The limits of Dialogue
Recently, I've been learning to have complicated conversations with strangers. Someone might wonder why I’m subjecting myself to this, but in truth, I think there is value in the skill—and that is that.
Honestly, most of the time, the conversations go well. Even when there are disagreements, there are things we can iron out. But sometimes—only sometimes—one of the voices becomes quite dissonant. Not because of disagreement, which is expected, but because of rigidity.
If I walk into a conversation with the idea that there is nothing for me to learn, then why even partake to begin with?
One of the advantages of practicing metacognition—thinking about how you think—is that you become more open to the notion that you might be wrong. You start to wonder if there's a piece of crucial information you are missing.
A word commonly thrown around to describe these types of interlocutors is that they are too dogmatic for their own good. In other words, their presuppositions have been carved in stone by dogma, not shaped through a process of critical thinking. Against this sort of rival—if I can call it that—I think it’s important to revise our expectations.
A conversation with a dogmatic person, at best, can be an exploration into how they think—but it might not be reciprocal. In other words, you may open the book, read a few pages, but don’t expect to write any footnotes. They are not welcome, after all.
With all this said, I’m not going to claim that dogmatic people should be expelled from public discourse or anything of the sort. They are part of the landscape, and as such, we have to learn to coexist. But I do conclude that there’s a certain level of emotional investment that is best not to make.
If only some of these colorful characters could find a little humility—maybe abandon infallibility just a bit—but dogma has a way of shielding them. After all, if I’m truly convinced I’m gripping ultimate truth by the handle—a firm grip—then why would I need to listen to anyone? To the confused, the lost… right?
Ironically, dogma portrays this feature as a sort of virtue. But if we strip away the justifications, I don’t think anyone can honestly conclude that a lack of humility is a virtue.
—MenO
@meno is a goood Hivean
Posted via First Context
💯
Thinking about how you think hurts my brain
Discuss on First Context
lol - fair enough
Of course I'm right. I've examined my motives. Double checked my sources. Traced my thought process. I can stomp my foot and assert with confidence that I am right. But how do I really know that unless I subject my opinion to another perspective?
It's hard to move from such a place of certainty. There's comfort in having our positions affirmed by people of like minds. But we prove nothing by doing that.
We can be two stone walls facing each other, unless we open our minds and listen. However, what I've learned is it's better for me to write out my position than to engage in oral discussion. Writing it out has one great advantage: I get to see the flaws in my own logic. When it's on paper I often can see the folly of my position.
There is another advantage. The discussion is less emotional. It takes time to think something through and be able to write it down. I can look at the argument of the other person and calmly assess the merits of that argument. Often at least some of what that person suggests makes sense. Or at least, as you suggest, I understand their position better even if I don't agree with it.
The challenge with writing out an argument is that most people don't have the patience to do it. They enjoy the comfort of their certainty, or they crave the adrenaline that comes from an antagonistic exchange.
I've been thinking lately, that if dogmatic people took the time to write down what they think, they would greatly benefit too. Sometimes the very process of trying to explain your position, leads you to corrections in your thinking.
yes, always try and learn something. humility if definitely a virtue.
I have dealt with this a couple of times (not too many to call myself comfortable with this, yet, but eventually I know I will), but it's a "challenge". Especially because (in my cases, particularly when you are hiring people), these things are often either hard to spot, or yet invisible to what the "dogmatic" real behaviour is going to be from that character. And because people are all different, whenever you have very little knowledge about such a character, it's hard for our brains to compare.
But (our brains)! They are straight away "annotating"... and the more that happens, the clearer the picture becomes, the quicker you realise "where the hell I ended up".
But sometimes you can't get out of it... You have to deal with it. And they don't give a damn for what you think.
My best advice is to expose dogmatic behaviours to the crowds! They will curate, and if that's not within the ways of your humility, then at least you didn't lose too much. Just a bit of time... But you also gained experience against (or in favour) of ONE more TYPE of Character!
And the older we get, the easier and "I couldn't give a sh..." it gets. 🤣🤦♂️🫠😉
Not caring is a super power!! hahahah