DEBATE OR UNDERSTAND

DEBATE OR UNDERSTAND

.

A friend and I have been stuck in a tedious dialog for over a year now.  I began to wonder why he seemed so obsessed with relentlessly contradicting me.  He didn’t just criticize every post on a particular topic, but could not let the subject go…agreeing to disagree.  Concerned for his emotional health, I asked if he was aware of how odd his compulsion seemed.  Hoping to help him identify the source of his peculiar fixation, I ask, “Are you OK?”  He responded by sharing the above quotation.  When he did, I finally understood the problem, but it was not what I expected. 

.

The same interpersonal problem we were having is the same one the world is having  and the United States is having internally.  It is the conflict between victory and understanding.

.

Our Facebook dialog is a perfect example.  He was having a debate.  I, on the other hand, was simply trying to convey personal thoughts and feelings.  In my mind, winning or losing was not an issue.  I was not competing.  

_.

Most of the time, when I post something on the Web, it is “me” expressing myself.  Unlike the purpose of an argument or a debate, my goal is communication not winning.  When it comes to rating my posts, I base a scale that judges how well the ideas or the emotional content gets delivered.  The evaluation ranges from perfect, to OK, and at the bottom…not good.  Honestly, I seldom, if ever, reach the gold metal first place I’m shooting for.

.

Nevertheless, my posts and my subsequent responses are attempts to clarify meaning or express emotion, never if ever, to achieve victory over my detractors.  One day, I may present a thoroughly developed case for thinking and feeling the way I do, but I am holding that in reserve.  The one-upmanship of a debate does not lend itself to the mutual growth and understanding.  Understanding requires a less competitive form of interchange.  That is why I found my friends unending arguments boring at best, and annoying at their worst.  

.

The thing that makes social media attractive is more than access to information but the opportunity to broadcast and receive our own personal thoughts and feelings.  Even though, I often use corroborating evidence to reinforce my ideas, I am disappointed when I receive a shared impersonal video rebuttal, by some “expert,” instead of a direct contrasting view from the actual person.  Such sources can support what you think or feel, but they cannot tell me why you feel or think as you do.  It is the opposite of intimate self-expression.  The most effective means of understanding and being understood is unmediated personal exchanges of ideas and feelings.    

.

Unfortunately, growth and understanding were not the aim of my persistent friendly critic.  He expected me to comeback with some powerful rebuttal, loaded with the video experts.  Instead, I unwittingly answered with more precisely worded expressions of my inner thoughts and feelings.  Seeing my responses as weak arguments, rather than self-disclosures, he habitually felt compelled to shoot down my responses as unreasoned foolishness.

.

When I finally realized the actual nature of our conflict, I wrote him, saying something like, “I'm sorry, but I have been trying to tell you and other possible readers, either how I feel or what I think about a topic.  While I value confrontations that broaden my understanding, no amount of argumentation can change my personality; because what I write is an expression of how God has shaped me.  You're debating.  I'm divulging.”

.

Sadly, we both missed the cause for our wearisome and monotonous dialog.  Our conversational goals were different.  He sought victory, while I sought examination.  My goal was not winning, but interpersonal understanding. I believe, as a rule of human interaction, be they personal, intra-national, or international it is true:

.

You can win without understanding or understand without winning, but you cannot have both.  My preferred alternative is, make understanding what I seek to win.

ESCAPE THE FACTIONAL DAM

ESCAPE THE FACTIONAL DAM

.

.

Sharing his dismay over the arms deal the USA made with Saudi Arabia today, a Syrian friend of mine lamented, “When will we wake up from this willful mental hibernation?"  Responding to a comment a reader left him, complaining about the irresponsibly of the USA increasing the Saudi arsenal, my friend explained that the seller is no worse than the buyer.  In fact, he pointed out that,

.

“The US government is nothing more than a sales representative for those global companies exporting weapons of mass destruction, yet the same government also sells products of other global companies that build the infrastructure of any country in the world.  Instead of fighting the sales representative, we need to muzzle the insatiable appetite of our Arab rulers for keeping their thrones and holding on to power and authority for life, and get our people to rally against them instead of praising them and falsely praying for their good health and longevity.”

.

My friend loves his native land of Syria.  Yet, even though he undoubted suspects those American armaments will likely be used to further damage his homeland, and perhaps even kill more of his family and friends, his question of when will we (citizens of the world) “wake up,” addresses not only the greed of our merchants, but points specifically at the driving force behind most human conflicts.  That weakness is the unquestioned assumption that our side is always right, no matter what.  We are far to willing to launch into conflicts and continue fighting; with little regard for the long-term damage, our fierce loyalty inflicts, not only on our enemies, but ultimately on our own country and those we hold dear. 

.

The stream of global brotherhood slows to a trickle at the dam of provincialism.  Frankly, I doubt humanity, as a whole, has the innate capacity to burst the dam that divides us.  The dream of unity waits fulfillment beyond this reality.  Yet while it is true, we need to separate ourselves from evil; it is inexcusable to isolate ourselves in a poisonous pool of self-righteous aversion to the rest of humanity.

.

 That kind of separation, dams-up not only Christian love, but even normal human love, as well.  Factional hostilities around the world and those here in the United States, daily raze that dam ever higher, making escape nearly impossibility.  Nonetheless, I am one of those choosing instead to follow God in His liberating flowing, free of factionalism’s blockage, whether ideological, fiscal, political, racial, national, cultural, or religious.  

.

I have the luxury of being factionally detached, yet passionate, because I am a citizen of a free nation, which is not presently destroying itself or the ones I love in the horrors of civil war, not to mention, I am a member of a religion that is not likely to behead me for expressing a dissent view.  Therefore, I can afford to be patient, no matter how long it takes, for the rest of my fellow citizens to ooze through their provincial barriers.

.

My Syria friend is now an American citizen.  Like me, but in his own way, he has chosen to splash over the dam of our country’s rotting lake of animosity.  We do so knowing that long before the dam ever truly brakes, our kind will have already evaporated in the sand at the end of the spillway.  That end seems far better to me than eventually drowning in our nation’s present cesspool of human discord.  Personally, I see no other acceptable option.  We implore you, wake up, and join us.

Trumpty Dumpty

TRUMPTY DUMPTY

SAT ON A WALL

.

No one knows who Humpty Dumpty exactly was, but the similarities to the children’s ancient nursery rhyme and the autocrat tendencies of today’s leadership, his wall, tax plan, and enhanced military buildup are striking.  You recall the rhyme.

.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.

.

The most likely story behind the age-old rhyme comes from jolly old England during its civil war from 1642 until 1651.    

.

During that war, the city of Colchester mounted powerful cannon, named “Humpty Dumpty,” on its defensive wall.  Mid-way through a siege, the cannon fell off the wall.  No matter how many men tried, they could not remount it again and the city surrendered.  That city’s huge cannon became a modifier for the tyrannical king that ruled during that time.   

.

Early in the first four years of the reign of England’s Charles the First, he displayed his autocratic tendencies.  Annoyed by the parliament’s disapproval of his military spending, Charles dissolved that legislative body three times.  It was within his right as king and so he did.  Subsequently, he decided to rule the nation unilaterally and completely dismissed the national parliament in 1629.  There was civil unrest within the general population over his autocratic rule, and burdensome tax policies, along with mounting domestic and religious tensions.  Unable to get what he wanted unilaterally, he reestablish parliament to obtain funds for expanding his military.  However, by 1641 Ireland was so enraged with his tyrannical rule that they began a military insurrection.  Soon after, the king became so infuriated with parliament that he attempted to arrest five of its members.

.

Consequently, the English Civil War broke out in 1642.  After four years of civil war, the king‘s forces were defeated in 1646, but he escaped only to returned the following year with an army of Scottish malcontents.  The tyrant king was defeated, tried for treason, and beheaded, on January 30, 1649.  It took ten years for England to recover its political stability, but Humty Dumpty had indeed fallen from his wall.   

.

Because the United States congress’s unwillingness to oppose the president’s autocratic tendencies with decisive legislative measures, and civil war is not a real option for America, Trumpty Dumpty will site on his wall, while his power grows more intolerable.  Unfortunately, barring a medical, he will not fall from his wall but instead will simply build a bigger wall to sit on.  We will have a much different nation, by the time he is done.  Checks and balances along with truly representative government will fall instead.  Not even all the king’s horses or all the kings will be able to put our democratic-republic together again.

NATIONAL UNIFICATION MADE SIMPLE

NATIONAL UNIFICATION MADE SIMPLE

Unification Following Comey’s Firing During His Russian Investigation

.

Comey is gone, but the national divide created over his Russian hack investigation has a unifying solution.  A strategy that unifies requires equals agreeing together to change their minds in order to achieve a mutually acceptable solutions.  The “winner takes all” tactic can achieve many goals, but unification is not one of them.  That approach rises out of the losing strategy of dominance.  Consequently, the goal should be to convince people to reexamine their beliefs and then change their minds.

.

.

Politics is not only local, but also deeply personal.  I have watched the strategy of dominance play itself out, repeatedly, on social media.  Changing someone’s mind is nearly impossible, even when an effective approach is used.  Unfortunately, too often both social and mass media waste their time and ours, dominating us corporately and individually with unpersuasive rants, without any pretense to sway our opinion.   

.

A Cornell University study contained in The Washington Post describes clues to look for when locked in a controversy with someone on social media.  The first discovery was that “if you haven’t convinced someone after four replies each, your argument isn’t gonna be the one to move them.”  They also found using less dogmatic language like ‘it could be the case,’ – is actually associated with more persuasive arguments.”

.

Other clues the study revealed were the type of personal pronouns used.  “The first person pronouns (“I”) indicate an opinion is malleable, but first person plural pronouns (“we”) suggest the opposite,”  Also, when a post expressed calmly and positively uses “words including ‘help’ and ‘please,’ and more adjectives and adverbs” indicates some degree of pliability.  On the other hand, the use of decisive “words like ‘anyone,’ ‘certain,’ and ‘nothing,’ and superlative adjectives like ‘worst’ and ‘best,’” are signs of stiffened unchangeable views, especially if the poster seem agitated.

.

“The researchers find that the factor most linked with successfully persuading someone is using different words than the original posts do – a sign that commentators are bringing in new points of view.”  It saddened me to read that, “Longer replies tend to be more convincing, as do arguments that use calmer language.”  I personally hate to write longer posts, not on grounds of persuasiveness, but because of time and deliberation, they require.  Not only that, but I’m usually in a hurry.  

.

Surprisingly, to me anyway, quotations and question marks don’t appear to help an argument, but giving examples does.  With that in mind, I beg you to stay with me while I cite some experts in the field of persuasive communications, then I’ll give a hypothetically political example.

.

Rebecca Webber of Real Simple Magazine provides the advice of five experts in “the art of gentle persuasion.”  I condensed them to their essential points.

.

1)    Try to dis­cover the interests and needs of poster.  That can help you come up with something that’s mutually agreeable.

2)    Don’t debate, but rather find a way to recast or reframe the person’s comment to cause them to think about things differently, you are far more likely to make a long-term impact. 

3)    The most persuasive tactic is to convince your opponent that the solution you want is really their idea.  (If anyone needs help with this one, ask my wife, Patsy.  She’s good at it.)

4)    To persuade successfully, you have to understand people’s situations and where they are coming from.  Really, that’s more than half the battle.

5)   “Cop to the Holes in Your Argument”

“When you are battling someone to win, you are not truly persuading someone.  It’s like that old saying, “One convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”  Instead, be up-front about the drawbacks to your argument and address them.  When you do that, you accomplish two things: You signal that you understand the full complexity of the argument; you’re not just regurgitating glib talking points.  And you show people that you’re honest.  Instead of giving only the points that make your case, you’re addressing the whole spectrum of argument.  This makes you more trustworthy and therefore easier to listen to.”

.

#6) Geoffery James, Contributing editor, Inc.com@Sales_Source, offers an additional principle to Rebecca’s list from his article, How to Change Someone's Mind.  “Contrary to what you might think,” Geoffery says, “providing evidence just isn't the right way to be more persuasive.”  He explains that once a decision is made, changing someone’s mind is an emotional rather than intellectual, thing.

.

I modified Geoffery’s dialog approach to sales instruction to illustrate unifying political discourse.  Obviously, it is an oversimplified interchange but it includes the above principles for opinion unification.  

.

UNIFYING THE RUSSIAN HACK INVESTIGATION

.

• Republican: "We've decided no independent counsel is necessary.”
• Democrat: "I'm sorry to hear that.  For my own understanding, could I ask you to explain why you've made that decision?”  (Seek Motive)
• Republican: "There is already an ongoing investigation, which has found no incriminating evidence.
• Democrat:  “There certainly is an attempt to implicate the White House in collusion.  If I were you, for that reason I would see no reason to appoint an independent investigating/prosecutor counsel ether.” (Agreement.)
• Republican:  (a bit confused):  "Oh.  You think my decision is right, then?""
• Democrat:  “Yes, you’re right.  I was also wondering if you considered the effect of lingering doubts about Presidential involvement if the Russian hack issue is unresolved?”  (Reframe.)
• Republican:   "No.  Because, further investigation opens the door for more false accusations.  Especially, when no evidence of collusion has been found."
• Democrat:  “I understand.  I ask because there is a way to assure the skeptics of no collusion, while resolving  the Russian hack issue, which does not include an independent investigation.” (Flexibility)
• Republican:  "But the intention of further investigation is incrimination not resolution.”
• Democrat:  "If we separate any incrimination from the investigation, would you be willing to reconsider?"  (Face Saving)
• Republican:   "Maybe.  Let's see what you've got." (Solution Seeking)

.

So, what might they work out together?

.

How about, a congressionally approved nonpartisan Assistant FBI Director finishing the investigation Comey was conducting.  Then, if and only if, compelling evidence warrants some type of subpoenas, a congressionally approved Assistant Attorney General could assume the role of Jeff Sessions, who recused himself from the Russian hack investigation.

.

I hope the principles I submitted here, will influence the way you try to change minds.  Unification is worth the effort, because not only is it personal pleasing, but more importantly, it means national unification rather than national destruction.