The choice between insightful and inciteful words

 

Civil society and civility

Non-profit organisations often characterise themselves as being part of ‘civil society’. Civil society has been defined and redefined over many years, but it broadly refers to “a wide array of organisations: community groups, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), labor unions, indigenous groups, charitable organisations, faith-based organisations, professional associations and foundations” (World Bank). As other ‘for-purpose’ and social enterprise models have emerged, alongside entities promoting transparency, sustainability, and accountability, the boundaries for ‘civil society’ have also expanded.

Historically, the purpose of civil society was to achieve eudaimonia – common wellbeing or flourishing. Aristotle used the term to refer to the highest human good, and defined this as the aim of practical philosophy (applied ethics). (Recommended reading: Practical wisdom: The right way to do the right thing, by Barry Schwarz and Kenneth Sharpe, Riverhead books, 2010)

In our interpersonal communications, being ‘civil’ simply means being courteous and polite with each other. In other words, treating others as we would like to be treated. Again, therefore, the term refers to common wellbeing.

Hijacked emotion

As advocates for various causes, non-profit organisations make extensive use of social media and various other methods to engage target audiences, and even to issue ‘calls to action’. Regrettably, sometimes when we appeal to emotions the intended outcome of advocacy action gets lost, with poorly managed emotions taking over.

We see this happening when advocates start attacking opponents (ad hominem arguments) rather than focusing on the issue or problem, and the associated evidence.

Separate the people from the problem

Calibrating our words (as suggested in the header image), whether in a meeting, in social settings, or in the heat of an advocacy campaign, requires some level of mindfulness, along with an unshakeable commitment to ‘the common good’. Even when provoked by personal attacks, we do no good for the cause we represent if we resort to insults and inciteful words.

The four key principles underpinning the negotiating method recommended in the seminal reference Getting to Yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (by Roger Fisher and William Ury, Hutchison. 1982) are highlighted in the chart below.

The words we use and the ’emotional’ tone we employ (in written or oral forms) will reflect the extent to which we have internalised the principles recommended by Fisher and Ury. Negative emotions tend to impede effective engagement and the capacity to reach agreement. Conversely, positive emotions tend to enable agreement.

The notion that you can’t argue with an angry person applies to both parties of course. Just as you won’t persuade another person of the legitimacy of your views if they are angry, you won’t budge them if you are angry either.

The emotional dimension of negotiation (and advocacy too I suggest) is the subject of a later book by Roger Fisher, this time with Daniel Shapiro – Building Agreement: Using emotions as you negotiate. Core concepts that motivate people form the central themes in this very helpful sequel.

Beyond the arguments based on effective methods of helping people to better align with your perspectives, there are also of course risk management reasons for avoiding insulting or inciteful language.

Our words and actions need to be insightful rather than inciteful.*

*As noted in a previous post, homonyms are words that sound the same but have different meanings. ‘Insightful’ and ‘inciteful’ are homonyms, but they are also an example of homophones (a subset of homonyms), words that sound the same but have different spellings and meanings.

Trolling and cyberbullying

Public health and other advocates have become victims of trolling and cyber-bullying increasingly of late, particularly since COVID appeared. The UK Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) recommends the Troll Counterstrategy outlined in the chart below.

If you or your team have been victims of trolling or cyberbullying, seek support from local health and cyber-safety groups. In Victoria, the Better Health Channel offers resources and advice on these issues, including links to mental health helplines.

https://tinyurl.com/3b8w7946

How to argue

 The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.

Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.

The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.

If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:

u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!

But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like

The author is a self-important dilettante.

is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:

Of course he would say that. He's a senator.

This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.

Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

DH3. Contradiction.

In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.

Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.

DH4. Counterargument.

At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.

There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.

DH5. Refutation.

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.

To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.

DH6. Refuting the Central Point.

The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.

Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:

The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:

<quotation>

But this is wrong for the following reasons...

The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.

What It Means

Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.

But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.

The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.

Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.

But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.

If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it.


Thanks to Trevor Blackwell and Jessica Livingston for reading drafts of this.

https://tinyurl.com/2zam6atx

10 visuals to change the way you think

 

Created by Pejman Milani (give him a follow).

1) Develop a writing habit
↳ Write down your goals, ideas, and aspirations.
↳ Writing helps clarify and empower your thoughts.

2) Facts fade, but stories stick
↳ The art of storytelling is transformative.
↳ Appeal to emotions and give others a reason to care.

3) Optimize, not maximize your day
↳ Spreading yourself too thin is a recipe for burnout.
↳ Focus on what matters. Learn to say no.

4) Nothing great in life comes easy
↳ The burden of discipline is short-lived, but regret lasts.
↳ Always keep this in mind and make wise choices.

5) Overthinking is unnecessary mental noise
↳ Focus on finding solutions, not on creating problems.
↳ Stop overanalyzing and start taking action.

6) Empathy requires action
↳ Listening alone isn’t enough. Impact requires action.
↳ Act decisively to show compassion to those in need.

7) Fancy words don’t mean much
↳ Don’t focus on sounding intelligent.
↳ Keep your communication simple for clarity.

8) Relationships matter most
↳ Invest in building meaningful relationships.
↳ A rich life is all about strong connections.

9) Community is a source of strength
↳ Surround yourself with supportive people.
↳ Rely on them to build motivation and resilience.

10) Start small to overcome inertia
↳ Large goals are often overwhelming.
↳ Break them down into small, manageable steps.

Dr. Christian Poensgen

10 powerful visuals that will expand your mind

 

S/o to Jun Han Chin for these impactful images

1. Embrace a growth mindset.
↳ See challenges as opportunities to learn and expand your capabilities.
↳ Have “strong beliefs, loosely held.” Update beliefs based on new evidence.

2. Focus + progress = success.
↳ Set clear, achievable goals at each stage of your journey.
↳ Celebrate small wins to maintain motivation and momentum.

3. Consistency trumps intensity.
↳ Small, regular efforts compound over time to create significant results.
↳ Build sustainable habits that you can maintain long-term.

4. Leverage compounding for continuous improvement.
↳ Start with the basics and gradually expand your skill set.
↳ Aim to become well-rounded in your field for long-term success.

5. Build systems for your learning.
↳ Use the Feynman technique to learn anything.
↳ Implement ideas and share knowledge to solidify your understanding.

6. When you feel stuck, zoom out.
↳ What looks like going in circles might actually be progress in disguise.
↳ Be open to new ways of thinking and approaching challenges.

7. Harness the power of collaboration.
↳ Working together can help you achieve goals that seem impossible alone.
↳ Seek out partnerships and team opportunities to amplify your impact.

8. A rich life goes beyond financial wealth.
↳ Cultivate a balance of wealth, experiences, relationships, and knowledge.
↳ Invest in all aspects of life for a truly fulfilling and rich existence.

9. Find joy in your work.
↳ Your perception shapes your reality - focus on the positive aspects of your job.
↳ Seek ways to align your work with your passions and values.

10. Combine learning, doing, and improving to succeed.
↳ Balance acquiring knowledge with taking action and refining your approach.
↳Use the mantra, “Learn, earn, return.”

Which of these resonated the most with you?

https://tinyurl.com/paawm7ka