Debating Without Debasing
Click on the image above to play the video (flip your phone to widescreen if you want image to be bigger)
Debating without Debasing
I hope you had a good week.
As you know, the reason I write this newsletter is that I am more worried about the state of our public discourse than I am about any of the many challenges we face. I am actually more optimistic than I have ever been about the available resources we have (technologies, money, and talent) that could be leveraged toward solving these challenges. However, the radicalization of conversation means nothing gets done and the necessary trust between people, which is the fuel that holds a society together, is gradually being fractured. This is the real barrier to progress.
Like all complex problems, this can’t be solved by any one thing. We need to change the way we elect our leaders. I have written about it primarily here. We also need to change the structure of their terms by introducing term limits. We need to deregulate the administrative complexity around most new ideas. They take too long, cost too much, and are overly bureaucratic and burdensome. We also need to figure out how to tame the negative social effects of media in general and social media in particular. Just to mention a few.
But most of all, we need to improve the quality of our conversation. Less accusation, less positioning, and a whole lot less politicizing everything. In our desire to "win" an argument, we lose everything else. Every little issue is weaponized and dragged into the polarized battle of everything. And like a massive tug of war, each side keeps pulling. And it’s not even so much about winning arguments anymore. Winning is no longer about making a more sound and justified argument. Winning is now when you humiliate and incapacitate your opponent. Debasing more than debating.
Scott Galloway is about to publish a new book called Adrift. In his latest newsletter, he says this about our current culture:
“The news cycle has convinced us that the greatest threat to America is other Americans — MAGA Trumpers, social justice warriors, deep state bureaucrats … pick your poison. These narratives are compelling (profitable). And wrong: The greatest threat to Americans is our fear of other Americans. For the past several decades that fear has grown, and the rifts between us, broadened. We are reaching a tipping point.”
A constructive debate is not only possible, but it is a necessary aspect of democracy, innovation, and progress. Anyone working in any organization (which is most of us) knows that new ideas can only come to fruition with new perspectives and insights. If we keep doing what we are doing, we will keep getting what we are getting. And we also learn that you win the support of people when they are part of creating the solution they will be asked to implement and live by. We need to learn how to come together—and soon.
This week, rather than a longer post, I will simply refer you to some articles and books I have read recently in an effort to learn how we can improve our public discourse.
First out is an article by Adam Grant. It’s a great little piece that resonated with me. Adam reminds us that a “good debate isn’t about one person declaring victory, it’s about both people making a discovery”. He talks about different roles we all take on, such as preachers, prosecutors, and politicians.
Second, is an article that talks about taking a page from debate teams. Having not grown up here, and therefore not really participated in any formal debate training in my teenage education (which didn’t exist in Sweden in the 1960s), I found it inspiring. Perhaps some of you can relate it to your own upbringing. There is a lot to learn from how we are supposed to debate. While taken to its extreme (which the article also mentions), it seems to mirror our current political climate, but it offers a helpful foundation and outlook on debate to build from. Like the quote: “No amount of no is going to get you to yes”. I have started reading Bo Seo’s book and will report back with any tools, ideas, and suggestions that I find helpful.
Thirdly, I found the short article in the “Character Lab” series by Geoffrey Cohen about his son to be instructive. The story he tells reminds us to not mistake bad behavior with bad character. We all make mistakes. We all have a desire to be seen. But it doesn't make all humans bad. They are not.
Lastly, Dan Pink in his latest PinkCast has a three-word response to most times when you feel challenged and are about to get defensive and/or emotional.
If you want to order Scott Galloway's new book you can do it here
NYT Article on how to argue well taking a page from the debate teams
Dan Pink Pincast on the three most effective words as a response to something you might not like
And as a little bonus, please watch this Heineken (beer commercial) from 2017 about how we can engage with people with very opposing views. It's powerful.
I know we are all concerned about the state of our public discourse. I haven't met anyone who isn't. But the interesting thing is that most people don't believe they can do anything about it. I disagree. We can. In fact, the only way to change is for us to be the change. We must engage differently. Invite different points of view and different voices into our spaces and conversations. Treat them with respect. Show curiosity, compassion, and interest in their point of view. We don't have to agree. We can even disagree. But we can disagree with more humanity, more love, and more willingness to co-exist.
I know you are more than willing to. That's why you are kindly subscribing and reading these newsletters. Please share them. Convince a few voices in your community to join in here. We can build a movement of moderation. Then, we can together create the future we want our grandchildren to grow into.
For those that celebrate a new year, I wish you a sweeter, healthier, and kinder year ahead!
