Category: Change

Continuing on from Why seek a single truth? and How arguments avoid issues this post turns to the idea of truth.

There’s clearly a lot of talk lately about issues of truth, post-truth, lies, and reality. It seems we’re somewhat lost at sea in terms of what’s real, in that we all have our own experiences and interpretations of modern realities. And I wonder to what extent this may be largely a question of communication, as we’re often educated to argue for our perspective which leaves little room for accommodating divergent ideas about reality.

These are concerns raised in the above posts and also within Writings on Education and Globalised society finding its feet, where I’ve attempted to explore why we tend to argue in defence of personal ideas and seek to defeat those who view things otherwise.

Honestly, it’s an approach that leaves me mystified, as I’m generally not at all interested in arguments: if you feel the need to convince and make me wrong, then you seem to be on the side of yourself rather than the side of truth and mutual understanding. In most cases each side contains grains of truth at least, so both will likely need to adjust for a new, third truth to emerge.

To my mind there’s little need to convince, preach or persuade as truth stands for itself and needs no argument. Admittedly there may be different estimations of the facts, different interpretations of what can be observed, but for me these lie in the realm of opinion rather than truth. We may hold different opinions or understandings of what’s happening, but the path toward truth then seems to be through listening rather than attempting to win over. If my ideas and yours sit within reality, then a notion of truth must contain both and would be truer for doing so.

If we can just speak and explain our understanding as clearly as we can then if it’s true, it’s true and if it’s not then our ideas can be compassionately expanded through a broader experience of reality. As discussed in Communication and the process of change, it seems important from a human perspective that we respect the other and leave space for ideas to evolve without any sense of personal defeat.

When someone isn’t genuinely interested in listening or finding truth, then it becomes this gesture of battle rather than dialogue. And I’m simply not sure the battleground of the argument ever leads to a true victory, as you might win the argument but often at the cost of disregarding the other or derailing the truth of the issue to force a defeat.

For me, the mindset of the argument seems to really limit our ability to explore complex realities. A dialogue such as I’m sketching here might not be simple or as easily resolved; but unless we seek to truly understand our differences, truth itself rarely seems to win and without that I’m unsure what kind of system we’re building.

With this post I’m equal parts relieved and challenged by the fact I decided my topics last year – I wouldn’t have chosen to tackle such a topic at this time, but won’t change things to avoid it either. And to be clear, I’m writing here about ways we communicate and try to convince others rather than about specific causes or the use of opposition within politics, as these may well be correct courses of action.

Recent years have led to the branding of self as a modern way to be: using your presence as consumer, citizen, social entity to influence others in directions you choose; becoming conscious of roles we play and doing so more knowingly. There’s a positive side to that: we’re increasingly aware of ways we’re interconnected and opportunities to demonstrate our values and how we choose to act for others to see. And the internet offers the chance to broadcast this in a way that hadn’t been possible, but also risks setting us against one another as we act to persuade and to defend our crafted selves.

There’s also a certain “because we can” tendency toward leveraging the platform technology offers us. As mentioned in Globalised society finding its feet and Media and responsibility we seem to be in this era of repurposing existing ways of thinking and relating, a sort of ‘coming of age’ of technology, as we direct these tools more deliberately within modern life. What I’m trying to say is that maybe this is still maturing and I wonder if we’re not rushing into it without a robust philosophy as to our intentions. Is there room to re-evaluate the principles behind how we communicate and relate to one another?

We have a natural inclination to embrace trends and make the most of them, but it does seem tech is shifting us towards a life of instant reactions which – while often valid and valuable in many ways – may also exacerbate fear and push people toward harsh judgements. If the internet makes instantaneous interactions possible, does that mean we let that define our way of being? Do we get in quick before the story moves on, often with a cheap shot or a simplified, out-of-context opinion? Where’s the considered dialogue?

And in bringing these activities into social media channels – where before activism and protest sat further apart from personal connections – we avail ourselves of opportunity but also bring confrontation. There seems to be this push to merge all our social roles into this single voice, making mutual understanding more difficult. When does attacking others ever really help? Often it may undermine the very values we’re advocating.

These are complicated times and issues people rightly feel deeply about; and modern life’s given us these tools which may be creating as many problems and challenges as they’re solving at this point. Are we causing unnecessary division through attitudes we bring into tech? Could we find another way of communicating, a more inclusive dialogue where progress is possible? Because I worry we risk much harm in our desire to do good.

This is a question that has been coming up a lot lately, in many different guises: how can you communicate with people so that they accept your perspective and change their views? To this, I suspect it might be wise to add: should we?

It seems that the main approaches being taken at the moment are essentially to shame, ridicule, attack, or exert social pressure on people to coerce them into changing their minds. This seems to suggest that people holding different views are somehow stupid, uneducated, malevolent, and generally not worth talking to reasonably. Not to say that those who hold extreme or intolerant views shouldn’t be challenged over them, but it seems the question of “how” presents itself again.

Essentially, it seems to me that recent methods of communicating are pretty combative and don’t leave others much freedom to change their own minds without accepting the various labels and judgements implied above. Does it place people in a position to stand by their new decision, to understand it and explain it to others, or to adopt consistent values if the reason they chose that way was because ‘someone told them to’? Our perspectives are unique to each of us, so unless we listen enough to understand one another’s views how can we expect to reach a common view of things? And if you attack someone’s views without genuinely listening to why they think how they do, surely it’s only natural to defend oneself and possibly become more entrenched in those opinions? I suspect that if someone holds a certain view it is because their life experiences, their education, their social realities make that conclusion seem right. So maybe divergent views sit more within the bigger social realities of education and society as a whole.

Of course it’s not straightforward, and many of the views of more liberal parts of society seem based in very well-meaning ideals of equality, progress, compassion etc. But I wonder if we’re not trying to rush ahead with progress without listening to the living realities and concerns of all corners of society and taking the time to foster the understanding needed for opinions to change of a person’s own volition.

I see that the issues at stake at the moment are hugely significant for society, but I just wonder at the wisdom of communicating this way when patience, mutual understanding and education may serve better to empower others to change their own minds if they can see wisdom in what is offered.