For a Better Discourse

I’ve been thinking lately about discourse, about the conversations we have as a society. I think it has lots of room for improvement – and I want to throw some ideas out there that might improve it. 

First, let me clarify – discourse happens across a wide variety of media. Coffee shops on college campuses, morning shows on cable news networks, political debates in English class with that gaaawd awwwful post-modernist professor, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, the local paper… you get the idea. Discourse takes a different form in each environment. In some cases, it is well-mannered, constructive, and insightful. In other cases, it is putrid (by which I mean the participants are assholes, which never leads to anything worth hearing).

It simply isn't enough to have high quality discourse in academic journals. We need worthwhile, constructive conversations to be popular. Okay, enough rambling; here we go.

1. Chill

Getting made at someone for being wrong is like getting upset that they have the flu; it’s their problem, not yours. It’s not worth getting mad over. Why? Because two things: 

The act of disagreement is not a sin.

The act of being wrong is not a sin.

Get over it.

Try recognizing the cause of your emotional response. If you’re like me, you may simply feel threatened by their arguments. You may feel the need to prove yourself to them. Getting mad at people who disagree on touchy subjects is natural, but that doesn’t make it right.

2. Stay Chill

Chances are, someone who disagrees with you might flout rule #1. But that’s natural. They might feel threatened, and they might just be really sensitive about that one issue. Give them the benefit of the doubt, and continue your course of civility even if they don’t just yet. Based on my experience, they’ll probably ease up. You’re also more likely to win them over to your side.

3. Separate Person from Idea

Unintelligent is a strong word. Since when do bad ideas only belong to idiots? Einstein was a socialist and radical pacifist (until World War II he was all for universal, unconditional disarmament). Copernicus was an astrologer. Newton was, to a large extent, an occultist. Plato believed in a totalitarian state (sort of). The fact is, brilliant people can have terrible ideas, and anything along the lines of “if you believe in X, you must be a moron” is probably nonsense.

Missionaries for evolution should take this to heart: being a creationist, or a proponent of “intelligent design” does not make anyone stupid. You make us look bad when you suggest that it does. Also, you're probably confusing correlation with causation at the same time. 

This is especially true of ethical disagreements. As an example, I have a lot of friends on  very opposite sides of the abortion issue – some radically pro-life and others radically pro-choice. No matter how much each wants to castigate the other, they’re both basically good people. They have good intentions, and believe that they are standing up for what is right and just (either women’s freedom, or children’s lives). At least one end of the spectrum has to be dead wrong – but that doesn’t mean either of them has to be evil. Why?

Because bad ideas don’t make you a bad person. Bad actions do. People who honestly value things like justice, well-being, equality, and liberty are not bad people, even if they misunderstand the values they enshrine. 

Personal animosity muddies the water  of discourse by mixing vitriol in with logic. It also drives away reasonable participants; who would want to participate in a discussion when no matter what you say, someone is going to rip you apart for your beliefs? So the more emotional charge we bring into our ethical discussions, the fewer reasonable participants will take part.

Oh, and you might be wrong. Never forget that you might be wrong. Civility is simply another expression of humility.

4. Remember the Purpose

           

The purpose of discourse isn’t always to persuade. To think otherwise presupposes that you are always, always, always right, and that your mission in life is to share your bounteous truth with others. The purpose of discourse is to achieve a kind of synergy in which several people can come to better conclusions than any of them would have discovered individually. The purpose of discourse is to discover and advance truth. Persuasive dialogue is merely a subset of discourse. 

In conversations, try to educate yourself by better understanding the positions of everyone else in the room. Enrich your own understanding of the topic at hand. Clarify, dissect, and probe the issue at hand. Test the solidity of your own ideas. And help others do the same, but only insofar as they are willing to let you – that’s the persuasion part.

5. Stop

Discourse absolutely requires a platform of mutually accepted beliefs. To talk about science, two people must agree, to an extent, on what science is. To talk about ethics, two people must agree that there is a genuine “right and wrong” in the world.

But what happens when disagreement is reached on a fundamental level? When someone denies that certain laws of statistics exist, or pretends that scientific journals are just part of a vast conspiracy?

Stop the conversation. There is no more discursive value to be had, unless you want to completely change the subject and argue uphill for basic premises that should be agreed upon already.

And honestly, some people are just stupid. I’m not saying you should call them stupid because of their beliefs… you should consider them stupid if they display an inability to understand and process things. If that’s the case… don’t argue with them.

To sum it up, treat people and their views with respect. Or, to emphasize the role you as a person play in that act, don’t be an asshole. 

We can accomplish so much more as a nation, as a society, as a species, if we just allow some better discourse to flow.

Heh. I can dream, can't I?