How to disagree productively

[Unveiled Artist]

How to disagree productively and find common ground

Some days, it feels like the only thing we can agree on is that we can't agree -- on anything. Drawing on her background as a world debate champion, Julia Dhar offers three techniques to reshape the way we talk to each other so we can start disagreeing productively and finding common ground -- over family dinners, during work meetings and in our national conversations.

I figure this would be useful even if for information only

 

[Spirit of Light]

How to disagree productively and find common ground

Some days, it feels like the only thing we can agree on is that we can't agree -- on anything. Drawing on her background as a world debate champion, Julia Dhar offers three techniques to reshape the way we talk to each other so we can start disagreeing productively and finding common ground -- over family dinners, during work meetings and in our national conversations.

I figure this would be useful even if for information only

I think disagreement can be good sometimes, as long we do not get nest toward each other. And this is something i see especially in religious discussion/ debate. People seem unwilling to be nice to people of different belief. Or even worse, some people speak of religious people as if they was evil, and should be punished for having a belief that is different then the norm.

 

[Kenny]

V

How to disagree productively and find common ground

Some days, it feels like the only thing we can agree on is that we can't agree -- on anything. Drawing on her background as a world debate champion, Julia Dhar offers three techniques to reshape the way we talk to each other so we can start disagreeing productively and finding common ground -- over family dinners, during work meetings and in our national conversations.

I figure this would be useful even if for information only

VERY interesting.... thanks for sharing! She is quite amazing!!!1

 

[Polymath257]

I completely disagree with her and think she is evil because of it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay, as per the video.

Don't debate identity, debate ideas. One of the things to debate is what the world is?

And it derails right there if someone can't separate the world into the following 3 categories of objective, inter-subjective and subjective and how they combine in practice.
But the rest of the video is about finding common ground, but there is no common ground if we can't agree on what the world is to us all.

Because the world is in effect a global village because of technology, we are all intertwined, but as long as we can't agree on what the world is, what knowledge is, what makes a society a society, what a human is, what values we ought to shares, what right and wrong are and so on, we can't agree.

How - well, she said it - people argue based on their identity - how the world is to them subjectively, individual and as a member of a sub-culture.
So what is the key feature of this, if you strip away all the noise. In the western tradition it is to hold truth. The singular truth about what the world is.
It is here:

Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.

philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies

As long as we fight over what the world is as a whole as with truth, we can't see/understand the world is not the world in the singular. The world is a web of interconnected parts and there is no one truth for the whole. Neither from science, religion nor philosophy. So back to the identity of being right or holding truth. If it is not there, then as long as it is about being right and holding truth, where there is none, we won't advance.

So the discussion or not identity debate is about not what it matters to you and me respectively. But it is, that it matters at all and how that works. And how what matters, changes with how we understand the world.
It has a fancy world. It is called relativism and truth is always relative to the individual as how they understand the objective, inter-subjective and subjective parts and their interconnectivity.

In effect for being human as per the second part of the quote "fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience" there is no single truth or being right about that. But as long as someone takes their own individual identity as the standard of truth and being right, there is no common idea of what the world is to humans as in common as objective, inter-subjective and subjective and the combination.

In short. it is the psychology of the binary nature of the law of non-contradiction as some people use it. The world can't be both objective, inter-subjective and subjective and combinations here off. It must be as a whole one factor and not all the rest.

So I am not going to debate you about who is right and who is wrong. That is already settled, I am wrong, because I am skeptic. I always end up showing what the world is not, because that is how I do truth. I figure out where it doesn't work and what is left, is how it works.

So here it the absurd part - when those of us, who know that, state it, we "threaten" the identity of hold truth and being right.
So how do you debate that? Well, you don't, because they are right and hold truth and they can't see, that they don't. So it becomes an attack on something which is not a fact, how absurd it might seem. The world never will be a case of the world is a single factor. Neither as physical or from God. Nor what the world is to you or me.
The world is a construct of human existence and experience and as longs as we fight with truth and being right, we fight.

So here is the idea to debate - what does it mean to be a human and do we need to be the same as with truth and being right? And how does truth and being right work for all aspects of the world?

Now, that is how I view it and yes, I fight. I should stop that, but that is a part of my mentality.

So I am not going to debate this with you. I get that you want it to be civil. Just put me on ignore, because I don't do that very well. But remember if you start with how the world is to you and don't check that, but take that for granted, then you might miss something.
So what is it, I take for granted and sometimes miss? That everybody has the same kind of understanding as I. So yes, I do it to.

Regards and love
Mikkel

 

[Quintessence]

I've never found "common ground" to be necessary for discourse and I think fixating on that as a goal is problematic. Focusing on finding common ground means one isn't thinking about how to appreciate diversity, as disagreement is a direct product of diversity. Humans in some cultures really need to get better at honoring diversity instead of perceiving it as a threat.

 

[Cooky]

How to disagree productively and find common ground

Some days, it feels like the only thing we can agree on is that we can't agree -- on anything. Drawing on her background as a world debate champion, Julia Dhar offers three techniques to reshape the way we talk to each other so we can start disagreeing productively and finding common ground -- over family dinners, during work meetings and in our national conversations.

I figure this would be useful even if for information only

...So I guess throwing 'your mom' insults at your opponent is out of the question?

 

[Cooky]

I've never found "common ground" to be necessary for discourse and I think fixating on that as a goal is problematic. Focusing on finding common ground means one isn't thinking about how to appreciate diversity, as disagreement is a direct product of diversity. Humans in some cultures really need to get better at honoring diversity instead of perceiving it as a threat.

But...Everyone who disagrees with my theology is wrong, and needs fixing.

...Plus I get brownie points for every conversion.

 

[Quintessence]

But...Everyone who disagrees with my theology is wrong, and needs fixing.

Sounds like an exhausting perspective to hold that breeds discontentment within one's own mind. Much, if not most human suffering is self-created by expecting the entire world to conform to our vision of it. It never will, so life becomes one futile fight after another. Not my idea of a guiding principle for living a good life, but others mileage may vary, it seems.

 

[Cooky]

Sounds like an exhausting perspective to hold that breeds discontentment within one's own mind. Much, if not most human suffering is self-created by expecting the entire world to conform to our vision of it. It never will, so life becomes one futile fight after another. Not my idea of a guiding principle for living a good life, but others mileage may vary, it seems.

I guess being a "holy idiot" isn't appealing to everyone.

Path of the Sacred Clown

 

[Heyo]

How to disagree productively and find common ground

Some days, it feels like the only thing we can agree on is that we can't agree -- on anything. Drawing on her background as a world debate champion, Julia Dhar offers three techniques to reshape the way we talk to each other so we can start disagreeing productively and finding common ground -- over family dinners, during work meetings and in our national conversations.

I figure this would be useful even if for information only

Common ground is quite important but common goals, or at least understanding of the difference in goals, is also crucial to a discussion. If one party harbours the goal of derailing the discussion, it will never be constructive. Even if one party is "only chatting", they don't have productivity on mind.
"Communication is only possible between equals." - Hagbard Celine