History provides numerous instances where hotbeds for innovation and progress have sprung up within a particular geographical location (a recent example would be silicon valley). This phenomenon occurs where you find a high concentration of bright inquisitive people who are open and enthusiastic about sharing their ideas and collaborating to create something new and interesting; this acts as a beacon that draws other bright inquisitive minds, in turn generating renewed energy and fueling further innovation. A key part of the alchemy is the spontaneous and free exchange of ideas that occurs when such minds find themselves in close proximity. These informal interactions and random ‘what if’ conversations are mutually beneficial to all parties involved as they serve to provide inspiration and the opportunity to build upon each others’ ideas. Such exchanges can create a positive-sum game. Rather than a scarcity mindset that lead us to be proprietorial about our ideas and reticent to share, free trade in ideas effectively provides a self-renewing source of inspiration that serves to stimulate progress and ultimately creates abundance.
In our new connected world for the first time we have the possibility (at least in theory) to create such a hotbed for progress and innovation that is not restricted to a geographical location but is rather distributed throughout a global online community. Yet oddly things are trending in the opposite direction with the nature of our online interactions making us more polarised and atomised. Honest exchange of independent thoughts and ideas naturally bring us into contact with differing opinions. Disagreement and debate are central to the process; unfortunately we do not seem to be navigating these aspects very profitably at present, especially when it comes to our communications via online platforms and digital media.
Against this backdrop it seems timely to consider how we might engage with others and debate our ideas in a way that is more cooperative and ultimately more fruitful for all parties. If we are able to resolve this question we might yet realise the vision of a distributed forum that provides inspiration and fosters innovation.
MOTIVATION…
A logical starting point might be to consider what functions debate actually serves. If we examine things through the lens of inquiry and sense-making, the point of debate is not to win but rather to derive insight from the exchange. Neither do we necessarily have to agree with the other party at the end of the exchange. Debate does need to be a contest, nor does it need to be a negotiation.
The features of online media for communication are perhaps contributing to the present impasse. Communications in the virtual world are on the whole less civil than in person. Something about interacting with others through a keyboard makes us more inclined to be antagonistic; we would likely moderate our tone if the person was in front of us.
The presence of an online audience is another factor. Debates on public forums often descend into scoring status points. Audience participation can encourage this; frequently one or both protagonists end up playing to the crowd.
Another common debating tactic both online and in-person amounts to bludgeoning the other side into submission. Whilst such dominance displays might provide a temporary boost to a person’s ego, none of these scenarios adds to our understanding.
MINDSET…
In her new book, Julia Galef describes what she has defined as a scout mindset. The distinction she is making is distinguishing between the roles of a scout versus a soldier. When operating in a scout capacity our objective is gathering intelligence. To that end, what we are seeking from the other party is information and insight, as opposed to engaging them in combat. An exchange of views affords the opportunity for illumination; the value comes from gaining the other person’s perspective.
An extension of the scout mindset concept is the crucial discipline to debate the idea not the person. If we are able to commit to this, it greatly increases the odds that the exchange will be fruitful. Playing the ball rather than the man (to use a football metaphor) and focussing on the idea makes for more of a cooperative endeavour, whereas adopting a combative stance (a soldier mindset in Galef’s terms) makes it far more likely that the exchange will become adversarial.
Engaging in debate permits us to articulate our own perspective. In this way an exchange of views provides an opportunity to interrogate our own thinking. Laying out our argument allows us to expose it to scrutiny. The other side cooperates in this endeavour by helping to identify flaws in our logic and highlight something we might have missed.
Aside from adding rigour to own thinking, there is real value in hearing the other side’s perspective. Getting the insights of a third party and considering their arguments serves to stimulate thought and update our model.
EXPECTATIONS…
This might be a revelatory statement in these troubled times but we can share less than 100% agreement with another person and still remain on good terms. It is even possible to hold completely different views on a topic and still respect (or even like) the other party.
The notion that we two independent thinkers would agree 100% is actually an unlikely scenario. It is natural that another person would have a different perspective.
Indeed assuming our purpose is discovery or enlightenment then if they were to have the same perspective and share the same thoughts that we do then the exchange would provide no new insights. From this perspective we should be delighted to find somebody who sees things differently.
ENGAGEMENT…
Recent experience has demonstrated it is still possible to engage in debate and have real discourse on social media platforms. It is conceivable that we might succeed in adjusting our expectations and shift the objective to create genuine engagement (even on Twitter) so that these interactions can actually provide value.
We might even seek out others who have perspectives and positions that differ to ours for the value this can provide. Like-minded individuals might be comforting but by definition they have little to teach us that we don’t already know.
IN CLOSING…
If we can agree that the purpose of debate is discovery then this alone might change our motivation and make for a more productive exchange. This does of course require that each party involved shares this motivation (at least to some extent); however, if we signal our intent then it greatly increases the likelihood that the other party will follow suit. Assuming everybody is engaging in good faith, there is genuine potential for enlightenment.
Cover photo credit: Photo by Zdeněk Macháček on Unsplash
Those interested in learning about the consulting services we provide to organisations and support we offer to individuals can find more via the What We Do section on the site. You are also welcome to reach out via the Contact page.
Found this a worthwhile read? Subscribe to get Informed Blog posts direct to your email inbox and free to share with anybody in your network who might find value. When you subscribe you will receive a link to access a course entitled Fundamentals of Physical Preparation for free.
Also check out the Books section for a host of resources that take a deeper dive on various topics relating to human performance, coaching, athletic preparation and sports injury. The recent release Prepared: Unlocking Human Performance with Lessons from Elite Sport is now available worldwide.