Posts
However, I recently discovered that maybe my surprise is unwarranted. I checked several reputable sources on American etiquette and was even more surprised to find that they actually have little, if anything, to say on how to actually disagree in a civil way. Letitia Baldrige's "New Manners for New Times" (by the woman who counseled Jacqueline Kennedy) had nothing whatsoever to say on the matter. emilypost.com, named after the famous etiquette expert who was popular in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, had only a couple of articles, and much of both articles were about when not to debate, which dodges my question. (Though, more on this in a bit, because it did have a few nuggets of good advice.) In any case, this advice obviously did not come from Emily Post herself, since she died in 1960 and the advice references social media on the internet. Asking several friends, I discovered that they were simply taught not to discuss politics with people who are likely to disagree with them. While that may help make nice with others, we have long been free from monarchy, and it would seem to me that such etiquette might be useful in a world in which the monarch might chop your head off, but, in a democracy such as ours, we need to be able to discuss and debate politics in a civil way. How else can we communicate politically? Without communication, all we'd really have is a sort of cold civil war: a war fought with sharp tongues and flame wars rather than guns and bombs, but not any real civilized country of, by, and for the people. We need something better than just "don't discuss politics with people whom you don't expect to be like-minded", "don't discuss politics or religion at work," or "don't discuss politics or religion in the bar". Yes, we shouldn't discuss these things at weddings, funerals, on a family vacation, or the like, but, normally, we should be able to discuss them and do so in a civilized way.
So, a few good pieces of advice from emilypost.com aside, in good American fashion, I've decided that I'm as qualified Emily Post and Letitia Baldrige since both American etiquette experts, apparently, neglected to even weigh in on the subject of debate etiquette. So, here are my ideas (augmented by those promised nuggets from emilypost.com and attributed as appropriate). These ideas mostly give examples of political debate, but they are meant to cover all sorts of disagreements, including social, ethical, religious, and philosophical ones (and whether Mac or Windows is better).
1. Don't Assume You're Right
If we think about it rationally for one moment, none of us knows much of anything, not for sure, anyway. We may know we exist (Descartes said "I think, therefore I am"). We may know 2 + 2 = 4 (some philosophers will no doubt disagree, but what do they know?). We may know that we're sitting in the chair we're sitting in (at least empiricists would say we can probably be certain of that). However, we almost certainly do not know that: we need tax cuts or universal healthcare, how and when, if at all, we should user our military, whether or not women should have a right to have an abortion [2], what our policy toward illegal immigrants, if any, should be, etc. Ditto for how we understand gender, race, and sexual orientation, how what our theology, if any, is, whether we believe in free will or determinism, whether Jesus was really God made manifest in flesh, or whether Mac or Windows is better (hint: it's Linux!).The moment we think that we know, we invalidate the opinion of anyone who disagrees. In order to debate or otherwise respectfully disagree with someone else, we have to be open to the idea that we might be wrong, even if no one will ever be able to persuade us of such. As soon as we take the stance that we must be absolutely right and the other person must be absolutely wrong, we setup the situation where there's "no talking to us". That's what the other person will think of us, and they'll be right.
That doesn't mean we have to concede. We have the inalienable right to hold on to our opinion to the last. It only means that we need to treat the other person as if they're intelligent, probably has thought through their opinion, and probably does have some reason for believing it (even if it's a bad one). Only when we allow for this are we creating the necessary respect for any true debate to take place. Otherwise, we're just trying to bully them into submitting to us rather than sincerely listening and having a meaningful dialog.
emilypost.com's advice is this:
"No matter how perceptive you think you are, you can’t possibly know someone else’s personal beliefs. Don’t presume that someone agrees with you–or disagrees, for that matter."[3]
2. Don't Attack the Other Person
A debate is not a war. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they've pulled out a gun and are prepared to shoot you. These things are very different! Yet, people very often react as if the very fact that someone disagrees with them is an attack and seem to think they have to attack back.Instead of attacking, simply listen to what the other person has to say, then listen to why they think it (ask them if necessary, but not in your attack voice). I'm often amazed by how many people are unwilling to even find out why I think something. It seems totally illogical to me that someone would simply assume I'm wrong and lash out at me for having a difference of opinion when they haven't even given me a chance to explain why I think it. Going back to #1, how do you even know you're right? Even if you are, maybe listening to their reasoning will give you insights into why other people think something else. If you're wrong (and sometimes we're wrong), you may learn something. If nothing else, even if you still stick with your current opinion, you may hear a counterargument you've never heard before and that may make you think. Even if you reconsider and then say "nah..." and go back to your original opinion, the thought process was probably helpful. So, listen to their reasoning.
Finally, when you've heard both the what and the why from then, tell them what you think and why you think it. I'm often floored by how many people just bark back at me with their opinion without any attempt to bolster it with any logic or reason whatsoever. I'm a strong person. They're not going to bully me into agreeing with them. If they hope to convince me, they'll need to explain their reasoning. Just stating what they think and not why is the least convincing thing I can think of for someone to say to someone else who obviously disagrees.
emilypost.com has some useful advice, here:
"Don’t make it personal. Comments such as, “I can’t believe you think that,” are perceived as attacking the other person’s character rather than engaging in discussion. Stay away from personal, opinionated, or judgmental comments, as political conversation can often deteriorate into pejorative dumping sessions. Keep in mind, too, that asking for someone else’s point of view doesn’t mean you have to agree or cede your own position." [4]
3. Avoid Sophistry
Plato distinguished between sophistry and logic. Sophistry is when you start out with the conclusion you want to be true and then back-fill it with whatever rationalization will seem to support it. It fails to prove anything other than you're an egotist. Logic is when you start out with first principles or givens (e.g. "I think, therefore I am", 2 + 2 = 4, or I really am sitting in the chair I think I am) and go forward with rational steps and find out what conclusion you reach. The former is dishonest, while the latter is honest.I've had a lot of debates and discussions that went nowhere because I was trying to use reason and the other person just said whatever they thought would convince me, however illogical. The other person, in every case, only managed to insult my intelligence. I'm not stupid. In fact, I'm well educated. So, I can see right through a lot of these sorts of arguments. Sophistry only insults the intelligence of the other person and proves you to be dishonest and disingenuous, since it's basically just slight-of-hand. It does your side of the debate no real good, makes it look like you have such a poor argument that you need to resort to dishonest tactics, and disrespects the person you're debating.
4. Avoid Emotion
It's fine to be emotional. We very often are when confronted with a very different opinion from our own, particularly when it's something deeply held, like politics or computer operating systems. However, responding emotionally is rarely the right thing to do. The reason is that it's not rational. "I'm angry that you disagree with me on this," is unhelpful in explaining why you have a different opinion from the other person. We can easily see this if we told someone that 2 + 2 = 4 and they immediately started yelling at us, saying "no it equals 5!". We'd immediately think, "what's their problem?" So, responding emotionally does no good. They probably weren't trying to upset you. They're just telling you their opinion. So, take a deep breath if necessary, and just stay rational and level-headed.I particularly find responses like "how can you say that?" or "how can you think that?" to flat out rude. It's divisive. It implies that the only possibility is that they're right and you're wrong and, worse, insults the character of the person who stated their opinion, because it implies that no good person would express such an opinion. How do you know if you don't even bother to find out why they think it?
5. Be Respectful
This is, straight up, the most important of all. Living in a democracy means that we should at least respect the exercises of free speech and free press. As soon as you disrespect the other person, they'll almost certainly stop listening to you. Why should anyone come around to your opinion if you disrespect them? If you're to have any hope of convincing them, you have to start with respecting them. They're a human being, however repugnant you may think they're opinion is, and they are, ipso facto, deserving of respect and dignity.6. Concede Valid Points
A lot of people think they're doing a good job of arguing by never conceding a single point. Actually, they're not only doing a bad job, but being rude to boot. They're doing a bad job, because to not concede logical points from the other side implies that you don't really believe in reason (see my section on Sophistry, above). You don't have to admit defeat or change your entire opinion just because you've conceded some points. And... sometimes people have valid points you haven't thought of before. Acknowledging their fair points will respect them, bolstering their feelings that they're engaged in a fair and rational debate, and also allow you to take something away from the debate to mull over that you might not have fully considered. It will also set up the circumstances in which they'll feel better about conceding some of your points. Even if you decide later that you're still right and they're still wrong, it will still have strengthened your position to consider the other side. At best, you may find that you need to be more nuanced in your position, because you honestly hadn't considered a few things. At worst, you'll have conceded a few points that are true, but don't undermine your own position.7. Be Honest
There's absolutely nothing to be served in a debate by dishonesty. It can be tempting, because we all want to win. It boosts our egos and reinforces our opinions. However, dishonesty is ultimately self-defeating. If you're dishonest, and your opponent has any intelligence, they may well see through it, for one thing. More deeply, though, the honest arguments are better because they're more truly rational rather than being sophistry. Also, consider your relationship with the person with which you're arguing. Honest debate will prove your good character to them. If they debate honestly in response, you'll see their good character (even if you can't stand their opinion). Finally, sometimes the best rebuttal, when someone really has you on the ropes in a debate, is to simply fall back on honesty. There have been times when I've had someone else make a really excellent point that I hadn't considered, it stunned me at first, but then I recovered and simply told them the truth with words such as, "that's a fair point. I hadn't considered that. I'll have to think it over. But, I still ultimately think I'm right, because, at a deep level, my opinion comes from my moral convictions and my values. I want to be right and I hope I am, because I think my position is a moral one." That's very candid and honest. It doesn't admit defeat. In fact, quite the opposite. It gives the other person something to think about. Maybe you're technically wrong about some details, but you're driven by a strong value that that guides you to your conclusion. Expressing that honestly, can sometimes clarify the terms of the debate.I once had a nasty debate with a woman I consider to have been rude, dishonest, and rather vicious. As I debated her on an email list, her points only became weirder and weirder. I felt like I was falling down a rabbit hole into Wonderland. The debate was over matriarchal prehistory, the notion that European society was matriarchal in the neolithic period. My stance, which is backed up by very strong, up to date academia, is that it's a myth for which there's very little real evidence. (See "The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory" by Cynthia Eller for an example of the scholarly view I was taking up.) This woman argued vehemently with me, violating just about every rule I've listed in this post, that I was wrong. If she had only said something like, "you make good points about our lack of evidence, however, as a feminist, I'd really like to think that there was some time and place in which human society was non-patriarchal," I would have respected her position and possibly even changed my focus completely to commiserating with her about patriarchy, since I too oppose it. Since she didn't say that and just kept on coming up with more and more bizarre sophistry, it didn't occur to me until much later that that might be why she was arguing with me so vehemently. I was thinking we were debating the facts and thought she was being illogical. To this day, I regret that I don't know what she was thinking, because I broke the thread off when I realized it was only going to go further down that rabbit hole. It was only later that I considered what values might have been driving her. If she had only expressed them, she would have found out that I agree with her anti-patriarchal values even though I disagree with her about what we know about neolithic Europe.
8. Don't Try to Prove How Oh-So-Smart You Think You Are
If you're only debating to "prove" how "smart" you are, you're probably either not all that, or else you're insecure. Debating people just to demonstrate your intelligence is rude since the other person is probably sincere in trying to share their thoughts, you're probably using sophistry to "prove" your intelligence, and, ultimately, you have a much different, and less honest goal than the other person. It's just plain rude! If you're insecure, raise your self-esteem instead.Final Thoughts
Finally, people are rarely persuaded right then and there by somebody else's very different opinion. While I don't think it's rude, per se, to out-and-out debate someone down to every point with the intent of persuading them, it may actually be better to simply have an exchange of what each person thinks and why they think it.Also, take a debate as an opportunity to deepen your opinions and to see if they really stand up to reason. If we come at debates combatively, we rarely win. We almost never convince someone on the spot. We only show our bad character. However, if we take it as an opportunity to find out not just what but how someone else thinks about something and to think more deeply about our own opinions, we may learn something.
---
[1] Some smart ass will no doubt tell me that the U.S. is technically a republic. To them I say that what I mean is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" as our own constitution defines it.
[2] Yeah... I know... it seems obvious that they should to me too, but it's obviously not obvious to everybody, because a huge percentage agree that it should be banned (what percentage that is will vary greatly by internet search). I very strongly think it should stay legal, but that doesn't mean I know that absolute certainty, since we can never be absolutely sure of anything.
[3] https://emilypost.com/advice/avoid-political-pitfalls/
[4] https://emilypost.com/advice/reuters-talking-politics-at-work-and-home/
No comments:
Post a Comment