as someone who welcomes intellectual challenges, yet when faced with disagreement, you’ve offered an increasingly elaborate series of explanations for what must be wrong with the person disagreeing with you.
First, a failure of comprehension. Then intellectual evasiveness. Then psychological defensiveness. And now, apparently, sulking.
Those aren’t counterarguments, Peter. They’re personal characterizations. And no amount of sophisticated vocabulary transforms an insult into an exercise in critical thinking.
What’s particularly interesting is that you’ve acknowledged not knowing another person’s motivations while simultaneously treating your speculation about those motivations as a reasonable substitute for evidence.
That’s not curiosity. Curiosity leaves room for answers we haven’t considered. What you’re describing leaves remarkably little room for the possibility that your interpretation might simply be wrong.
And that brings us straight back to the entire point of my post: how easily a disagreement about ideas becomes a judgment about the person expressing them.
As always, Peter, thank you for your remarkably thorough contributions to this discussion. I couldn’t have commissioned a more illustrative example if I’d tried!
BRAVO, LOLA, BRAVO👏👏👏👏👏👏❤️❤️❤️
– THERE SHOULD BE AN AFTER PARTY!!!
YOUR STAMINA AND ELOQUENCE WAS OUTSTANDING!
Everyone, pass the tit tip hat around… that was spectacular…
Because,and I have especially noticed this on here. That people get really defensive of a different opinion. They tend to get irritated or hostile fairly quickly. To the point of not talking things though. Or just flat out blocking over something trivial. I think healthy dialog is good. As well as seeing things from another perspective.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.