On one side was a person who was blunt and aggressive. I didn't know the person, but from what I saw, I would guess that he was pretty sure he was right, that he was responding from a place of protectiveness, and it seemed that he was protecting an idea he held very dear. The issue was important to him, and I think he really wanted to see people change their minds. His strategy was to say what he thought was right over and over without asking any questions or really engaging with the other posters at all except to lecture them and challenge them.
On the other side was a person who was emotional and outraged. I knew the person very slightly, and from what I saw, I would guess that she was pretty sure she was right, that she was responding from a place of protectiveness, and it seemed that she was protecting a group of people she held very dear. The issue was important to her, and I think she really wanted to see people change their minds. Her strategy was to give personal anecdotes and experiences over and over without asking any questions (that weren't rhetorical) or really engaging with other posters at all except to provide emotional experiences for them.
In my opinion, though these sides had many objectives in common (changing opinions, protecting important things), nothing was accomplished. They both had their say, but their say had little effect on anyone who didn't already agree with them. I saw that there were things they could have learned from each other, but I don't think they did.
What a waste.
1. To be better at persuasion
People who listen are more persuasive. People who understand their opponents are more persuasive. People who feel listened to and understood are more likely to listen and understand in return.
2. To be better at thinking about the world
People who have open minds, willing to collect new information and perspectives, are better thinkers. People who listen, learn.
3. To be a genuinely benevolent person
People who care about people listen to them, try to understand them, work to stay in respectful relationship with them during discussions. If you don't care how people feel or what kind of effect you have on them, you should probably leave the persuasion to others.
Here are some strategies, mostly taken from Rogerian argument and effective communication practices, that I think would have made the whole conversation I witnessed more productive.
1. Ask questions first.
Why is this issue so important to you? What kind of experiences have led you to this position? Can you walk me through your argument and make sure I understand?
2. Repeat back other person's position in terms they would accept in order to be sure you understand it.
I hear you saying, "words, not emotionally-loaded words, words, respectfully-phrased words
3. Be willing to listen more to make sure you understand correctly.
Sometimes this back and forth will help the person clarify their position. That's a good thing, not evidence they've made a blunder you can jump on. Sometimes you have made a mistake in understanding. Yay! Now you can correct it!
4. Find common ground before you say your position.
"I can see that protecting this group of people is really important to you, and that's important to me too. We might disagree, but not on that. We both want people to be safe and happy."
"I can see that it's very important to you that we get our definitions clear, and that's important to me too. We might not agree on the exact definition, but clear language that people can act upon is important to both of us."
5. Ask if it's okay to share your side.
"I'd like to share my perspective with you, as well. Is that okay?" Most people, having been thoroughly listened to, will be willing to hear you and will imitate the excellent listening practices you've just modeled. If the person says no, though, why do you want to share with them? Find a willing listener.
6. As you share your perspective, point out areas of agreement and areas likely to cause confusion or hostility.
Remember that you have an audience and tailor your words to it. Keep in mind the things you learned from listening. Address concerns you know the person will have, and provide the kinds of evidence they prefer. You don't have to only say things they like, but if you ignore what you learned, you are throwing data in a trash heap.
7. At the end, accept that you won't have changed someone's mind.
Changing minds takes time. People need to think and mull and compare to their experiences and try ideas on. If the two of you understand each other better, you've done good work. Leave the mind changing for the person who's responsibility it really is: the person with the mind. Your job is only to understand and do your best to be understood.
8. Let the other person's perspective affect you.
You've learned a lot, and I hope your mind is changed. Not necessarily to accept the other position wholeheartedly (though that happens sometimes), but to understand the issue more clearly, to understand what other people think about it more clearly, to gain new data to integrate into your position. More clarity and more data is a win, and acquiring those things should be the goal of every minute of your thinking life. That's the kind of changing your mind that every single discussion should result in.
If you are thinking, "How can that kind of conversation happen on Facebook?" you may have a point. We don't often use Facebook for this kind of in-depth, connected, mutually-respectful conversation. Maybe we can. If not, don't let that be an excuse. If the only discussions of controversies we can have on Facebook are ineffective and divisive, maybe we should hush.
No comments:
Post a Comment