The nature of discussion

I have not quit reading the Bible, but I haven't had much come up for me in the story of Abram and Sarai and the genealogies of Genesis.  I have found it interesting that stories I always thought of as big deals are less than a side note in the midst of a genealogical line, but for the most part, I haven't really had much new discovery that has moved me.

However, as I was sitting in the Quaker meeting today and three different people brought up thoughts on the nature of conflict and discussion and I had a few thoughts about them.

The first thought that came up was that many times, conflicts are caused because we are trying to "fit" into a mold that isn't really us.  What this means for me is that I am much more likely to be unforgiving if I think I have to defend something that isn't me.  If I have to stop to think about what it is that I am saying and thinking and feeling, then I might find out that I don't really believe it.  So I start to get angry.  I start to feel defensive.  I start to question my own belief in myself.  Ever since I have discovered that I do not make a good "office" worker, and I am much happier being outside and learning new stuff than I ever was spending my days behind a desk, I find that I don't feel the need to defend my job choice, my work philosophy or my work ethic.  I am far busier now than I ever was before, but I find that it doesn't bother me because I like what I am doing.  I also like the flexibility I have in deciding when and where I do what needs to be done.  I have no choice, I have to do my homework, I have to study for tests, but I can study in the park on a sunny afternoon, or do my homework in the front yard with the cat.  I can analyze data on my time in my terms.  So long as it gets done, I don't have to be at a desk during the pretty days looking out of the window.

Before when my job felt soulless, I found myself having to defend myself and what I do because if I stopped to think about it, perhaps I would have to face that I wasn't happy.

The second thing that came up, was the idea that if you go into a situation believing that your goal is to change the opinion of the person you are talking to, you are not entering into discussion, you are entering into argument.  I realize for some this is a very fine line.  But I HATE arguing.  On the other hand, I love discussion.  I love moments when people teach me something new and change my perspective.

That said, if someone comes in guns blazing demanding that they be "right" and want to do it with logical fallacies and disregarding my questions of their opinion, then I start to dig in my heels.  I have a very hard time giving someone "points" in an argument.  If I feel like I am under attack and there is no possibility that my opinion will be heard (doesn't have to be accepted, just heard) then I have no interest in talking about a subject.

The third thing that came up, and the one I find to be the most important of the morning was that there is a show in NPR called, "civil conversations."  The program takes people from opposing sides of a very contentious point and involves them in a civil conversation.  What I have read make it sound like neither of the people involved tend to be all the civil about their position in general.  Which I think must make it interesting to have a civil conversation.  Before the two opponents can begin to discuss the merits of their point of view, they must first answer two questions:  1.  What is the part of your point of view that makes you the most uncomfortable?  2.  What do you respect/honor about your opponents point of view?

I really like these questions.  And I really like the idea of having to answer them before beginning a discussion.  This does 2 things to change the tone of a conversation.  The first questions forces a level of vulnerability.  I have yet to meet anyone who is so confident of their position on anything that they have absolutely no discomfort with their own view point.  And by vocalizing that, you are making yourself vulnerable to attack from the other party, it gives them something to shred.  However, they are having to do the exact same thing.  When both people in the argument have their vulnerability identified, it makes it much harder to attack that vulnerability, I believe mostly because I would know that if I attacked a weakness, they would just attack back.

The second question establishes a position of respect.  When someone vocalizes something that the respect about me, it is hard for me to continually disrespect them.  At the same time, if I have to think of something that I respect about them, it makes it very hard to bring on an air that I am somehow better than they are.  I respect them, I can't just treat them badly.

I know I will forget and I know I will fail, but I am going to try to remember these points when I find myself involved in a contentious place.  I am going to try to be aware of whether I am discussing or arguing.  I am going to try to be aware of whether I am defending my point because I believe it or because I think I "should" believe it.  I am going to try to remember to ask myself, what about my position makes me uncomfortable, and what do I respect about my opponent.

Wish me luck.