The common view is that we’re terribly divided as a people. This is not unique in history. The path towards unity and amity requires more dialogue that explores tough topics. We’ve mastered babbling and talking past one another and raised non-purposeful conversation to an art form in social media. We need genuine dialogue.
Observation: We simultaneously crave dialogue and are fearful of where it takes us. The popularity of long-form podcast interviews and panel discussions is not a surprise. We get to hear it from a safe distance. At least we’re passively learning what meaningful conversation sound like.
In-person conversations are both desirable and riskier. Many (not all) of us can do small talk well enough, on safe subjects. Dialogue to explore deeper subjects? We grimace at the thought, even if a part of our heart longs for it.
I’m not talking about the uber-confident “I know the right answer” folks who are eager to vomit up their talking points. I mean genuinely open and curious conversation where there is no pre-determined end point. Education (from the Greek educare, meaning ‘to draw out’), not two people each trying to indoctrinate the other.
Dialogue comes to English from dia (two, or mutual) and logos (word, meaning). Dialogue is a two-way exchange of meaning.
There are learnable skills to make sustained dialogue valuable. Asking questions. Listening with an ear to understand. Summarizing points back to your conversation partner to test understanding. Use of humor and exaggeration to get through rough spots. Patience to be still and let silence be. Sensing when to pivot to a different topic. Pacing. Willingness to push through uncomfortable, resisting all temptations to “win the moment.” Sharing facts gently as a means of support, not weapons to club someone into submission.
Real dialogue with people who don’t share your echo chamber perspectives is difficult, and worth the work.
I’ve mentioned Perry Marshall’s principles of demilitarized conversation zones before:
1. Put down your weapons
2. No anonymity (no hiding behind screen names)
3. Assume other people have reasons for believing what they believe
4. Agree to get to the truth, not the sale…or “the win”
…
Climate change is an area where I’m loaded-for-bear with facts. I’ve been good at ‘winning’ arguments but less good at dialogue-working-toward-solutions. Some readers and colleagues take me to task because they perceive that I’m not all in on the existential threat of global climate change.
I should begin my dialogues with points of agreement, rather than documenting errors in the way climate data has been collected, analyzed, and presented. Or stating that “climate change” is an untestable hypothesis because no matter how it changes (or how quickly) you’re right. Or wilting fantasies with cold facts about energy and agricultural economics. Plus a few other ways I’ve irritated sincere believers. So here goes:
Climate is changing. Atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing; this increases the acidity of water. Human beings are healthier with clean air, clean water, and abundant food. Human beings have polluted the planet, and we generate considerable waste. Fossil fuel-based energy is dirty at multiple steps in the process; by contrast, electrical energy is cleaner at the point of use. The natural forces that drove ancient cycles of glaciation, sea level rises and falls, and tectonic plate movements are still at work. Our sun goes through an 11-year cycle of solar minimum and maximum. Environmental and biological systems are resilient right up to breaking points. We poorly understand complex systems and rarely identify tipping points before they happen. All predictive models will be wrong, and some are still useful. We have a shared responsibility to care for the planet for the current and future generations.
Yes? With me? Good.
So now let’s discuss what should be done, where, and when. Let’s explore possible solution spaces, cognizant that long-term climate shifts are more complex than human activity-driven CO2 release. (CO2 levels rose and fell dramatically prior to the Industrial Revolution.) Let’s remember that cause and effect are rarely close in time and space. Let’s agree that there is no “right” CO2 level or temperature, so we need to be careful about setting targets. Let’s be mindful that not every soul has the same choices as those of us living in affluence. Let’s be candid about economic tradeoffs and the price we’re willing to pay.
Most of all, let’s be driven not by fear but by the opportunity for every person to live in a world of energy and food abundance, with minimal air and water pollution. Human beings are the most adaptable multicellular species on the planet, going places even roaches, nematodes, and funguses can’t go.
This last point is an example of a helpful strategy in dialogue: Point to the desirable future and pull people along with you.
…
It’s popular to identify hypocrisy, bash them over the head with it, and then walk away with a triumphant smile. You tread to the edge of personal attack without getting sued. YouTube is replete with “gotcha” and “So-and-so destroys…” videos.
This is popular because it’s easy, preferable to violence, and plays well to your preferred echo chamber. We’re all hypocrites, we’ve all made statements in the past that were foolish, or we’ve changed our mind.
The real opportunity is to gently (strength-under-control) point out inconsistencies and hypocrisy as a starting point for seeking truth and solutions. No personal attacks. No use of a hypocritical statement as a weapon. Open acknowledgement that complex issues are messy and it’s possible for two things to be true at the same time. Ready acceptance that individuals will prefer different problems associated with a type of solution.
I encourage you to keep going past “you’re a hypocrite” and “this is a horrible problem getting worse – lions and tigers and bears, oh my!” We need solutions. We need one another to discover truth and find solutions.
I respect a friend who strongly advocates for higher government payments to single parents. She knows that in some cases this creates unhealthy dependency. She acknowledges that it likely increases state debt. “I know a few of these moms. They’re hurting. They’re scared. They need help.” At the same time, she’s furious about high taxes that make it harder to pay for her food and rent. She’s been burned by lazy bums failing to show up for interviews because all they needed to do to collect unemployment was schedule an interview. We’ve had good conversations about alternative ways to help, such as neighbors and churches, and the role of personal responsibility.
My conversations with her have reinforced the value of another dialogue tactic: Say thank you. “Thank you for that perspective.” “Thanks for sharing that information.” Saying thank you lays individual bricks in a bridge that can carry more weight in the future.
