Why don’t our conversations go anywhere anymore?
I’ve been trying to figure this one out for a while. I work
very hard to create open, polite dialog between people who disagree. I’ve
hosted conversations about wages, abortion, racism, sexism, homosexuality,
religion, politics, gun control, police violence, healthcare, and the musical
career of Michael Jackson. In all of those conversations I’ve notice that those
with the most certainty and those who adhere most closely to the ideas of a
given group often have the least to contribute to the dialog.
Skeptics and Individuals
As I’ve been trying to figure this out I think I’ve
identified two continuums on which people fall. One is a continuum from
certainty to skepticism and the other is a continuum from group-think to
individualism.
First I need to get out the disclaimers. Certainty and
group-think aren’t bad nor are skepticism and individualism good. Anything that
is done to excess has the ability to become a negative. Too much skepticism or
too much individualism are as bad as too much certainty or too much
group-think.
Certainty to Skepticism
When we’re young, we’re pretty certain about the way the
world works. Adults tell us the truth and we trust them. With no explanation or
preamble adults tell children about the alphabet or math or the physical world
and kids simply trust. But as children grow there is, inevitably, a point where
that trust stops. It might be the discovery that Santa isn’t real (spoiler
alert) or it might be the when the “bad” movie turns out to be pretty good
after all. Whatever the point in our lives, we all come to it. We stop being
completely certain and start being somewhat skeptical.
Some people continue on that journey. They run from
certainty. They apply skepticism to everything. They question everyone, every
time. There is no more certainty left (at least outside their own minds). There
is no trust in what anyone else says, no matter what. These people are,
functionally, as rare as someone who remains in a childlike state of certainty
all the time. The rest of us live on a continuum between certainty and
skepticism.
Group-think to Individualism
When we’re young we also think along with the group. We
believe what our parents believe because we’re a part of our family group. Then
we believe what our classmates believe because we’re a part of the class. Then
the club or the team or the fraternity or the office or the political party or
the religious group. We trade groups for groups and adopt the identities of
each group as we go along.
Eventually we become individuals who pick and choose what
from each group we want to take and what we want to leave. We take the beliefs
of our parents that fit with our new identity and eschew those that contradict
it. We do the same with school and friends and work and politics and religion.
But some people tend more toward the group-think side of the
continuum while others move toward the individualism side. For some people any questioning
of the group’s beliefs is the same as questioning their own. For others no
group can tell them what to think or what to believe.
Dialog
An individualistic skeptic (IS) trying to have a
conversation with a group-thinking certain (GC) person will, almost inevitably
be frustrated. The IS will want to examine each idea, pick it apart, and try to
come up with better solutions while the GC will want to defend the ideas of the
group and won’t brook any critique of the concepts which they hold dear.
It’s not unlike the difference between those who go all out
celebrating Christmas and those who don’t. Often the all-out celebrators do it
from a sense of tradition and belonging. They treasure the ideas of Christmas
from their families and want to continue to celebrate that past. Those who don’t
celebrate Christmas may wonder what the fuss is about or decide that the
holiday doesn’t mean much to them. But if they were to have a conversation
about their practice they would be speaking different languages to each other.
The IS would be speaking the language of functionality,
usefulness, and personal preference. The GC would be speaking the language of
tradition, history, and what’s best for the world.
When we approach dialog from such different perspectives we
aren’t likely to make much progress and we’re very likely to be frustrated. Really
frustrated, like political conversation on Facebook frustrated.
Know Your Audience
Since there are four quadrants to the continuum that gives
us four basic types of attitudes we’ll encounter in our dialogs. The reality is
that people will be a mix of everything and that mix might change from topic to
topic, but we can use the basic archetypes to help understand why people
respond the way they do to a given conversation.
Group-Think Skeptical (GS)
The GS adheres strongly to the beliefs of one or more groups
to which they belong while being highly skeptical of ideas from other groups. The
GS chose their group based on careful deliberation and is often in a group that
is at odds with the one in which they grew up. The tendency toward group-think
means that others are categorized by their own group and the skepticism means
that those groups deemed to be wrong by any part are, on the whole, dismissed
from consideration. When talking to a GS you need to do your best to understand
the group with which they identify and speak from within that group’s ideas
rather than attacking the group from the outside.
Group-Think Certain (GC)
The GC is highly aligned with the group to which they belong
but tend to ignore ideas from other groups. The GC has often stayed in the
group in which they grew up and accepted it based on tradition and history. The
certainty of a GC means that most critiques are easily dismissed as coming from
an outsider, but the dismissal comes more from the trust in tradition than from
the evaluation of the ideas. When talking with a GC root your conversation
firmly within the tradition that they hold dear and work to show them how their
tradition affirms the point that you’re trying to make. Any points that
contradict the GC’s tradition will be summarily dismissed.
Individualism Skeptical (IS)
The IS is a lone wolf type that will pick and choose ideas
based upon their own internal criteria. They may take the ideas of different
religions or political parties based on their utility rather than their adherence
to a group’s beliefs. The individualism leads to a rejection of group control
over ideas – often connected to a rejection of religion or political party or
ideology. The skepticism roots the individualism in the process of review based
on a set of criteria like logic or functionality. When having a conversation
with an IS it is most important to find the basis of skepticism and couch
statements according to that ideal. So if the IS uses logic for their review
process, you too must use logic to converse with them. Find the base
assumptions that drive the skepticism and begin there before working to your
point.
Individual Certainty (IC)
The IC believes what they believe even if it contradicts a
group or skeptical thought. They are often driven by emotion as the basis of
their certainty since neither a group or a skeptical process guide them in
evaluating information. They may reject the group-think for a real or perceived
emotional slight from the group, but they don’t want to give up all the beliefs
of that group. They reject skepticism as being too cold and calculating to deal
with the wonders of life. When having a conversation with an IC learn about
their certainty and work to support it rather than undermine it. Agree with
their base assumptions and then work toward conclusions based on emotional
drivers that matter most to them.
The Point of Conversation
Even as I’ve been writing this I’ve been struck by how it
might seem that the point of all of this is to convince others of what you
think. That’s not what I’m trying to say nor what I think the point of
conversation is. I think the point of conversation is to give us a way to
explore ideas that are too big for any one of us to hold on our own. I think
the point of conversation is to develop and practice empathy for the feelings
of another. I think the point of conversation is to test out our reason in the
crucible of dialog.
Put simply, I think the point of conversation is to pull
people from their disparate quadrants on this scale and move them toward the
center. The IC needs the SG to balance them. The SC needs the IG as balance. We
need each other and the other’s way of thinking to balance our own. Skepticism
is good until it’s not. Group-think is good, until it goes too far. Certainty
helps us until it’s a hindrance. Individualism is valuable until it drives us
apart.
Conversation brings us back to the center, back to where we
have to interact with those with whom we disagree, back to the place where we
might be wrong and the other might be wrong. Conversation brings us to humility
and openness instead of hubristic concreteness.
What do you think?
Are these helpful categories?
Do they help us converse?
What did I miss?
2 comments:
Interesting. Do you think there are ever people who group think but are skeptical. Is that mutually exclusive?
I think certainty and skepticism are mutually exclusive. So are group-think and individualism.
But I'm test-driving this theory. I'm not sure about it.
Post a Comment