Mapping Ignorance

It is important to map ignorance. Here be dragons. My impression is that we don’t have the necessary tools to unpack many of the complicated issues we are currently facing. There is far too much false confidence and debate going on. I have been part of “Men’s Groups” and “White Men’s Groups” trying to create containers for conversations to self-reflect. One common thread has been the over use of challenge. Like in the public debate, there seems to be limited ability to genuinely listen and gather information. Superficial curiosity is often strategic, still anchored to a particular pre-packaged conclusion the questioner is looking to confirm. It is like we are still engaged in the long history of Crusades and Civilising Missions. Having not learnt the lessons of the unintended consequences of true believers pushing into worlds they don’t understand. New tools are required. New rules of engagement. New honest map building.

Psalter World Map

Cutting Slack

One of my habitual sources of anxiety is the desire to “get it right”. I hate feeling like I have wronged someone – intentionally or not. In the workplace, this often led to me seeking permission by getting something right “in theory” first. The problem is theory and practice always turn out differently. Asking forgiveness (and cutting people some slack) is often far more effective than seeking permission. If we aren’t generous in our forgiveness, both to ourselves and others, it can be debilitating. A hesitancy can creep in where you feel the need to either ask first, or step back for the person (whose judgement you fear) to do it themselves. We all get things wrong. It is a fundamental part of learning, adjusting, adapting, accommodating, interpreting, and creatively dancing with what the world throws at us. The challenge is developing the skills of interpretative charity (assume people intend well) and the gift of the benefit of doubt (no one gets everything right – focus on the point people are making rather than the holes). The double challenge is being as kind to yourself as you try be to others.

Starting Point

The starting point for meaningful engagement is kindness and respect. This isn't the same thing as endorsing the views of the other person. Kindness is being friendly, generous and considerate. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt, and interpreting the things they say in the best possible way your worldview reasonably allows. That is hard when people wind you up. Respect doesn't mean endorsement either. Respect is a feeling of admiration for something in them - a quality, an ability, an achievement. Something that you see in them, that you value. That they have that you don't. If you can't see that in someone, then you probably don't know them well enough to have permission to attack.

Naturally none of this matters if you don't actually care about that person, or the community of which you are both a part. If your intent is just grandstanding your opinion and signalling that you belong to a different tribe to that person. If someone has a crazy view, and you care - it is probably because they are part of the community you care about. That means that crazy view belongs to you. You 'have' that crazy view. If your definition of self is in any way connected to that community.

The really substantial conversations happen when people feel safe. Not a safe space for ideas, but a safe space for vulnerability. Bad ideas should never be safe. We should however make space for everyone. Create space for all of us to air our ugly bits so they can die. Without killing everything we care about in the process.

Pyrrhic Victory

Weeding Contempt

Paul Eckman is a Psychologist who studies the link between emotions and facial expressions. He believes the single best predictor of whether a relationship will fail is contempt. Without even hearing what someone is saying, silent video clips of couples talking can help him predict whether that couple will stay together. I believe in weeding for contempt. Not just in intimate relationships. The second there is contempt between any two people, get rid of it. Fast. 

The two weed killers I employ are 'Benefit of the Doubt' and 'Interpretive Charity'. Doubt is natural and everything we say and do, has holes. Benefit of the Doubt allows for that, and looks for the good. Interpretive Charity means that when someone does something, and there are multiple interpretations, choose the best version. These tools don't make you a sucker. Doubt gets removed, and sometimes there are no positive interpretations. Then it is a good time for that relationship to die. Until then, keep weeding and let the good stuff grow.

Paul Ekman