You're doing it wrong

I was having a conversation with a colleague today about an issue involving a parent that became a part of a larger conversation about what it means to argue. What does it mean, exactly, to argue with someone? That is to say, form an argument? Is it more important to win the argument than it is to learn from it?

Spend about five minutes on social media and the answer to that question is easily "WIN".

In the Medieval Universities of Europe, debate was used as a means to learn. One side of the room took on one aspect of a topic and the the other side another. The result was that everyone learned about the subject at hand. Rhetoric and Logic, which used to be taught in public schools, were the means and tools readily used in these debates. Ideas were also discussed in the public forums of the ancient world. From this arena of ideas, the polis came to agreements on things ranging from best practices for farming to ideas that informed the working of the government.

Healthy, rigorous, and respectful debate is a good and necessary thing for a Democracy. An insistence on being right, however, is dangerous and sets the stage for a Democracy in decline as debates turn into an exercise in shouting people down or a way in order to assert an idea instead of testing it in the public square. This is how despotic regimes emerge. This is how people eventually lose their rights.

I see this on all sides of just about anything in social media and even the news media. For example, "Such and Such DESTROYS Such and Such's idea/policy/belief", or "This is how you shut down a So and So." Click on it and the "argument" is just as hollow as the message that got you to click on it. Now you are in the rabbit hole and probably not coming out for a couple hours as you vigorously let the person who posted this ridiculous message know how wrong or how right they are for letting Facebook or Twitter worlds (or both) know how right you are. All the while this contributes to the "echo chamber" that can be the internet. In other words, nobody is any more informed than they were from the beginning because the whole discourse to place with a mindset of proving the other wrong. Not only is this NOT the way to argue, we find ourselves even more isolated.

Entering into a argument requires that you recognize the possibility of being wrong. I am not suggesting you be so flexible that you adapt any idea presented to you. I am saying that you should be willing to entertain the notion that a different point of view may actually provide a significant insight you did not consider. Test what you hear against what you know and have the courage to change your thinking when properly persuaded. This is not a sign of weakness, rather, it is a sign of strength-the ability to adapt and change. This can be done without being insulting.

I regularly present a different point of view, if for no other reason, than to remind people that the subject at hand needs to be seen from as many points of view as possible in order to really understand it. Perception is not reality. It is a mean to understand it. As a choral educator, this is how I get my students to understand this concept:

Sometimes, when reading a piece of music, we will begin with reading their "own parts" (SATB, for example). After the first read, I have them switch parts. Sopranos are now singing Bass, Altos-Soprano, Tenors-Alto, Basses-Tenor. Now they are singing the same song but different parts. I shift them until we get back to their original parts. Once there, the piece of music sounds better than the first time. "This is not", I tell them, "because you reviewed your part. By singing the other parts, you came to understand your part (and that of the others in the choir) in the context of the whole."

Then I ask, "Would this be possible if you insisted on just singing your part?"

Maybe we should have more people on social media and the like spend time arguing for the "other side" for a bit. Maybe the perspective will change their mind. Maybe it won't. Either way, they will be more informed and maybe have a greater desire to persuade passionately and respectfully. If you are not arguing in this manner,  then I would suggest that you're doing it wrong.