One of the topics I’m most passionate about is how to have “healthy discourse.” I find that our society is uncomfortable having conversations that lead with curiosity versus judgment. We are influenced by messaging all around us and with everything else we have going on in our lives it can be too easy to attach ourselves to ideas or perspectives that aren’t our own, but instead are sneaky inserted into our minds with a bit of condescension mixed with patronization. I sometimes imagine a giant robot (aka news and social media) with a thumb drive that sticks into our brains as it delivers a bunch of files straight to our core processor while gently patting us on the head with a “There, there. No need for you to strain your pretty little brain by thinking for yourself. Let us just handle everything for you.”
And so we read, we listen, we absent-mindedly accept what’s being fed to us without questioning it because…why? Maybe we don’t have time to research the information further. Maybe we want to align our beliefs with those of others who seem to have the same values that we do, and we trust that they have done the work for us in interrogating the information. Maybe we are just too tired, have too many other things to think about, and we get on autopilot when it comes to responding to complex and emotional topics– social, political, spiritual or scientific, to name a few.
Theoretically, the degree that I pursued in graduate school, the doctorate of philosophy, teaches one how to think critically and to challenge assumptions. We are taught to read articles on the topics of our research that both support and refute our hypotheses. It was and is important to find examples of each side to paint a complete picture of the knowns and unknowns. The final step in getting a PhD is literally called a “defense” because our aim is to defend our thesis against alternative viewpoints or data that oppose our conclusions. These types of exercises, where experts challenge one another, often create a competitive environment within a given field that has historically been the fuel for new discoveries. In some cases it is not always respectful and collegial, but in many cases it has provided the catalyst for opposing sides to expand their thought processes.
When I think about the intention of the “defense” as applied to everyday conversations and topics that fall a bit more in the gray, I think we have lost the art of debate and critical thinking that leads to growth and the ability to challenge one another in a healthy way.
Our world is very divided these days. We were physically disconnected from one another for a long period of time due to the global pandemic, and even before that we had seemingly lost our will and/or ability to engage in active dialogue with our fellow humans. More than ever I find that we are most afraid to connect with those who are not like us. This affects our potential as humans to evolve our thinking and to build a society that supports healthy interactions.
In the workplace, if we are not intentional about who we choose to round out our workforce we end up with a cast of characters who all play the same role. It is easy to hire people who are just like us, who have the same strengths, experiences, and beliefs. It is human nature to be drawn to those who share similar life paths. We can see a total stranger on the street and feel compelled to talk with them if they are wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the emblem of our alma mater. How do we know that this person is anything like us beyond the fact that we attended the same school? And even that may not be true. How many times have you seen someone wearing the t-shirt of your school only to find out that it’s not that person who went there, but their brother, or niece, or maybe you find out they just picked up the shirt at the Good Will! And yet the potential for connection to a shared experience is so strong that we feel comfortable approaching a stranger, only to have, at best, a fleeting, superficial nod or acknowledgment of a shared experience, or at worst, find out there was never any shared experience after all.
What if we bucked the human inclination to move towards “sameness” and instead sought out individuals who had experiences completely different from our own. Could we not learn more from these individuals than from those who walked similar paths to us? But I fear we do not have a collective understanding or confidence to take on such challenge. Thus, we miss out on the reward of learning from those who are different from us.
My husband and his running partner are on completely opposite ends of the political spectrum. They use their long training runs together to challenge one another’s beliefs. They talk about what each of them has read or heard from various channels of information, each recognizing the bias surrounding those sources and the agenda that drives some of the flow of information on each side. Their conversations are respectful, curious, open-minded, non-judgmental, educational and stimulating. Often they will give each other “homework,” to read an article or listen to a podcast presented by the opposite “side” of their viewpoints. Or they will humbly admit that they don’t know enough about a topic to have an opinion, and will go home and do research so they can come together and discuss it again on the next run.
These days politics are probably the most provocative topic that divides people. The fact that these two friends can navigate this from opposite ends of the spectrum is a model that I wish existed more pervasively.
Perhaps it would be easier to train ourselves to be more curious and less judgmental with topics that are not so emotionally triggering and then work our way up to those hot-button subjects.
In the workplace, for example, diversity of thought and approaches to problem-solving can be an asset to a team, but some may find it challenging to allow for different perspectives, solutions or ways of thinking. In one of my previous roles I had a direct report who was extremely detail-oriented and was constantly “in the weeds.” I, on the other hand, tend to be a “30,000-foot view” type of individual. For a while our different perspectives frustrated both of us. I would come up with ideas or plans that were broad-scope, “big picture” and she would spend (in my opinion) too much time focusing on one small and (in my opinion) insignificant piece of the puzzle just because it was more interesting to her.
I finally realized that we could actually leverage our differences to create a stronger team together after I heard an analogy presented by Brene Brown on one of her podcasts. She talked about the “dance floor” and “the balcony.” There are people like me who stand on the balcony and can see everything below them and how all of the dancers fit into the spaces on the dance floor, the decorations, where the band stands, the set up of the tables and chairs and the flow of activity and the overall vibe of the event. But what we can’t see from the balcony are the details on the dancers outfits, the words on the sign above the buffet telling what kind of food is inside those chafing dishes, or what type of flowers are in the centerpieces. We can’t tell if the woman standing in the corner by herself is smiling or crying. Meanwhile, the people on the dance floor are too deeply immersed in the crowd to see the full picture of the event. Depending on where they are standing, they may not know where the buffet is or even if there is a band. They may be in the midst a group of individuals who happen to be having a grand time, smiling and laughing and a little toasted, but miss the fact that the majority of the rest of the crowd is actually standing with their arms crossed and looking at their watches to see if it’s appropriate for them to leave yet.
We need both types of people to form a complete picture and understanding of the situation, what’s working and what’s not, and what action needs to be taken to optimize the outcome. This becomes very important when building a business strategy–the people on the balcony need to come down onto the dance floor once in a while and vice versa. But first, each type of individual needs to accept that both are important, even critical, to the overall success of the business.
Similarly, if we can acknowledge that diversity of thought even in social topics that we feel very passionate about, exists for a reason. There is rarely a situation where someone is right and the other person is wrong. We may feel that we are right, but so does the person with whom we are debating/arguing. Accepting that viewpoints other than our own are important to building the big picture of our society will be crucial to our ultimate success in getting our humanity back.
To evolve as a society and as humans in general we need to start inviting healthy discourse into our social circles. We can start by asking questions of people whose choices and beliefs don’t align with ours, in a genuine effort to learn more about why they think or feel the way they do. And if you find that the person with whom you’re speaking gets defensive or won’t engage in the conversation, check in with how you’re approaching the topic. You may think you’re asking the question in a neutral way, but your judgment may be showing through.
For example, here is a phrase that will kill the conversation before it even starts: “How could you possibly… (e.g. vote for/take the side of/believe)
Instead, try: “I’m genuinely curious about your position on this. I admit I don’t know the history here, but I’m interested in learning.” Or, “This is what I have heard, is there another point of view or piece that I’m missing?” Ask questions before downloading all of your “knowledge.”
“Seek first to understand, then to be understood.”
Stephen Covey
And finally, a lesson that really helped me, as someone who likes to have data and evidence and can sometimes get frustrated when I don’t understand an idea or belief that isn’t in line with my own, was to remember that we don’t need to understand others’ viewpoints in order to have compassion for them and their experience. We don’t need to be angry or hateful when we are faced with perspectives that are in direct contrast to our own. Beliefs are formed by experiences, and all of our experiences are unique. We can show compassion for our fellow humans who think their way is the “right way” because we also believe the same about our “way.” And it bears repeating from one of my first blog posts, we owe it to ourselves to check in with our beliefs now and again and to give ourselves permission to change our minds. https://dday.blog/2024/01/16/tell-me-about-a-time-when-you-changed-your-mind-part-1/
We can’t assume to know why someone feels the way they do about a certain issue or what life events lead them to believe what they do, but we can ask questions and get curious and try to leave space for others’ viewpoints as we engage in healthy discourse that allows us all to grow and mature in our ability to co-exist.
So here’s all of our homework assignment: find someone you disagree with and practice these techniques to refine your critical thinking and challenge your own assumptions. It’s uncomfortable to move from a mindset of “right vs wrong” to “it depends,” but it certainly makes life a whole lot more interesting and affords us the opportunity to be in community with, and learn from people who are different from us.