Conversational Tools

I don’t think we’re ever really having the same conversation.

It’s like sitting in a theatre watching the same play but from different seats, distracted by different things. Maybe you’re focusing on one actor, while I’m captivated by the lighting.

Jonathan Haidt uses the metaphor of the rider and the elephant. The elephant (our emotions, intuitions, and embodied experience) is doing most of the habitual and automatic work. The rider (the conscious mind) tries to explain it afterward.

Inside my head, it feels like there’s a committee in constant debate. Each member has their own agenda, and their words float around, interrupting and overlapping. When I speak, it’s not a clean stream of thought—it’s fragments trying to make sense of each other. Dipping in and out of connection with my elephant.

I don’t have access, but I am as sure as I can be that the same thing is happening in your head.

So when we talk, it’s not just me talking to you, it’s my inner committee talking to yours. No wonder we miss each other.

That’s why we need better tools for conversation. Tools like Interpretive Charity, Transcription, Summarising, Questions, Reframing… and teasing out meaning rather than thinking we can just force it on each other.

To truly hear.
To truly listen.
Because sometimes… we’re not even in the same conversation.

Truth is conversational. 

Allowing for Bull

It is worth reading the book, “How to win friends and influence people” by Dale Carnegie. The name sounds terrible. I put off reading it for years because the title seemed repulsively insecure and insincere. I was wrong. There are very valuable principles clearly articulated. One of those key ideas is building on what people say. We want feedback. But we want feedback in a way that we actually believe that the person giving it wants us to move forward. We want to feel like they are being constructive. If you are constantly niggling at someone, and tearing them down, what you are not doing, is allowing a Bull Quota. A Bull Quota is when you suspend your disbelief. Allowing a buffer for things that can distract you from the important stuff. That quota can eventually be full, but not allowing it prevents deep listening. Like when you are watching a movie. If you are intent on critiquing each word and pointing out the holes, you won’t be able to enjoy the story. Are you looking for the truth in the story? Are you even looking for something that contributes? Because everything has gaps and holes, as we clumsily try to communicate from one grasp at reality to another. Don’t live in the holes.

Don't prematurely call Bull

 

Choosing Decision Makers

To outsource your decision-making, you need to develop trust. I like to believe in a world where we can have open conversations. The reality is that you can’t just decide to be honest, and vomit truth on someone. Truth needs unpacking. Trust is built. Both need time. It is dangerous to outsource decision-making, in part because we attach responsibility to the decision-maker. We attach identity to the decision-maker. We attach respect and blame. To outsource decisions, you need trust and confidence. Trust that the other decision-maker has your best interests at heart. Confidence that they have the competence to do what it is that they claim they will do. The decision about who to hand over responsibility to, is as important as the actual skill and knowledge required to make the relevant choice. Evaluating decision-makers is a skill in and of itself. Badly evaluating decision-makers allows you to pass on responsibility, and have a target to pin blame on should things go wrong. It does not solve the problem. 

"The Scapegoat"

William Holman Hunt (1854)

 

Projecting Demons

Projected confidence and imposed binaries. If, like me, you feel ill-equipped to make sense of the world… where do we start? There is no shortage of (confident) people claiming to know the truth, who are really frustrated that “other people” aren’t willing to listen. There is no shortage of public and private (binary) duels, where “you are either with me, or against me”. I don’t see a lot of evidence of considered, empathetic, and skilful mediation, arbitration, reconciliation and community building. I see a lot of preaching to the choir. I don’t see a lot of mirrors. I see a lot of microphones. Many of the people with the appropriate skills are in the Mental Health Space. Unfortunately, many of them are really busy trying to create businesses out of Mental Health. In survival mode. Unfortunately, most of us are really busy. Occupied. Distracted. Full. Rushed. Before you can do anything of value, you need to still the waves. Creativity starts from a place of silence.

Giovanni Fontana (1420)
Figure with Lantern Projecting a Winged Demon

Winning the Debate

If you have ever had a fight with someone you care deeply about, you will know that often the fight is not about the fight. Whenever you speak, you know the words come out almost fully formed in a gush. What we see and what we hear is based on what has come before. Unless we are very careful, our battles end up being against our own projections rather than what is before us. Pre-scripted wars. Inherited. One technique I am practicing to combat this bias is shorter questions, and shorter answers. Answering the specific question that was asked. Without huge caveats. Without answering the objections I expect to receive in advance. This is hard. I am deep soaked in the Oxford style debating system. Trying to find holes in arguments. Trying to win. Most of the people in my bubble, including me, don’t seem to have the tools to explore issues. The arguments we are having are with the ghosts of our scars. With the defensive goal of convincing the other person that we aren’t evil. That we are quite clever. That we are good enough to keep around.

Winning the Debate

Hard Questions

You can’t expect someone to change their mind if their core belief is what sustains their livelihood and community. Max Planck said, “Science advances one funeral at a time”. Not just science. We live in a world where we define ourselves by our jobs and our incomes. We spend so much time with the people we work with, they become our community. Can you really expect someone to ask the really tough, existential questions, if the true answer would tear down the whole illusion? If the hard questions will point out the little fellow behind the green curtain, the emperor waving his bits in the wind, and the man in the high castle fretting over alternate realities? Our lives, and particularly our working lives, are too short to wait till the evidence is in. The evidence may never be in. So we commit. Then we die. It may be up to the next generation to ask the really hard questions. Which may include creating new communities. Communities built to ask hard questions.

Can you ask the hard questions?

Best Practice

One of my favourite essays to regularly reread is Scott Alexander’s “I can tolerate anything except the outgroup”. It reminds me of how some of our biggest fights are with the people we most agree with. Because we care so much about the same issues. We understand the same nuance that other people don’t even see. An advantage of being a Global Citizen is the natural social experiment that goes on. We get to see Best Practice at play in a variety of contexts. Our issues, but not our issues. What if we changed this aspect? What if we keep that aspect the same? A strong temptation in any research is to provide Public Relations and Legal Arguments for pre-existing beliefs. Numbers and words to pad our gut feel. Looking far from home is often an easier way to unpack issues that are too close to see. Then, like Bruce Lee, we can take what is useful, discard what is not, and add what is uniquely our own.

Too Close

Dancing the Truth

I don’t believe honesty is verbal. You can’t just vomit the truth. We aren’t always even conscious of our “truth”. We are all incredibly skilled at self-deception. It is a coping mechanism. The truth we experience is a story layered on reality in a way that we find useful. That story nudges our choices by creating habits. Scripts. Ways to respond to things that repeat. These are stories that are going on in the background with the mute button on. They have control, but we just scroll down our timelines looking for the cat memes. A lot of mental health work is about developing an awareness of your patterns. Over time. Gently. Even then, once you become aware of the patterns, the work has just begun. Our responses are deep soaked. Down to the way our finger tips talk automatically with our knees. Conversations built over years. Like learning new dance steps, you start slow and internalise the way you want to move. Then you practice every day.

Dance Class

Non-Contributory Zero

A Contrarian is not someone who is contrary. If you are contrary, then all the “wisdom” is held in the view of the opposite position. You are a non-contributory zero. A Contrarian must balance the existential crisis between seeming stubborn, and constantly seeking the most visceral feedback they can. The best Contrarians I have met spend a lot more time asking questions than dispensing information. What we have to contribute to the world is our unique perspective. An awareness that that perspective cuts you off from seeing other angles, seeks out the truth in what others are saying. It doesn’t simply seek to prove that other people are morons. The value of being Contrarian is making a contribution, not in simply tearing things down.

With Ropes

I have approached approaches in one of two ways. Growing up, I was deeply involved in the Church.  I believed deeply that there was only one way, and it was the way I was learning. I didn't understand it fully, but I had guides (who also didn't understand it fully) and was very committed to going deeper with them. The truth was clear. It was me who needed to do the work. To iron out the inconsistencies. I could attack holes because it was my understanding that was at fault. The holes were holy.

This led to the first - a combative approach. I wanted to give myself fully. There was a period where people were 'Drunk in the spirit'. They had fully given themselves over and this had had physical manifestations. 

'Do not get drunk with wine, which will only ruin you; instead, be filled with the spirit'

Ephesians 5 : 18

The holy spirit had entered some of my fellow church-goers. Some would shake, some would tick, some would just glow with joy. Often it would be part of a service where we had been singing or listening to a sermon. We would then be asked to come to the front to give ourselves over to God if we had been moved by the spirit. To be born again. I desperately wanted this to happen to me.

I did go up on occasion. I always had a niggle I was faking, but the desire was genuine, the intent was good, and the love was there. I could shhh the niggle. I felt the '11th Commandment' (to love one another, as I have loved you) resonated deeply and I wanted to connect to that. But still. The holes. So behind the church tent, I would launch into my doubts with whichever poor guide had to be subjected to a very heady approach to a very hearty experience.

What about my friends who are really good people, but don't believe?

What about these truly awful things that have happened to people who don't deserve it?

My eventual moving away from the Church came from my head, and (more painfully) my heart. I dived into books and conversations trying to iron out those inconsistencies, and find that one truth. I couldn't. From the heart, life dealt me and those I loved too many blows to not get viscerally angry with the version of God I had grown up desperately trying to connect with. I couldn't connect to the 11th commandment with all the other pain that had built up. Like a relationship where you love someone, but have to create boundaries and walk away. I have never fallen out of love with anyone. I have had to walk away.

This led to the second - an exploratory approach. I stopped trying to iron out the holes in any philosophy I came across - IF the consequences were positive. If the story was constructive in helping me deal resiliently with life.

I was able to get involved in a fairly conservative form of Yoga - with Swami's wearing orange and Sanskrit chanting, by seeing the holy rather than the holey.

I think I will always be too attached to consistency to ever let go completely (without deeply trusting someone to come with me, and bring me back). I think of this as the difference between those who love rock climbing, and those who love rock climbing without ropes. I will never do extreme rock climbing without ropes. I value life too much to take that risk. I value the people I love too much. I will also not remain on the ground, if I am confident that I will be caught if I fall. 

Ropes snap, so there can never be certainty. Life is confusing, ambiguous, and uncertain. I can be very conscious about the risks I take. The consequences. The advantages. The costs. Then act. 'First with the head, then with the heart'.

First with the head

then with the heart

I love exploring. It comes from a position of constructive curiosity rather than destruction. To find the truth in something, not the truth of something.

But I will do it with ropes.

With Ropes

Reverse Animal Farm

In George Orwell's Animal Farm, things start bad for the animals. The Revolution brings hope but things get awful fast. Everything is bad... but everything is made out to be great. Bryan Caplan says we currently live in the same chasm between the truth and reality, but in the opposite direction. Reverse Animal Farm. We spend so much time on terror, fear, brutality, and poverty that we don't see the progress we are making. I strongly believe the world is less racist, sexist, homophobic and violent than in the past. That doesn't mean there isn't lots of work to do. That doesn't mean there aren't plenty of awful stories to show that things are 'getting worse' in isolation. Somehow we need to keep the sense of urgency, while being half-hearted fanatics - still making time to celebrate, enjoy, play, be silly and then crack on with the heavier stuff.

Reverse Animal Farm

Loose Tap

I was pretty awful at banter as a little chap. I took myself, and life, very seriously. It is not that I didn't have a sense of humour. I just wasn't comfortable with it being directed at me. I also happened to have a 'loose tap' in an environment that looked down on boys crying. If I stood back, perhaps it would have been fine. But. The final ingredient was an over-endowment of righteous indignation. This made for an easy target. It was easy to rattle me. I often ended up in the bathroom, splashing water on my face, trying to calm down. Being able to laugh at yourself, and at others' crazy opinions and actions, is an important part of truth seeking. This too shall pass. We'll look back and laugh one day.

Voluntary Association

What would a world beyond countries look like? Empires didn't build national stories around ethnic groupings. That is a more recent phenomenon. In Rome, even Emperors had descended from conquered tribes. Leaderships of the Muslim world didn't stay with Arabia... it shifted to Persia and Turkey. I find it hard to reconcile the superiority and Scientific Racism that came out of the Enlightenment, with some of the loftier ideals. History was rewritten to make it sound like progress was white, not a vast web fed by ships, silk roads and trans-Saharan caravans. 

The false categories of Scientific Racism

Caucasoid, Congoid, Capoid, Mongoloid, Australoid

My only explanation is the idea of progress as a linear progression. Once a solution is found, it just needs to be spread elsewhere. Instead of looking for the local layers of human truth that help us understand the cold hard facts, in context. We mixed up scientific truth with human truth. If we suddenly lost all knowledge, in 1,000 years scientific truth would be gradually rediscovered and would be the same as it is today. But the way we understood it could be very different. Understanding is a human truth. Human truth could only be a new story, sharing some recognisable rhythms, but never a perfect copy. The idea of scientific progress as a linear progression to a single destination of human truth is dangerous.

The idea of nations was a partial recognition of the need for local solutions. Nations are false, made up categories, in the same lazy way racism was. Born out of self-determination. Then looking to form governments to outsource responsibility. With insufficient resources to go around, this division has only institutionalised global apartheid. It has built governments up as the primary problem-solving machine... which naturally cut us off from each other.

If we stop looking to government to do things, but build up stronger cross-border voluntary associations, the power of nations to do harm will continue to diminish. For example, as the world has gotten richer, I believe there are enough people who want to end poverty that we no longer have a wealth problem, we have a coordination problem. 

We can channel the energy we do into elections into building positive voluntary associations that get stuff done.

Science and Truth

The Science I was trained to believe in has a clear concept of truth. Scientific Truth is not something you invent. It is something you discover. If you don't discover it, someone else will. While believing in truth, Karl Popper argued that it is impossible to prove something is true. Instead, science progresses by proving things false. The most important thing is to make it very easy to detect if something we believe to be true, is false. Another white swan doesn't prove that all swans are white. One black swan proves that not all swans are white. The things you believe to be true should be made easy to attack if they are false. If there is lots of wiggle room, then it is your truth, not the truth.

Workable Truth

The world can't be moving towards Post-Truth if we have never had an agreement on what truth is. Kevin Vallier talks of the truce between the Catholic and Protestant worlds. They realised that finding a way to both exist, was preferable to a war aiming for one side to win. War that lead to both sides losing. The problem with Win-Lose politics is that eventually the other side are going to be in power. Any power you have to move towards your truth, is power the other side will have to move away from that truth. A less violent way is to work towards a consensus people can work within. Not one we all agree on. A truth we can work with.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

Suspending Disbelief

The suspension of disbelief allows us to enjoy the story. Stories are better with some leaps, gaps, and mysteries, that allow us to stretch truth to reveal truth. They stir emotions that may connect ideas we hadn't seen a path between. There is too much going on around the world to wrap our heads around. We are all ignorant. We just choose our bundles of ignorance differently. To build relationships, we need to allow a Bull Quota. Instead of searching for ways to tear down an argument, first try find out why that person thinks those beliefs are worth holding. The why may survive the barbs that kick off our righteous anger. 

Connecting Ideas

Free Speech (Tim)

The Debatable Right to Free Speech

(Human Rights Series Part 1) 

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to… receive and impart information and ideas through any media.” Sounds completely reasonable, until you realise that the first item returned on a Google search ‘Did the holocaust happen?’ is ‘Top 10 reasons why the holocaust didn’t happen’ published on the anti-Semitic, hate speech website Stormfront.org. Is that an opinion which has a right to dissemination through any media and regardless of frontiers?

I find holocaust denial a very compelling case because it’s not just an aberrant opinion; it’s an opinion that makes very specific claims about historical reality. That the Nazis killed six million Jews is an undeniable fact, and to deny it is to make specific claims about reality. If even the most basic research shows that holocaust denial is demonstrably false, why bother to proscribe it? My argument is that even easily falsifiable facts may be more harmful that mere opinions. If you post an article about why you personally hate Jews, it’s obvious to any reader that it’s just your opinion. However, opinions become something a lot more dangerous when they distort facts to try and win converts. It’s facts rather than opinions that need protection sometimes.

Donald Trump told a great many lies in his presidential campaign. Not strongly worded opinions, or political doublespeak, but out and out lies. The most notorious of these lies was the promise to build a border wall and make Mexico pay for it. If he merely expresses the opinion that the US government should make more effort to seal the border with Mexico, that’s his right. The problem is that he made appeal to actual real-world facts. He made a promise to do something which cannot actually be done. You can’t actually force another country to pay for your public works. But the lie is told, the seed is planted in people’s heads and the harm is done. The same might be said about the claims which were pushed by the Leave campaign in Britain.

Fact-Checking the Donald

I don’t really mean to get political, but these events do highlight the fact that increasing numbers of people are being duped by claims that could easily have been falsified.  Fake news is the hot topic of the day, but it’s really just the extreme version of various forms of counterfactual and spurious claims which float freely around the internet. See the anti-vaccination movement for another example. My question is; what should be done about it?  Should these sorts of falsehoods be allowed to survive?

I don’t have an answer. I just want to start the discussion. Maybe governments should start by banning fake news. Maybe politicians should be censured for making claims that are demonstrably false. Does the internet need some kind of watchdog? Or is it simply up to us to educate future generations so that they are less susceptible to BS? Let’s just hope it’s not too late by then.  

--- Other posts by Tim Casteling ---

Personal Story (with Rich) - Part 2

Rich and I continue our discussion from Part 1

Trev:

The 'idea of converting' is a useful link into answering your question on my story. I have always approached Christianity as something I knew was true. That was the only thing I knew. Any doubts I had were areas I didn't understand yet. When we met the other day, we were discussing where we should look, or how we should approach questions we don't understand. This assumes there is a right answer we need to convert to. I have been trying to read more about Islam. My understanding is Muslims base truth on 

1. Explicit instruction in the Quran.
2. Hadith - opinions on and examples from how Muhammad lived his life.

Where this is not clear they look to 
3. Analogies from his life
4. Customs - general agreement
5. Ijthihad - rational introspection and thought about an issue

The problem is when this doesn't give unequivocal clarity. Or when rational introspection, or just being kind, clashes with instruction that was contextually consistent with a time that has passed. How do you know for certain your idea of truth is correct when you attempt to convert someone?

Rich:

I think we all reach toward a similar set of tools, in order to find resolution to this issue called "life". We start off with a default option, inherited from our folks. Then through a combination of listening, study, experience and faith (which I believe we all have), we apply a load of discernment and come up with an "answer" (which also continues to evolve, till the day we die). At some point in this process, we all choose against another's version of the "truth"... in effect we choose not to be converted. At other times, we are convinced (rarely through a simple conversation/debate) by our interactions with the world/ someone else. In effect we convert from one perspective to another. A friend makes these invites... come, see ... this is what my (evolving) answer has done for me... wanna join me? I don't think an invite to convert is avoidable in any loving relationship. I want "the best" for those I love. Conversion is not a swear word.

Trev:

That is almost spot on for what happened to me. I had no reason to suspect there was anything "wrong" with the world-view into which I was born. I found the people I was surrounded with deeply loving and warm. I certainly felt supported through difficult times. But I did become more aware of the number of other views out there. I also had deep struggles with some of the things I was told were true, but increasingly didn't resonate with me. Through a widening circle of friends beyond those who believed what I did, and a load of listening, study, and experience, some of the elements of my faith started to wobble. Conversion is not a swear word, but I became far less certain that I was in a solid enough position to be the converter. I became far more convinced of the value of listening.

Rich

I would have love to have been part of that process that resulted in your move from "that" to "this" Trev... but you left me... I'll work on the forgiveness. I am also genuinely committed to listening. You (among others) have introduced me to new levels of this skill... hopefully it's something I can continue to grow in. Having said that, my concern is that having such an emphasis on "listening" may result in a few dangerous blindspots too. It may (for instance) bring you to a point of zero (explicit) conviction about anything. I do believe this to be a problem... paedophilia is never right. I can listen (carefully) to the paedophile (upbringing, how tough the temptation is) but listening can only go so far. Also, in the name of learning (listening), we can become experts at poking holes... not finding solutions... and we all know deconstruction is so much easier than the more noble alternative. Lastly, without fail, we have to learn to live with inconsistencies in our world view (we all have them). To cover those holes with the word "listener" is imo an easy way out.

That Trev

Trev

You'll be pleased to know that I don't believe you ever lose real connections. You are still a participant in my internal dialogue. I like the analogy of a child with wonderful parents in my search for truth. Perhaps because I am lucky enough to have just such parents. I have seen their world view develop as mine has. I have seen life throw different challenges at me which has shed light on 'what were they thinking'. The context in which someone believes something - age, gender, race, friends, responsibilities, political environment, education etc. is all deeply wound into what we believe. I absolutely believe you shouldn't discard inherited truths lightly. Like a child that wanders off to explore, knowing their loving parents are there with kisses and plasters if they don't get themselves killed in their exploring. The inherited wisdom of conservatism. The progressive learning of what we can do better. Of holding onto what is dear to us. Of taking the best bits of learning of others. I also believe strongly in a 'Theatre Sport' idea of constructive listening. Responses that build on what people say rather than shooting them down. I am fine with beautiful inconsistency too. It adds flavour. But inconsistency that isn't kind must go.

Rich

Trev, are we ever able to come to a point of conviction? I hear it in "inconsistency that isn't kind must go"... sounds like a conviction to me. Do you think our faith can be described by the sum total of our convictions? Also... how do we measure a conviction vs an important thought/ nice idea/ "loverly" concept/ kind but unhelpful fantasy? What do we do with the convictions we arrive at ... settle with them (didn't think so), hold them closely/loosely? I must confess, I battle to imagine navigating a life with convictions "coming and going like the wind". "Progressive learning" is a crucial tool... but it's not an end in itself, surely?

Trev

Progressive learning is a beautiful thing, but as Montaigne said "In practice, thousands of little women in their villages have lived more gentle, more equable and more constant lives than [Cicero]." I believe we can only ever grapple with things from our own perspective. Rather than our convictions, I think faith is what tentatively fills the gaps. The only conviction worth its salt is that you genuinely don't and can't know. But you can put that conviction aside, and with faith lean into the beauty on offer in the world. With faith, cope with the difficult the world presents.

Rich

I think that's one of my major difficulties. Imo, that certainly isn't the only conviction "worth its salt". Rape is wrong, poverty must be fought, Love brings healing, listening is a massively important tool.... these are just a few more undeniably "worth their salt". Put these convictions aside at the worlds peril. Although I have arrived at these beliefs from my own perspective, I wouldn't downgrade them to anything other than convictions... that's how important they are. Sometime's these convictions will channel/ colour my perspective on life, the universe and everything (dangerous, I know)... for me, faith is the consequence of these convictions... a natural destination that I cannot avoid. I don't think my convictions are unchangeable, but they need to be hard to change.

Trev:

We don't disagree. We can certainly build on very basic, strong foundations of what works. We can discuss this independently of faith. Before Thomas Aquinas, the church believed only Christians could come to the truth because they had to come to the church through God, and through Christ. In separating the idea of Natural Law, ideas of Pagans and Muslims and other non-Christians could be explored. Truths that can be shared can come from various places. We can learn what makes a better society together. In discussion. Sharing the flavour of faith.

Rich:

We rub up against each other when our convictions don't fit as neatly as a puzzle (should). This IS a good thing. I fully agree, learning from each other, other faiths, perspectives, etc is key. The emphasis of simply celebrating my own convictions at the expense of learning about new horizons, must change. But (I guess this is why I keep on harping on it), when one of my (old) youth guys, chooses against his prior convictions concerning the person, nature and work of Christ... heck I hope he did it with lot's of struggle! Convictions must hold us, as much as we hold them. I love many of your new set of convictions Trev. Hoping to make some of them my own. It's the disjointed feeling I get, when I remember "those days" of great discussion and discovery and how significantly people have moved from them... that leaves me agitated. That's where the rub lies, many of my convictions (the ones we used to celebrate) are not your's anymore (I suspect)... we still connect, love and enjoy each other's company. That hasn't changed, but some cherished moments cannot be shared any more.

-- this is an ongoing discussion, to be continued --

Personal Story (with Rich) - Part 1

Better Interacting (with Rich)

Rich Erasmus

Festering Ooze

There is a lot of talk around Safe Spaces at the moment, but two very different ideas of what that means. My understanding of the first way, is that we need to choose our words very carefully. Words are powerful and trigger emotional responses. We may be unaware of the effect of what we are saying because other people have had different experiences. A Safe Space is an area where someone will not feel judged, and will not be made to feel uncomfortable. Some describe it as a place that feels like home.

The second idea of a Safe Space is quite the opposite. It is similar to the idea of 'holding space'. Heather Plett wrote a wonderful post suggesting ways to be there for people you care about. Holding space for them. An awareness that people are processing all sorts of rubbish. We don't really know what we think or feel. We try things out. We get angry. We say things we don't mean. We say things we know we don't mean just to see what happens. We test boundaries. We scream. We fall apart. A Safe Space is one where this can happen and we know the people will still be there afterwards. We will have gone to the toilet to get rid of our rubbish feelings.

For me school was a very controlled bubble. At one stage a group of us started pushing the boundaries in a school newspaper. We were quickly reined back in by the censors. University on the other hand was a place where we were (mostly) the censors. We tested the boundaries of everything we held dear. There is a difference between things said in jest and things that are malicious. The Free Speech Board was often silent, but would burst into reams of debate. There were songs that were all sorts of bad. Not everyone agreed with pushing boundaries, and there were vocal supporters of both sides.

Rational, considerate, patient, inclusive discussion is clearly the aim. The ooze I was moaning about yesterday does get in the way. As Stuart said, if you never Ooze because you have developed super powers of control, you may be a super villain. Occasional ooze is very human. I am also all for opinions I find offensive being given a little air time. It means I know where they are. We should encourage crazies to speak. We can only tease out our own craziness in the open. Otherwise it just festers.

Don't Let Our Crazies Fester

To Ooze (with Stu, Rich, Phil)

Defn: To Ooze

1. Closed to productive debate and discussion. Presumed intellectual and/or moral superiority.

2. Emotional outbursts masquerading as factual discussion.

3. Closet Trolling. Partially hidden jibes and insults, with no intention of honest engagement.

A few friends and I had a chat about one of the obstacles to productive conversation. Rich and Stu have written before on Swart Donkey. Phil is dipping his toes into the water...

Stu and Rich trolling UCT in 2002

Trev:

It is far easier to see the errors in the ways of others than in our own. I have to consciously practice not responding to pet peeves in other people's speech, and to try listen to their main point. In person, I find this hard. People look for a slight head nod, and my facial expression gives away that I think what the person is saying is nuts. I am working on my poker face. With writing, it is easier. You can delay responding. Interaction is useful. But the distance text creates allows you to reread, and see the underlying sarcasm, insults, and ooze that people spray all over each other in discussions, that descend into arguments, and then into fights, and then into walls and tribes.

Stu:

Developing a good poker face to hide what you really think doesn't necessarily sound so great to me. It depends on how it's done I guess. What you mean is suppressing system 1 reactions (automatic) and applying system 2 (controlled) to try and do justice to what is being said. That is admirable, but I think it might be disrespectful or manipulative in some situations. It's certainly a skill that would be useful for a supervillain to master. Also, what you say about written stuff is only sometimes true. I think system 1 sees snark, derp and disrespect even when it's not there. Reading well is hard.

Rich:

I don't think the onus is on the listener to manage the feelings of the oozer. Respectful listening, yes, is owed; but passive agreement is not. Oozing is seldom a question of factual debate - those are answered readily enough. Rather it's a question of the values and judgement that we each bring to the facts. And it is this sense of judgement that hits at the core of oozing as opposed to respectful debate - the sense of "I am a better person than you because I believe these things". And which is ultimately hypocritical as we're all flawed. Balancing the need to challenge ideas and current values with the importance of not judging is the essence of not oozing. Holding oozers to that balance is how we can be good listeners.

Phil:

Thanks guys. I like and agree with what's been said. I want to focus on the necessity and productive potential of "conscious oozing". I view oozing as something like the emotivist theory of ethics - the "boo! hurrah!" theory. i.e. "murder is bad" = "murder, boo"; "altruism is good" = "altruism, hurrah!" To take two twittering examples from the recent protests: "Whites must go back to Europe" and "Blacks are stupid" both equal "Nnngggaamghnghnghaangh!" i.e. suppressed screams. In my view, these screams need to be bellowed, caterwauled and oozed at full volume (in an appropriate forum) before any factual debate can occur. So I vote for a new "oozing discourse". e.g "Oh Wow! That was some good ooze!"; "Excuse me, I just need to ooze for a second"; "Sho - having a look at my last ooze, I can really see that..."

Stu and Phil showing their softer conversational skills (UCT 2002)

Trev:

I agree that excessively controlled communication can be as annoying as Ooze. Someone 'playing devil's advocate' or intentionally provoking can give the same impression of superiority. Like someone is mansplaining to you, but through the guise of a discussion. It is one thing to know how to engage in productive conversation with people with good intentions and communication skills. The difficult thing is what to do when someone is oozing, trolling, ranting or basically just being unpleasant. The answer can't be just to shut up/ walk away/ unfriend. Leaning into the tough conversations is definitely where I thought Phil would head with this. Perhaps accepting Ooze is better than moaning about it.

Stu: 

I suppose one person's ooze is another person's bold, telling it like it is. We might agree that one is good and the other is bad but it's unlikely we'll agree on which the ooze is. Phil may be right about the virtues of public ooze, but in personal relations I'm no so sure the answer is never to shut up/ walk away/ unfriend. Some kinds of ooze are just a way of being an asshole and life is short. I found this line from an old post of mine "these opinions are for entertainment only!" We shouldn't find oozing fun, and being too "proper" is boring and our opinions don't really matter.

Rich:

There is a consciousness to the decision to engage - a decision about whether the costs are worth it. Some days, it's ok to be up for the fight, to see a conversation thick with ooze and say "Fuck it, I'm going in..." Other times, it's all just too hard. And other times the relationship cost too high, and we realise there is more to people than their ooze. The difficulty is where there is a real effort to explore difficult terrain that is derailed by ooze, and I do think that can, and should, be called out.

Phil:

Everyone writes well. I agree, I agree. Is there a way to sum this up? If so - Trev that's your job. I want to bang on with my idea of a practical solution. There is a very cool education intervention a colleague of mine uses in her physics classroom. It is called: "The Jargon Buzzer". Buzzers are given out at the beginning of class, and the students are invited to "buzz" as soon as they get lost because of the use of jargon. This concept filters into all class discussion, and within a few weeks, students are saying things like: "I'd like to buzz you on that...". I think we should be able to buzz each other for oozing... thereby bringing more awareness to this potentially very useful practice. And, to kick it off, you can buzz people and send them a link to this blog entry. Salut. x

Trev:

We need the ability to swap between the more automatic responses of live conversation, and the more considered process of reading. We don't often get to hear ourselves. I know that listening to recordings of speeches is a brilliant technique to improve your presentation skills. I don't think we should extract emotion from engagement. I do think we should engage with people with a genuine attempt to understand them, rather than convince them. Ooze is subjective, and calling someone out on ooze is like telling someone to relax when they are tense. Awareness of what ooze is will help people reflect on how often they ooze, and whether it is getting in the way.

Other guest posts from the Oozers

Happier Cities (Rich) - My Fellow Americans (Stu) - Admiration and Reward (with Stu)

On Twitter

Stuart Torr - Richard Palmer - Philip Southey (kind of)

Blogs

 Muttblog (Stu) - The Pointy End (Rich)