So, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how to conduct conversations with people, you know, different than myself. Allow me to elaborate. I operate as someone trying to figure out the world around me. This manifests itself in two ways: a deep love of science as a means of explaining natural phenomena, and a love of psychology, philosophy, and sociology as a means of understanding how humans operate within their natural reality.
Now, having said all that, we’re human. We’re different, and we disagree. That’s reality. How to respond to those that vehemently disagree? I’ve come to the conclusion that ground rules matter when having intellectual debates. So, in no particular order, the requirements:
1. Constructivism matters. I appreciate your viewpoint. I need to respect, prima facie, that you are rational and well thought out. We’re coming from completely different lived experiences that color how we perceive reality. Your story matters, and so does mine, and we need to respect what each brings to the table.
1a. I am often wrong.
1b. Consiliency may be fruitless. My friend Ed studies the evolutionary mutations that occur during DNA transcription in the HIV virus. He equates talking about evolutionary science with creationists to playing chess with a monkey…and then the monkey eats your queen. I’ve learned over time that I simply cannot have conversations with people that aren’t willing to accept a common set of logical underpinnings, especially the scientific methodology.
2. Ad homeniems are weak. It’s way too easy to simply resort to personal attacks instead of taking on the rationality of the argument. Remember, your thoughts are usually bigger than yourself. They should be criticized as such. Whenever I criticize someone’s world view, I try to couch it in terms of the policy or the philosophy, not the person holding the viewpoint. We’re really more similar than different, and that’s what matters.
3. It’s too easy to see a movie like Fahrenheit 9/11 or Expelled or Jesus Camp and think that they represent all neo-cons or religious believers. It’s easy to label someone as “liberal” or “conservative” or “religious”, even though those categories are often difficult to define these days. We label as a way of simplifying our world, even though reality is much more diverse and confounding than that simple reduction or dichotomy.
3a. I’ll be the first to admit guilt here. I used to essentialize a lot, but I think I’m emerging from that way of thinking. I will still slip up from time to time, but I’m really trying to work on this.
4. Krista Tippet knows what she’s taking about. If I learned anything from her amazing book, it’s that you can never disrespect the beauty of what people are bringing to a conversation. Perception is reality, and you have to build from there. Oh, and Dina, thanks. Seriously.
4a. It’s the conversation that really matters. Never forget that.
5. There’s always hope. Hope matters. I hope that people can have rational conversations about the ways of the world. Know hope.
What am I missing?