brekin » Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:57 pm wrote:Searcher08 wrote:Hi brekin,
Just in case this gets locked I wanted to speak to some of the points you raised.
If there is going to be a meaningful discussion, my position is that it is important to have clear communication channels and acknowledge the limitation of our medium - as a lot of non-verbal information is lost here.
In my experience, it is really important to know what is expected, the context in which the communication takes place. If I submit a paper to an algebraic topology Journal, the context is pretty clear - the people at the journal know I am a postdoc Maths wonk and that I want to get published. I know that the Journal folks will be absolutely dissection what i have to say...
In this thread, we are not in a context that is purely external evidence based, we are also in one where perceptions, the internal maps a person has, are just as important as logic.
If a person is not heard / listened to / empathised with on *their* terms - these needs will not be met and in my experience those are ultimately much more powerful for changing things than case building or adversarial argumentation. The choice of logic used can also be important - for example one can accomodate contradiction in paraconsistent logic. Yes, No and YES AND NO
My favourite scientists, like Feynman or Godel have been people with intense curiousity about the world and were relentless about challenging their own assumptions in their areas; my favouite communicators like John Grinder or Milton Erickson were acutely aware of the importance of congruence in messages between what was said on the surface and what was message of the deeper structure of the communication. If the two turn out to be in conflict, the conversation will tend to reflect that.
I see your point and respect your orientation to the problem. Where we differ though is in relating to different realities. Your approach would I guess work better in building rapport, concensus, and community. For example, lets say everyone in this thread is trapped on island. Some people develop a belief that giant lizards rule the world. Some people resist it. People start bickering, not sharing food, saying they are going to build a raft to leave. O.K. let's pow wow and pass the pipe and just talk about what the belief means to you without judgement, how we can discuss the matter or not to everyone's benefit, etc. Good idea.
O.K. scenario 2. Three years later everyone on the island has been coexisting fine with this new belief system. But some people are tired of waiting around and being exploited by these giant lizards who have been causing all the island's problems. Even though we never see them some decide we need to allocate resources to find these giant lizards. We need action! Enough of all this sitting around complaining about the state of the island. Let's start making weapons and canoes (or if we a pacifists let's chop down some trees and make pamplets to send to other islands to try and raise awareness about the issue). Others balk. They say ok we've listened and empathized with what you believe but if we are going to allocate resources (and time and attention are resources) we need some proof, we need some evidence about these giant lizards. Have you ever seen one? How do we know they aren't just more evil spirit talk?
Thoughts are just plans for actions. I respect people have their own beliefs and they fulfill needs. But if what they believe may effect me and others in the world then I think they have a duty and responsibility to submit their beliefs to logic. I'm not going to force anyone and it is not my job to do it for them. But if you want me to carve a canoe you are going to need and convince me why. If you just want me to sit and smoke the pipe and listen why believing in the giant lizards is important I'll do that to for awhile. But then you'll have to listen to why I don't think there are giant lizards.
In your third paragraph is that you are assuming that there will be a large number of people who believe in giant lizards
What is the purpose of 'submitting their beliefs to logic' - what would that enable you to achieve?
There is also the issue of *which* logic, as there are many more than one - who gets to decide questions like that?
There is a practical question - is this belief getting in the way of action?
If you want to keep smoking the peace pipe (fruitful exchange) you will need to be relentlessly in rapport - like you are doing the tango. If you want to lead (say you see a fungus hitting the trees and work out on the sand a diffusion pattern which will create a breadfruit tree die-off in one year. You wont get people to change their perceptions based on your logic, you will get them to change perceptions through creative and lateral thinking and humour and actually through creating multiple rich scenarios for them to consider, because rich scenarios can help prepare for 'future shock'
You talk about only one type of thinking called Black Hat , where you submit what is said to the same scrutiny as one would test software - critical analysis - thats fine, but it isnt the only type of thinking. And you dont need to do it TO them when you can do it WITH them