Hi all! I’m
baaaack, after a lengthy hiatus occasioned by end-of-semester craziness,
international travel, grant deadlines, and vacation. I hope you are all having
a wonderful summer with a good balance of rest, reflection, and meaningful
work.
Recently , I
visited my grandparents in upstate New York. My grandpa is a highly accomplished scientist and a wonderful person,
and he has had an enormous influence on my personal and professional
development. One of the things I learned from him (as soon as I was old enough
to have my own opinions which were distinct from those of my parents) was how
to have a debate. If we have to use labels, I would say my grandfather is a
conservative Republican, while I…am not. We’ve had many spirited discussions
over the years on topics ranging from foreign policy to science to religion to
environmental conservation. While I almost never changed my opinion as the
direct result of talking to my grandpa, I always walked away from these
discussions with what I now realize are the hallmarks of a ‘good’ debate
experience: (1) I learned something; (2) I felt respected and listened to; (3) I
considered perspectives on the topic I hadn’t previously thought about; and (4)
I found some common ground despite our disagreements.
Looking back
on my debate training in the Schmitt household, I now realize how unusual it
was that we had so many healthy
debates, in contrast to what I often see around me that passes for debate (i.e.
people screaming insults at each other). The themes of this blog are diversity
(in academia and elsewhere) and complex problem-solving. While we have
established that a diversity of viewpoints is an asset for gaining new
perspectives on problems, this is only true if we are able to listen to and
productively engage with these viewpoints, including those that differ from our
own. In honor of my grandfather therefore, here are my top ‘don’ts’ and ‘do’s’
for debating someone (because I want to end on a positive note).
Don’t name-call. It may seem that this
doesn’t even have to be said, but judging from the state of my Facebook and
Twitter feeds, and what passes for debate on cable news (see above), it
absolutely does. Variants of name-calling include dismissing someone else’s
sincerely held belief through sarcasm or caricature, or questioning the
integrity of someone who disagrees with you.
Don’t ‘man-splain’. The essence of this
concept is, ‘condescendingly explaining something to someone who has more
experience with/knows more about the topic than you do’. Of course this doesn’t
mean that you can’t have an opinion on something you haven’t directly
experienced, but it does mean you should be humble and respectful and realize
you don’t know everything! My grandfather always listened to my experiences
with respect and took me seriously, and I tried to do the same for him.
Don’t be afraid to change your mind. While
it’s unlikely that a single conversation or debate will change your long-held
belief on a topic, a good debate should help you to learn something. When we
learn, we update our ‘mental models’ of the way the world works. I have great
admiration for people who are honest, humble and courageous enough to admit
they have changed their minds on a topic as the result of new information. My
grandpa eventually came to accept the science behind anthropogenic global warming,
despite initial skepticism, and I respect him greatly for that.
Do acknowledge that your experiences affect your beliefs
and worldview, just as they do others’. Eventually, this is the conclusion I
drew from the fact that my grandpa and I, both (I would like to think!)
intelligent and informed individuals, could think so differently about the
world. Our experiences of the world have been fundamentally very different, and
that affects the ways in which we interpret new information and form
conclusions. That is not right or wrong, good or bad—it’s just part of being
human. One of the things that drives me bonkers is when someone insists that my view is subjective and biased, but their view is totally objective and
unbiased. People who say things like this are not very humble or self-reflective.
Do consider credible information that challenges your
beliefs and opinions. It helps to know that humans in general are very bad at
this—we all suffer from what experts call ‘confirmation bias’, which means that
we retain information that supports our previously-held beliefs and reject
information that contradicts them. But if we are honest and self-reflective
enough, we know that in most cases complex issues have multiple nuances, and
different sources of information can shed light on those nuances, including
some which are anathema to us. If I’m debating someone, and they are providing
information that seems to be credible (e.g. peer-reviewed research; data from a
neutral source---not ‘I read a blog once that said…’), but makes me feel
uncomfortable, that is often a sign that it’s contradicting one of my beliefs.
At that point, I try to stop my knee-jerk reaction to ignore the information
and rather make a mental note of the source, so that I can learn more about it
after the debate. Maybe it will help me to update my worldview!
Do try to find common ground. If you’re just debating for
the sake of fun/intellectual exercise, this may not be necessary. If, on the
other hand, you are trying to actually solve a problem, it’s essential. A wise
faculty member at my university who has served as a facilitator/moderator
during negotiations between the Auto Workers and the auto manufacturers taught
me this about conflict resolution: If you stick to an ideological position,
you’re in deadlock with your ‘opponent’. If you move towards talking about
values, and what aspects a solution would have to have in order for you to feel
comfortable with it, you might find surprising new options that satisfy both
parties. Maybe Congress could try more of this??
