What are we doing here? Rockridge posts and communication modes
I’ve been on Rockridge a good bit the past couple weeks, reading a variety of threads and some of the new articles by Rockridge staff. Spending time on Rockridge is not always pleasant, because it puts me in the position of studying something difficult, of which I have a limited grasp. Nevertheless, I find this Forum interesting, refreshing, and thought provoking. I’d like to share some of the thoughts that emerged this past week, and took off on a direction of their own. In a nutshell, I became aware that different posts on Rockridge represented different modes of communication: debate, discussion, or (what I will call) dialogue. Below are my views, and some reasons why they’re worth sharing.
DEBATE: Engagement is necessarily competitive and adversarial; may be divisive and contentious. There is a desire to best or defeat other participants; strong feelings may develop related to winning or losing. Outcomes: establishes rank or status of participants, e.g., winner and loser, and order of merit in ideas or issues. Debate invites a defensive posture; core values and strong personal feelings are more likely to be protected than examined or modified.
DISCUSSION: Engagement is cooperative. Typically involves “comparing and contrasting” ideas or issues with relatively little emotional investment. There is a sense of “I’m over here, and you’re over there, now let’s put things out on the table.” Outcomes: changes on the intellectual level, e.g., greater awareness of others’ viewpoints.
DIALOGUE: Engagement is collaborative. Positive involvement at the “personal” level. There is a sense of “working together toward a shared goal.” Outcomes: viewpoints and values more likely to change, due to absence of adversarial and competitive elements; change more likely to occur at the “feeling level.”
Does it matter what mode of communication Rockridge contributors are in? I think so. Imagine how the atmosphere on Rockridge would change if the majority of posts were l) debate, 2) discussion, or 3) dialogue. Rockridge characterizes itself as a community. While debate may foster a narrow or limited sense of community (as in a debate club), it does little to promote a sense of larger community. Discussion may accomplish this, but by definition, discussion is largely an intellectual activity with limited emotional investment. Dialogue, as I am using the word here, both contributes to and signals the presence of community. Because of this, I can see an advantage in distinguishing dialogue from other communication modes, and viewing it as a positive goal or outcome. We may not always be able to establish dialogue with those we disagree with, but it is something we can always see as a goal and work toward it.
None assigned
great post
I prefer discussion and dialogue as well. I do at times fall short though. But I try my best not to be antagonistic.
What authority
I think it is worth noting that here, at Rockridge, there is a weird playing field where some folks feel more expert than others and might take a certain tone. Or perhaps someone is looking for the right answer and is dissatisfied that Lakoff himself didn't answer their question.
This sense of hierarchy messes with communication here. I don't know what else to say about it, but it seems like folks don't quite know what to do without their mutual authority to point to.
I personally would really appreciate some democratic mechanism where we could perhaps rate effective progressive communication, I don't know how you do this. I dislike the idea that academics in liguistics or psychology should always be deferred to due to their historic knowledge of their fields. I am into results so I can appreciate expertise coming from every walk of life.
Collaboration without competition
Hi Think4myself,
Indeed, so many times I have found myself being competitive here - striving to come up with the "right answer" before everybody else. I still do it all the time, I will have to admit. As you suggest, we do need to be wary of, unwittingly, making Rockridge Nation a competition - a "playing field" - instead of a collaborative learning experience in which we all learn something from each other and grow together. It's simple, but - at least for me - not easy at all. So I guess I'll just keep trying.
Regards,
Luis.
PS. How do you make that font, i.e. the one you used for the words "right answer" in your post? I have been trying to figure it out for ages.
Not sure thius example will show up correctly, but
Use the <code></code> tags
If you enter <code>right answer</code>, it will show up in that font:
<code>right answer</code>
Yeah, s'what I thought
Anyway, I know that's how it works in HTML...but not sure how to make it do that when you post it. :(
text formatting, and thanks, and dialog thoughts
I thought I had encountered an FAQ about this, but I cannot find it now, unfortunately. HTML tags generally do not seem to work here.
I accidentally discovered a couple of text formatting tricks a while back. I tried some of the text emphasis conventions from the olden days of the plain-text Internet, and it seems this site's software converts (some of) them to more modern formatting. For example (and I hope these work now)...
Underlining: Put an underscore character at the beginning and the end of a word or phrase. Underscore characters create an underline.
Asterisks: A single asterisk at the beginning and end of a word or phrase creates a degree of emphasis. On my screen the starred text becomes italicized. Italics here, I hope
Double asterisks: I haven't tried this yet, but it might create extra emphasis. Here goes: Two stars
At another web site for earnest conversation where I once spent some time encouraging dialog, we also set up a test area known as the "sandbox". The sandbox was a scratch pad, a test area where participants could experiment with posting and text editing. Sandbox posts were deleted regularly to keep the sandbox clean. I'm not sure if that would be feasible here, but I thought I would mention it in case the webmaster happens upon this. :)
Arcadian, thanks for bringing up the topic of our varied conversation styles. Dialog that results in shared meaning and mutual understanding is something I value, and something I try to remind myself to practice.
Here's another comment about dialog: "Dialogue is thinking about something with two minds instead of one." It seems to me it works with many minds, also.
That's from this short commentary:
http://www.ishmael.org/[…]/dialogue_thoughts.shtml
Thanks y'all. Cheers
single quote test
This might turn out to be a sandbox post, but here goes...
Single quote: I put this within single quote marks.
Brilliant
What a wonderful observation. We really should train ourselves in having more and better dialogues.
Here's a related essay that might contribute
http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html
Rikard
Thanks for the link
Paul Graham says: "Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say."
Yes, and there's also the very basic matter of ego-investment. The act of disagreeing frequently challenges or disputes something we're ego-invested in. Then a whole range of corollary emotional responses occur--fear, defensiveness, anger--all of which degrade communication.
"An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons."
As I see it, this applies directly to the barrage of propaganda-bytes we've experienced the past 7 years. "Cut and Run," "Axis of Evil," "War On Terror," are attempts to influence perception and choice with emotionally charged words. For the past year, I've used Washington Post Online comment feature to try to pop these balloons. That Forum has its limitations--comments are buried by new posts in 10 or 20 minutes, but it is a rough-and-tumble community of politically interested people, and I like it.
BTW, I can see the correspondence between Paul Graham's disagreement heirarchy levels 5 and 6, and reframing as we intend it here on Rockridge.
good insights
I also liked Graham's essay about "What You Can't Say" that I found linked from that essay about forms of disagreement:
http://paulgraham.com/say.html
What are we doing here?
Rockridge was always at great disadvantage to the other think tanks because its contributors and supporters were not motivated by fear and greed, like the "conservative" (I hate that they've co-opted and corrupted that great word) think tanks are. Conservative "think" tanks strive to create reality, not discover it, for the purpose of manipulating others into believing the nonsense that protects the wealthy and powerful from having to participate in the necessary mess of Democracy. They promote their narrow self-interests while convincing the masses to buy into it against their best interests.
Just look at the estate tax. In principle, it sounds bad and most airhead Americans want it repealed. In reality, it's fair and affects only the super rich who owe our society so much for their super richness and without the estate tax they would never pay what they owe. But understanding that takes work and study of the issues rather than merely feeding one's existing fear and greed mythologies off the giant tit of mass media.
An open msg to Rockridge Institute Staff
Rockridge Nation has apparently shut its doors, and new questions can no longer be posted, so I'll add my comment here.
Rockridge has been a unique and valuable learning experience. The writings of Lakoff and his colleagues have provided many useful insights into communication, language, and politics. The Rockridge team has done a remarkable job of conceptualizing highly technical ideas and translating them into issues and principles with great practical value. In my opinion, any thoughtful reader of the Rockridge Institute understands that Lakoff and his team are making pervasive and constructive changes in American politics.
The list of achievements listed in the Institute's "The Rockridge Era Ends" is impressive, and the discription of hurdles provides real insight into the difficulties faced by the Institute staff. What is lacking is a roadmap of where the Institute staff is going from here, and how regular contributors can stay connected with the mission of the Institute.
It's my hope that the Rockridge team will 1) share their plans for the future, and 2) find some way to keep alive the two-way communication format of Rockridge Nation. Without the technical expertise of senior Rockridge staff, students of Lakoff's work may often find their situation uncomfortably similar to The Blind Men And The Elephant.
Moreover, in a couple months, I'll have another 25 bucks to contribute, and I don't know where to send it :)
New! Pervasive dialogue
Hi Arcadian,
I had been thinking about the quality of interaction here at Rockridge, too, but nothing as clear as what you wrote had emerged. It wasn't even close, just a feeling.
The structure you came up with (debate/discussion/dialogue) provides vocabulary to identify modes of interaction and I think it will be very useful in evolving interactions towards more fulfilling and fertile modes. On a more personal level - I'm trying to engage in dialogue here ;-) - it made me examine and question the modes of my own interactions here.
Thank you for the insight. Hopefully, we'll all be able to put it to good use and keep striving towards pervasive dialogue.
Regards,
Luis.