I’m a fan of conversation. I’m a fan of conversation with people I agree with and with people I disagree with. Conversation with people I disagree with can be awesome. I’m fascinated by different points of view, I’m interested in having my own views challenged. And, also, as a sociology nerd I’m endlessly interested in what makes people tick. How our different experiences lead to different conclusions, how where we come from and how we interact with that helps to create who we are. It’s fascinating stuff.
But I don’t like debate.
Debate is a sport, and it is about winning. It’s highly oppositional. In a debate, the only way that you really try to listen to the other speaker is to seek the flaws in their argument. You’re playing to the crowd, dancing around the other debater to win the audience around.
And that can be an immense amount of fun to watch, and I’m sure an immense amount of fun to take part in. But however entertaining debate can be in this context, I no more wish for it every day than I want to invite someone around for tea and be dragged out to run a marathon, chocolate biscuit in hand.
In the real world, when I want to actually communicate with people, I tend to prefer conversations based more on understanding the perspective of the other. On seeing where their justifications are for what they do or think. On listening what the other person has to say, and being listened to in turn. Conversations based on openness as opposed to defensiveness. It seems to me that there’s a lot more to be gained from going into conversations with others with a view to seeing where each other are coming from and listening to the other. It seems to me that that’s the only way to actually learn something from the experience. It’s definitely the only way, for me, that includes the option that where I disagree with someone I might be the person in the wrong. It includes the confidence in myself to suspect that I might be wrong, and to be okay with that and open to the possibility of changing my mind. After all, isn’t that at the heart of scepticism?
And besides, if it turns out that I’m right after all, am I not a lot more likely to be able to convince others of that if we give each other a fair hearing instead of simply hammering home our own pre-existing points of view?
*I have no idea what would be a sensible nongendered equivalent for this. ‘Experts’ just didn’t have the same appeal. Suggestions, anyone?