Debate versus Dialogue

 
A couple of weeks ago I weighed in on readers’ comments about my response to Dave Snowden’s argument favouring debate over dialogue, even when it produces some friction. I owe some further explanation and elaboration.

• We tend to accept, on any new subject, the first point of view we hear that is not inconsistent with our established worldview (our ‘frames‘).
• After that point, we tend to reject any information or argument that is inconsistent with that point of view, and accept any information that reinforces or ‘fills in’ that point of view. There are three exceptions when we may accept information or an argument even if it is inconsistent with, or changes, our point of view:
• if the information or argument comes in a conversation with someone whose judgement we trust,
• if the information is rich in context and apparently objective (e.g. stories, some works of art, personal observation or video footage that let you ‘see for yourself’), or
• if the information or argument comes wrapped in an emotionally powerful package (e.g. a tearful speech, a heartfelt plea, a rock anthem, or clever propaganda with an emotional punch).

• Intellectual knowledge can be relatively easily imparted through articulate speech. 
• Emotional knowledge can be imparted through our choice of language, our tone of voice, our body language, and the visual and other stimuli we may use to provoke it (consider the images of poverty and tragedy that charities use to ‘educate’ us as to the need for us to support them).
• Sensual knowledge can be imparted directly through exposing us to sensory experiences (showing us something personally, using film or stories etc.) 
• Instinctual knowledge cannot be imparted; it is hard-wired into us, inherited genetically at birth.

1. Polite conversation: Cautious discourse which does not attempt to impart information or influence beliefs.
2. Debate: Espousing conflicting points of view, selectively presenting information and arguments favouring those points of view, with the objective of influencing the beliefs of others of opposing points of view, or previously uncommitted participants.
3. Reflective dialogue: Empathic listening while suspending judgement (‘letting go’ of conceptions).
4. Generative dialogue: Open, collaborative, creative conversation to allow emergent understanding (‘letting come’).

This is a tich new-agey to me (and I can hear Dave Snowden gnashing his teeth). As a model, though, is such a distinction fair, and is it useful?

I’m not sure it is either. Debates need not be manipulative or selective in the information they introduce. Yes, debates are adversarial. They attempt to present two different points of view to allow the debaters and their audience to contrast the credibility of each. Our legal system thinks this is a good thing. So do those who think that advocacy ads (I just saw one by a BC anti-abortion group that masqueraded as a health advisory!) should be immediately countered by one providing a contrasting point of view. And debaters are often better prepared for conversation (they’ve put more effort into research) than participants in other types of conversation.

But advocates of the alternative disputes resolution process think adversarial conversations are destructive and cause both sides to exaggerate the truth, lie, withhold information and try to coerce. Debaters can get caught up in their own rhetoric and defensiveness and stop listening to reasonable arguments for other positions. Some people like to debate purely for the pleasure of fighting and defeating an ‘enemy’ — they have no interest in learning. Brainstorming sessions and other conversations with either a creative or collaborative purpose are usually not helped much by adversarial discussions. I’ve argued before that a good conversation is like a dance, and a dance is a cooperative performance, not an adversarial one. 

The obvious conclusion is that there are some situations when a debate is the better form of conversation, and others when a dialogue is more suitable. There are certain protocols appropriate for both (the need for good research, and cues, signals and facilitation steps to disarm bullies, liars, manipulators and conversation hogs).

What’s even more important is that we each achieve an understanding of our own worldview, our blind spots and our biases, and hone our listening, judgement-suspending, creative, imaginative and critical thinking skills. And of course, practice, attentively, our conversational skills. If we were all better at these things, it probably wouldn’t much matter which type of conversation we chose for any particular situation.

My own point of view on all this? Well, in this article I’ve tried to present the arguments for both types of conversation, so while I don’t much like adversarial conversations, I can see the value in laying out the arguments for conflicting viewpoints. But if there’s a more peaceful way to get those divergent viewpoints on the table, I’m not much of a fan of debate. When I’m listening to and participating in a conversation, I’m internalizing more than just what is being said. I’m watching body language, tone of voice, word choice. I’m listening to what my instincts are telling me. Like those in aboriginal cultures, I’m filing all of this away to sleep on it, and to allow my subconscious knowledge to factor in before I any conclusions emerge. I’m thinking about what I want to do and see and read later as follow-up research. None of these things can be articulated well in a debate, but they’re all important to our individual learning.

I love to be part of dialogues. But while I’m often attentive when others debate, I’m rarely willing to enter into them. That’s probably selfish of me — if I were more active in debates, others might learn more from me. I’m too preoccupied with my own learning, my own Let-Self-Change process, to be as generous as perhaps I should at helping others learn along with me. But I’m still practicing, and maybe if and when I get as good as Dave Snowden at debate, or as good as Chris Corrigan at dialogue, I’ll become moregenerous at both.