I'm not a debater.
This could be seen as odd, I suppose - I'm a patient strategizer and a logical thinker. And yet there is something about debates that has always seemed to be unproductive to me. We see them take place between politicians and religious leaders, we have clubs set apart for the sole purpose of debating, we watch them live and on television - and tell me if I'm wrong - but we give kudos to the debater who speaks the most intelligently - or the one who "controls" the debate. In other words, the "winner" is the one who can confuse the opponent in front of an audience. And I think that is wrong.
See, I'm noticing something about people. And this is what I'm noticing: that everyone is logical to an extent. (Please, stay in your chairs - let me finish) And I say that, because every decision that we make is the result of a process - the mind will not prompt action without being certain that the action is to be done. And that is logic (the steps and influences that are part of the decision-making process is a completely different issue). This is why everyone must be 'convinced' that their way is wrong - they must be given sufficient reason to doubt their own logical process and be given sufficient reason that your's is solid (can you guess where I'm going with this?).This is what I mean by a speakers "motivation" - his ability to cause you to adopt his own logical process. This is what a debate is.
Unfortunately, whenever we sense that our decision-making process is being challenged we become...well, wary and watchful - we critique the source of the input, and any flaw that is found (whether or not the flaw has anything to do with the source's thinking process) makes us automatically discredit the process that is being presented to us. And when we perceive that someone-else's thinking process is being "challenged" we unconsciously critique the source of the challenge in the same way. This is why we consider one debater a "winner" and one a "loser", this is why some speakers motivate us and others don't. But just because one debater "won", or we left the auditorium motivated, does not mean that any communication took place (or any true life altering) - the only thing that it signifies is that the individual was a better/good speaker. And I find it hard to respect someone who is unfeeling enough to debase another person's decision-making process - I would like to see if he would have made a different decision had he been the other person.
I believe there is a different way to alter a persons decisions (which is really what debates are for). A way motivated by love and the realization of the value of a person - and a person's decision-making process. A way that is more effective than arguing; a more subtle and gentle way convince people of the truth. A way that comes with the understanding that everyone is logical, and that the key to a communication (or altering decisions/actions/life) is not in "one-upping" the opponent (or the listener), but in understanding the thinking processes of the person/audience.
See, debaters take truth and run it through their process and try to prove, by the result, that their process is right -their mindset is right. But there are two things that make up decisions. Not only the process (which is dependent on the person - unique for everyone), but also the input. See that? Affecting the Process is inefficient (you waste a lot of effort) and temporary (who's to say whether they will hear a more convincing speaker tomorrow, and after enough altering, a lack of trust develops). On the contrary, affecting the Input (back in your chairs please, listen) is very efficient (but it requires a lot more effort) and it is permanent (the process is not affected and trust is maintained). I am definitely not advocating that truth be changed, but I am suggesting that it is possible to phrase truth in different ways. And the key is to perceive the other person's reality, put yourself in it and decide what to say dependent upon how you would react to that input (since you are now "that person"). So instead of restructuring the mold (which has consequences for the person) to ensure that the result looks right, you are changing the consistency of the plaster to affect the outcome.
That being said: the only way for it to be constructive to alter the input, is if you are motivated not by selfishness, but by love for people - love from God. Otherwise, you won't be in any better area. In fact, not only is His love required, but His grace is also required to allow you to put yourself in another person's reality and react with compassion and love, and not condemnation.
The second disclaimer is that there may be a time and a place to alter a person's decision-making process, but that process is a God-given trait and as such, it is His responsibility and not ours to change take responsibility for - we can't do it effectively, believe me! We will only mess the people up; we do not have sufficient control over other's minds to alter them without being destructive to them.
This could be seen as odd, I suppose - I'm a patient strategizer and a logical thinker. And yet there is something about debates that has always seemed to be unproductive to me. We see them take place between politicians and religious leaders, we have clubs set apart for the sole purpose of debating, we watch them live and on television - and tell me if I'm wrong - but we give kudos to the debater who speaks the most intelligently - or the one who "controls" the debate. In other words, the "winner" is the one who can confuse the opponent in front of an audience. And I think that is wrong.
See, I'm noticing something about people. And this is what I'm noticing: that everyone is logical to an extent. (Please, stay in your chairs - let me finish) And I say that, because every decision that we make is the result of a process - the mind will not prompt action without being certain that the action is to be done. And that is logic (the steps and influences that are part of the decision-making process is a completely different issue). This is why everyone must be 'convinced' that their way is wrong - they must be given sufficient reason to doubt their own logical process and be given sufficient reason that your's is solid (can you guess where I'm going with this?).This is what I mean by a speakers "motivation" - his ability to cause you to adopt his own logical process. This is what a debate is.
Unfortunately, whenever we sense that our decision-making process is being challenged we become...well, wary and watchful - we critique the source of the input, and any flaw that is found (whether or not the flaw has anything to do with the source's thinking process) makes us automatically discredit the process that is being presented to us. And when we perceive that someone-else's thinking process is being "challenged" we unconsciously critique the source of the challenge in the same way. This is why we consider one debater a "winner" and one a "loser", this is why some speakers motivate us and others don't. But just because one debater "won", or we left the auditorium motivated, does not mean that any communication took place (or any true life altering) - the only thing that it signifies is that the individual was a better/good speaker. And I find it hard to respect someone who is unfeeling enough to debase another person's decision-making process - I would like to see if he would have made a different decision had he been the other person.
I believe there is a different way to alter a persons decisions (which is really what debates are for). A way motivated by love and the realization of the value of a person - and a person's decision-making process. A way that is more effective than arguing; a more subtle and gentle way convince people of the truth. A way that comes with the understanding that everyone is logical, and that the key to a communication (or altering decisions/actions/life) is not in "one-upping" the opponent (or the listener), but in understanding the thinking processes of the person/audience.
See, debaters take truth and run it through their process and try to prove, by the result, that their process is right -their mindset is right. But there are two things that make up decisions. Not only the process (which is dependent on the person - unique for everyone), but also the input. See that? Affecting the Process is inefficient (you waste a lot of effort) and temporary (who's to say whether they will hear a more convincing speaker tomorrow, and after enough altering, a lack of trust develops). On the contrary, affecting the Input (back in your chairs please, listen) is very efficient (but it requires a lot more effort) and it is permanent (the process is not affected and trust is maintained). I am definitely not advocating that truth be changed, but I am suggesting that it is possible to phrase truth in different ways. And the key is to perceive the other person's reality, put yourself in it and decide what to say dependent upon how you would react to that input (since you are now "that person"). So instead of restructuring the mold (which has consequences for the person) to ensure that the result looks right, you are changing the consistency of the plaster to affect the outcome.
That being said: the only way for it to be constructive to alter the input, is if you are motivated not by selfishness, but by love for people - love from God. Otherwise, you won't be in any better area. In fact, not only is His love required, but His grace is also required to allow you to put yourself in another person's reality and react with compassion and love, and not condemnation.
The second disclaimer is that there may be a time and a place to alter a person's decision-making process, but that process is a God-given trait and as such, it is His responsibility and not ours to change take responsibility for - we can't do it effectively, believe me! We will only mess the people up; we do not have sufficient control over other's minds to alter them without being destructive to them.
2 comments:
Wow! I was certainly impressed both with the post itself ( with the idea and the way you thought it through) and also with the fact that your own views seem to have changed...
Thye've changed, yes. And this is an extension of what I was saying in my post last week.
Post a Comment