Rules of discussion
There was a post on Google plus which had a flowchart about rules of discussions. This is my response;
All the above flow chart does is set out one person's view of what discussion is, and it is, on it's own terms, not to be discussed! No alternative view of a discussion is allowed. In fact I reckon the form of the above discussion is both sterile and open to bullying by the most intellectually able or the one who can quote the most 'reasonable evidence'. In fact, the more I think about it the more it resembles intellectual bullying.
A real discussion can happen when two parties firmly present their own points of view, disagreeing, even emphatically disagreeing, with each other. Having to defend their own point of view. Having that point of view challenged, and having to rethink their point of view and it's defence. And challenging the other's point of view. Both hammering away at each other's viewpoints and forcing each other to rethink both their original thesis and it's defence. And in the process both grow. Both learn from each other, develop their thinking, sharpen their ideas. It is not a case of one conceding to the other, as of both learning and growing and changing as things become more clear.
The aim of a discussion is not to win a battle but to enhance one's understanding.
Interesting to get David Malenfant's response:
Willem Schultink, Brian Wood are dead on. Not to mention, that is basically what English courses in college are all about, sharpening your thoughts to argue your point.
© Copyright willemoforange.com