From: Jef Allbright (jef@jefallbright.net)
Date: Sun Oct 06 2002 - 14:10:42 MDT
Robert Bradbury wrote:
> We complain about how the extropian list is a focus of narrow
> minded debates -- and then we compliment this with discussions
> whose roots are so deep that we would all be digging for days
> to uncover them.
A recurring theme arises:
The skewed distribution of intelligence and interests on this list tends
often to create ultra-narrowminded displays of technical virtuosity, at
least in the mind of the presenter, and often for some of the audience as
well, and this can be great fun. I personally feel a thrill seeing a
concept expressed concisely and elegantly (unabashedly exposing my
geekness.)
On the other hand, such presentations ***often fail to connect*** with their
intended audience. I'm guessing many of us on the Extropian list have
experienced this, when we've presented a conceptual jewel with clarity and
laser-like focus, and have in return received a blank look or sensed that
the audience feels we are being arrogant, showing off, or -- perhaps
distressingly -- that *we* don't get it.
At that point, how we proceed depends on our broader goals.
-- Sometimes it's for entertainment. We enjoy sharing and bouncing ideas
off each other in an arena of common interests.
-- Sometimes it's for self improvement. We want to test and sharpen our
understanding.
-- Sometimes we believe we are acting to build a better future.
Practically speaking, it's often a combination of these goals, and others.
Part of the "signal to noise" problem often expressed on this list is that
people come to the discussion with different goals, but don't recognize the
other person's goals.
Too often we have a tendency to focus our lasers on what we see as the
faults in another person's arguments or their world view, thinking that just
a bit more precision and accuracy will provide the needed illumination. The
fallacy is that usually this effort is being applied to attacking and
defending the wrong target.
Is the goal of a discussion to present something like a mathematical proof,
or is it to share understanding with another person? Generally, the
intersection of these two sets is very sparse.
My suggestion is that people consider this, and when they feel that a
discussion is unproductive, or that they're just not connecting, change
tactics. Try first to establish some commonality of understanding, perhaps
offlist so as to reduce distractions, and then come back to the original
goal of the discussion.
Obviously, this doesn't always work. Sometimes people don't have the
necessary background to effectively discuss an issue but are unaware of it.
Sometimes people are coming from such different world views, or have such
non-compatible motivations that discussion is unproductive. In those cases,
discussion and debate can still be useful, but consider whether some portion
might be more appropriate offlist.
For effective communication, it's important to know your audience, and build
from a basis of common understanding.
Well, this probably comes across like preaching, which would certainly be
inappropiate, and not intended. I hope it's not taken that way. My hope is
that these thoughts may resonate with others, and lead to some small
improvement in the quality of communication and understanding.
- Jef
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:26 MST