By: Alton C. Thompson
Friendships develop in the first place because one finds others with mutual interests, one?s physiological systemresonates with those others, and because of that fact, one is drawn to such others as if a magnetic force were involved. Given this, it is unsurprising that we use the word ?attraction? for this process.
In the past, the friendly relationships that one developed with others were of a strictly face-to-face nature, but in this age of electronics, one?s ?friends? may be scattered throughout the world. A relationship carried on in a face-to-face manner will, however, involve more ?dimensions? than one carried on by, e.g., email, because body language, tone-of-voice, gestures, etc., are involved with the first, but not with the second?which is why ?acquaintance? is perhaps a better term than ?friend? for the latter relationships.
Conversations with friends at times involve conflict, but over time one learns what subjects to avoid in conversations with friends, because one values one?s friendship, and does not want the bonds that connect one to another person to be severed. At times, however, a controversial subject arises during the course of a conversation with a friend, and although one of those in the conversation realizes its toxic nature and therefore does not want to discuss the subject, the other individual involved lacks that sensitivity, and proceeds to express his or her opinions on the subject. The other person may remain silent in an effort to maintain the friendship, but at times will be drawn into the discussion, and the discussion may then become heated?thereby possibly dissolving the friendship.
Family get-togethers involve relatives (including by-marriage ones) by definition, and because they involve relatives rather than friends (although some of one?s relatives may also be friends?as is the case with one of my cousins), family get-togethers often result in acrimonious exchanges?with an uncle, a sister-in-law, or even one of one?s own siblings. For this reason, although families feel an obligation to have get-togethers, they also tend to minimize the frequency of such gatherings. If all members of a family would have the sense to avoid bringing up controversial topics, family get-togethers could be pleasant, rather than painful, occasions. But typically one or more members of a family will lack such sense, and begin spouting off their views on some subject?often one involving politics?the tacit assumption being ?I possess correct views on this subject, and therefore believe it my duty to educate you ignorant folks about the matter.?
Some of those present may agree with the speaker, and welcome his or her comments. More likelly, however, at least some present will disagree with the speaker. If such people keep silent, no ?scene? will develop?but they may resolve to make excuses not to attend future get-togethers. If, however, some of those who disagree with the speaker begin to question statements made by the speaker, there is little likelihood that a friendly discussion will begin. Rather, the likelihood is that the speaker will become defensive, arguing will start to occur back and forth, and the get-together will start to break-up, as some of those present decide it is time to leave?and do so.
Discussions that involve friends may or may not be enlightening, but rarely generate much heat?for friends learn what topics might lead to heated discussion, discussion that might destroy their friendship, and try to avoid such topics. When relatives get together, however, the fact that many of one?s relatives are not friends means that such knowledge tends to be lacking. That fact, along with the fact that some present at a family get-together may lack the sense to avoid certain topics, means that family get-togethers are rarely, if ever, enlightening?and often become heated. Families continue to have get-togethers not because their members have a strong desire so to do but, rather, because they feel an obligation to do so.
People can have different views but that fact need not lead to conflictual conversations. I believe that conversations involving people with conflicting views can be structured in such a way that they will generate light rather than heat, but note that this would involve deliberate structuring?i.e., would impose an element on conversations that would be ?unnatural.? For that reason, one would not expect that such conversations would occur, because of the necessity of those participating to agree to abide by the rules associated with the structuring.
Although later I will discuss possible structuring for conversations, the principal matter that I wish to discuss here is why conversations not involving friends so often become heated, acrimonious. Hugo Mercier has recently noted that the conventional view, since at least the time of the ancient Greeks, has been that ?the role of reasoning is to critically examine our beliefs so as to discard wrong-headed ones and thus create more reliable beliefs?knowledge. This knowledge is in turn supposed to help us make better decisions. [However,] This view is hard to reconcile with a wealth of evidence amassed by modern psychology.? Mercier then refers to the ?argumentative theory of reasoning,? which?states that ?the function of reasoning is argumentative: to find and evaluate arguments so as to convince others and only be convinced when it is appropriate. Accordingly, reasoning works well as an argumentative device, but quite poorly otherwise.?
I first learned of this theory from an article by Kathy Benjamin, entitled ?5 Logical Fallacies That Make You Wrong More Than You Think.? The first point that she discusses is ?#5. We?re Not Programmed to Seek ?Truth,? We?re Programmed to ?Win.?? published in late 2011. In this section she claims, regarding the above-mentioned theory, that it states that ?humans didn?t learn to ask questions and offer answers in order to find universal truths. We did it as a way to gain authority over others. That?s right?they i.e., scientists] think that reason itself evolved to help us bully people into getting what we want.? And: ?Our evolutionary compulsion is to triumph, even if it means being totally, illogically, proudly wrong.?
From my own reading of Mercier?s ?The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning? (cited above) I find no basis for such an interpretation of that theory. As a result, I sent an email to Hugo Mercier, and his response is given in a note. [1]
There may be some merit in the argument that humans use argumentation as a vehicle for gaining?inadvertently, if not deliberately (likely the former more frequently)?dominance over others, but I would give this tendency a historical rather than an evolutionary explanation. I would argue that the ?Fall? into agriculture (Muddling Toward Frugality, 1978, p. 43) involved not only a change in the way we began to use our minds (in the direction, e.g., of more abstract thought, including the development of ideologies), because it removed us from the (gatherer-hunter) way of life for which we had become ?designed,? it also involved a fracturing of the social bonds that had connected one human with the other humans in a given group.
Families became isolated from other families, and this affected not only peoples? interaction patterns but their psyches as well. Specifically, it resulted in a sensation of insecurity, and different people reacted to this sensation in different ways. Some reacted by becoming withdrawn, depressed; others by becoming boastful; still others by seeking to dominate others and/or to gain recognition, etc. In seeking (whether consciously or otherwise) domination over others, some may have done so through the use of physical force, some through the use of argumentation or other means. (Which makes one ask: Did Socrates use argumentation as a means of helping others clarify their thoughts, or as a means of gaining recognition for himself?!)
That is, I would argue that since the ?Fall? neediness in its various forms?including varieties of psychological neediness?has been common, and has become ever more common. People have responded to this sensed neediness in different ways depending on personality, situation, etc., one way being to develop a rigid set of beliefs, and also strong psychological investment in those beliefs. Because of the latter, to verify for themselves that they are in possession of the truth, they feel a need to express that truth?preferably orally, rather in writing (to maximize the impact of the words). If people respond to them negatively by citing contrary truths, not only do they reject those truths, but their own set of beliefs becomes even more solidified. And, of course, the exchange with the other person becomes acrimonious rapidly.
It may very well be that this problem, having its roots in societal change away from a ?natural? way of life, can be fixed only by restoring a modernized version of a gatherer-hunter way of life. However, as an intermediate solution, we could begin participating in more structured methods of conversation. These would be ?artificial,? true, but might prove effective in helping us develop our conversation skills?including with people with who we disagree. As an example of such a method, see my discussion of the ?Structured Interaction Group? in Chapter 8 of my eBook.
I see participation in such an institution as having a variety of positive benefits for participants, such as (a) enabling participants to express their views honestly (with limitations), without fear of being criticized inappropriately; (b) giving participants an opportunity to learn from others who have divergent views; (c) conducing the development of novel ideas?ones that all those present might be able to accept; (d) that possibility serving to break down the barriers that exist between people, so that they might even begin to like one another, and begin to think in ?us? rather than ?me? terms.
One possible outcome of participation in such an institution is that ideas might be developed regarding how to ?return? in a way both meaningful and possible.
Endnote
- The email that I sent to Hugo Mercier contained the two quotations by Kathy Benjamin that I quoted above. He stated: ?Indeed, that is nearly completely wrong. I try to dispel that misconception here.??He added: ?(In response to a NYT article that also somehow misrepresented our point of view) you can find more information and papers here.?
About the author:?Al Thompson works (data management) for an Engineering (Avionics) firm in Milwaukee.?Click here?to mail him.
Source: http://bravenewworld.in/2012/07/13/can-conversations-generate-light-rather-than-heat/
lindsay lohan saturday night live snl lindsay lohan valley fever project x the lorax lorax fisker karma