On Agendas; or, How I Think

[jducoeur]

So in the course of yesterday's discussion on activity leadership, siderea challenged me to say what my agenda in the question was. It's a fair question, and worth a top level post of its own, since it's really just an example of something I periodically do here in my journal.

I sometimes say that the most interesting pursuit for me is the pursuit of Truth, but I tend to use the word capital-T "Truth" in a funny way. It tends not to refer to matters of simple fact or scientific verifiability -- those are useful, but generally far less open to philosophical exploration. Rather, I tend to focus on the much fuzzier and trickier questions that affect how I go about my life on a day-to-day basis: a very personal definition of Truth, involving matters of morality, ethics and how to interact with others. The exploration of that space always fascinates me.

People find their Truths in very different ways. Many folks do it through analysis: taking as much information as possible themselves, and synthesizing it. That doesn't work for me personally, however. It's a very individual-oriented approach, and I just plain don't trust *any* individual's analysis of an interesting problem, least of all my own. If you look at how I write, it's usually hedged with qualifiers all over the place. That's instinctive for me; I do it to a somewhat excessive degree, and sometimes have to actively suppress them. Very occasionally I'll be genuinely sure that I'm right, and you can tell it if you look at my rhetorical style, which becomes much less uncertain in those cases. (Slightly more often I'll be quite certain that another viewpoint is wrong; again, it's usually pretty clear when that's the case.) But usually, I consider my own viewpoints to be opinions, not facts.

Individual analysis being out, though, the question is, how *do* I explore these topics? The answer is usually through discussion and debate. Folks often remark quizzically on the strange nature of Silverwing debate, where a participant's apparent viewpoint will jump around and shift constantly -- pushing hard on a point for a while, then abruptly fading back and sometimes taking the opposite position. (Debates between myself and Steffan are the extreme case of this, with us sometimes switching positions multiple times in the course of things, in a complex philosophical dance.) This makes a lot more sense when you understand the purpose of the debate, which isn't to "win" or otherwise convince people of a specific viewpoint. Rather, the purpose of the discussion is to explore the problem space thoroughly, so that each participant can come to a more informed opinion.

(Tangent: I despise conventional modern debating technique, because I think it's counter-productive. While it often claims to be about exploring the problem, I've always found that the simple opposing-viewpoints model leads to too many entrenched positions, and trying to score rhetorical points while ducking the meat and complexity of the question. If there's one thing I really disrespect, it's claims of certainty in issues that are too complex to really permit that. John Stewart's recent skewering of Crossfire really went to the heart of this: taking two fundamentally opposing sides and setting them yelling at each other just isn't very productive.)

Anyway, when I start a controversial topic on LJ, that's usually what's going on; when I call for opinions, it's *always* what is going on. Yes, it may seem strange that I sometimes start off such an exploration by taking an apparently-firm stand, but that's simply practical -- in my experience, there's no better way to get a really productive debate going than to say something that I know some people will disagree with, and see where that line of reasoning leads me. And as I duck and weave my way through the ensuing discussion, I get a much better-rounded grounding in the topic. Sometimes I decide that my original contention was right, sometimes completely off-base; usually I find that I was partly right, but missing important shadings that come out in the debate.

All of which is a roundabout way of clarifying that yesterday's little argument was exactly what I was looking for: some lively but friendly disagreement that led to a better understanding of the subject. Thanks to all who participated, and I encourage you to join in again next time.

One final postscript, BTW, while I think of it. There is one other agenda that often lurks in discussions like this. When I am thinking about one of these topics, it is often because I think it's a topic that is currently relevant -- for example, the leadership question was inspired by next week's meeting of the activity heads after Great Council. So there is often a subtle agenda of getting others to think about the topic as well. I encourage y'all, both the lurkers and participants in one of these little debates, to consider the various viewpoints presented, and give some thought to what Truths may come out of it for you...

Comments

[antoniseb.livejournal.com]

I prefer to "debate" matters of this sort in the same fashion. I have no delusion that an interesting issue is something that can be fully known, or will even have the same best answers in varying circumstances.

This is one of the factors that has made me unsuitable for elected public office. When I see an out-of-context, or even an in-context statement made by a candidate twenty or thirty years ago contrasted with his current position, I know that the wisdom of continued consideration is unelectable.

Going back to the original point about enthusiasm, this is a soft topic. There is no way for the English language to be used to precisely state all the conditions of your premise, and the gaps left by the deficiency of the language result in ways that we, each using our own incomplete minds, make assumptions about what you mean. We then express our responses incompletely, as constrained by both language, and incomplete mutual understanding. This is the way it is for so many things in life that we take it for granted. The big thing here for me is to just get close enough, and then roll up my sleeves and do something.

[siderea]

Meh. To me, that sounds like an excuse.

If you are taking a position for argument sake, say so.

I think you are emotionally invested in the position you took and aren't, therefore, open to alternative points of view.

I saw nothing in yesterday's post or discussion that gave any evidence that you were looking for alternatives. You presented a point that is clearly Meaningful to you in some way, and then defended it against all comers.

I strongly feel yesterday's exercise was not an honest one.

Hard to say

[cristovau.livejournal.com]

You presented a point that is clearly Meaningful to you in some way, and then defended it against all comers.

I dunno. It seemed as though jducoeur did not move on his position, but not waivering isn't the same as being closed to alternatives. I didn't see him defending it against all comers, or refuting all views not in accordance with the idea. There were a lot of "maybe" and "I need to think about that." There were also a lot of unreplied to views expressed.

It looked as though it was a debate, not a round of idea squashing, though I'm willing to listen to why it wasn't honest or how he wasn't open to other views.

[jducoeur]

I think you are emotionally invested in the position you took and aren't, therefore, open to alternative points of view.

I honestly don't see it; on the contrary, by now I've granted most of the other substantive points that were made in the course of that thread. In particular:

-- That enthusiasm is only useful when it is accompanied by (maybe only when inspired by) a reasonable measure of focus (the word "vision" carries connotations for me that I don't think are apt in all of the cases I'm talking about);

-- That several other qualities (organization and people skills in particular) are at least necessary in modest measure in all cases and most critical in some;

-- That the priorities can vary considerably depending on a bunch of factors, particularly including scale, time-scope of the project, and maturity of the activity in question;

-- That definitions are important in this exercise, and neither "leader" nor "effective" is defined clearly enough to come up with clear answers; in particular, a leader can be effective in some respects but disastrously bad in others depending on the mix.

Am I simply throwing up my arms, saying "I was wrong" and running away? No; I don't think I saw any slam-dunk counter-arguments that entirely refuted the original concept. But the viewpoint I'm ending up with is quite different from the one I started with -- far more nuanced, with a considerably less sweeping assertion at its core. How is this closed-minded?

As for:

If you are taking a position for argument sake, say so.

When I say things like,

I'll put a stake in the ground

and

Am I correct? Am I full of it?

I certainly intend those as pretty clear indications that I'm looking for refinement at least, and contradiction if necessary. How was this unclear? No, the point wasn't strictly for rhetoric's sake -- I always start from the viewpoint that seems most plausible to me -- but I think I was pretty clear that I was seeking input.

Understand -- I wasn't terribly emotionally invested in yesterday's discussion, but I *am* in this one. (It's actually pretty easy for me to tell when I'm emotionally invested in a debate: it has a direct and immediate impact on my blood pressure, with clear physical sensations involved.) Closed-mindedness is practically a sin in my book, and stands as a fairly serious and personal accusation. I believe that you are mainly misreading me (in particular, misreading my silences, which most often indicate assent, and not really observing the softening of my point as it went along), but it's not a point I can simply let slide...

[mindways]

in my experience, there's no better way to get a really productive debate going than to say something that I know some people will disagree with, and see where that line of reasoning leads me.

I had an English teacher in high school who would get class discussions going this way. While talking about a [book|character|plot element|etc], if the class wasn't getting involved, he'd start making baseless assertions about meaning, nuance, source, etc - starting off subtle, and increasing in outrageousness until the class got so incensed that it overcame whatever apathy had settled over us that day and sparked a spirited debate.

[jducoeur]

I actually don't tend to start with a point that is wholly outrageous; it trips my intellectual-honesty filters, so I just can't. But (as with yesterday) I'll often take a point and state it too baldly, knowing that it's probably overstated, to see where that leads. Given the folks in my general LJ circle, it usually isn't hard to get contradiction...

[mindways]

He wouldn't start with the outrageous - he'd walk there one step at a time until the class got involved; if his more conventional forays got us dicussing, he didn't bother. (And even once he got outrageous, his points weren't trivally ridiculous - they'd push your "No, I disagree!" buttons, but you had to think to come up with why.)

Unfortunately, specific anecdotes from that class have mostly been lost in the mists of my memory... though I do recall there was a long argument about a particular short story, and whether or not a house therein having open windows was sexually symbolic...

[dreda.livejournal.com]

Are you sure you never studied with Jesuits? ;) (It just sounds a whole lot like their process, or to go back even farther, there are elements of Peter Abelard's sic et non in that. It's a fascinating and flexible disputational mode, and I find that that approach of mutable-position dialogue is one that works particularly well in my own learning.)

[jducoeur]

Well, I got the technique largely from Steffan, so I suspect the origin is more Rabbinic than Jesuit in its origins...

"I'll know my true love by the way I'll behave."

[siderea]

I've been turning over in my mind why your post and replies pegged my "hucksterism"/"I am being sold a line of goods" meter so fiercely, and a whole bunch of interesting stuff came up.

Here's one of them. I finally recognized your argument.

It's "all you need is love" in another guise.

You ever had a conversation about relationships with someone who prosecutes the "all you need is love" meme? People who want to get buy-in to the idea that "all you need is love" are people fishing for reassurance that they're not culpable for the problems in their relationship which stem from something they don't bring to the relationship and don't want to be held responsible for in the relationship. Like keeping promises. Or being considerate. Or listening to one's partner. Someone fishing for validation of "all you need is love" is someone fishing for validation that they can't be expected to be understanding, or loyal, or responsible, or something else which is necessary to a healthy relationship.

It's far more common than not when someone prosecutes an "all you need is $mentalState" argument that it's exculpatory. It's very comfortable to believe and to be assured by others that if you just feel the right thing, nothing more is required of you, practically, ethically or morally.

Such argument often ring the changes on "Well, if you really feel the Right Way, you'll magically do all the things you need to and be all the things you need to be." For instance, "If you are really loving, you'll be considerate, consistant, reliable, etc. so if you aren't considerate, consistant, etc. it must be because you don't really love the other person." That's a conveniently circular argument. And of course, "So if you met the right person, you'd behave better."

Re: "I'll know my true love by the way I'll behave."

[jducoeur]

Hmm; interesting. I don't think the parallel is exact, but I can see why you draw it.

There's a distinction I can see, and it helps to clarify my thinking a bit. The most concrete single benefit I see from Enthusiasm is infectiousness, which I do still think is critical to most ongoing, small-group activities. It's different from the "all you need is $mentalState" idea in the desired effect -- whereas the latter is about changing the holder's own behaviour in productive ways, the former is a direct and specific benefit in the way that it affects others in (or potentially in) the activity.

That said, though, it throws up a couple of additional nuances that narrow the point even further:

-- It is certainly overbroad to claim that all enthusiasm is infectious. The combination of the feeling and mode of expression are really what I'm looking at here. And cristovau's point about Sebastian yesterday indicates that it may be possible to achieve the expression without the feeling, which complicates the question more.

-- It clearly puts paid the notion that enthusiasm can somehow supplant the other requirements. I do still think that such a group can usually muddle along better with, eg, mediocre organization than with mediocre enthusiasm, but the one doesn't excuse a complete lack of the other.

-- It underlines the point that the enthusiasm can come from elsewhere than the nominal leader of the activity. If infectiousness is the point, it can originate in other members of the activity, provided that the leader doesn't undermine that.

The $mentalState parallel holds truer when contrasted with the relationship I drew between enthusiasm and, eg, burnout. There's a significant difference, which is that enthusiasm there seems to be most important in its absence. It's not so much a matter that one will necessarily do well if one has enthusiasm; rather, it is that the likelihood of doing poorly goes way up if one lacks it. Which supports your point from yesterday that it is a necessary trait, but not a sufficient one...

I'll know my true leader by the way I'll behave.

[cristovau.livejournal.com]

Nuances are one of the things that break down a lot of philosophical constructs in my point of view. Lots of people start with a premise such as "what if X was true" when they probably should start with "what if x was often true." Given how you worded things, I understood that you were trying to sort out how do I inspire long term leadership.

The bottom line is that enthusiasm isn't leadership. Organization isn't either. Neither is discipline or charisma or energy or drive. Leadership is it's own skill. Breaking it down to components is one way of understanding it, but the components aren't the thing itself.

Nuances. Something that hit me in reading today's discussion is that a lot of good leaders failed. Sometimes, it was timing and sometimes it was their vision and sometimes they were leading people on a fool's errand. Further great leaders have been great for different reasons.

Why do you follow people? For me the reason depends on the person. I don't sign up for a project with new_man for the same reasons I work with jdulac and yet, I've allowed both to lead me and their styles work differently and differently effectively.

I think Carolingia's had good leadership in it's Barons and Baronesses and yet they have been wildly different. Nuances.

The old Zen story comes back to me about the master who came to oversee how the construction of a center in California was going. As he inspected, the foreman said, "The beams are up, the utilities are in and we've done most of the important work. All that's left are the details." At this point the master burst into laughter and explained, "But my friend, all there ever was, were the details."

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

If you look at how I write, it's usually hedged with qualifiers all over the place. That's instinctive for me; I do it to a somewhat excessive degree, and sometimes have to actively suppress them.

This is an amusingly autological set of sentences :-)

[umbran.livejournal.com]

(Tangent: I despise conventional modern debating technique, because I think it's counter-productive. While it often claims to be about exploring the problem, I've always found that the simple opposing-viewpoints model leads to too many entrenched positions, and trying to score rhetorical points while ducking the meat and complexity of the question.

This to me does not sound like an actual problem with the style, so much as a problem with the motivations of the people engaging in the debate. Crossfire has problems not because opposing viewpoints are a poor way to explore a topic, but because they were more interested in exploiting public opinions for ratings than exploring topics, IMHO.

If the Opposing Viewpoint model has a major flaw, it's that it requires oversimplification. A good exploratory Opposing Viewpoint debate ends not with a winner, but with a mutual agreement that the waters have become so muddied with exceptions to the stated rules that one cannot continue.

Meanwhile, the OV model has two major strengths. First, is that everyone groks it. The second is that it gives focus to the debaters. Fully exploring a line of reasoning often takes a bit of dogged determination, and if you allow yourself to dance around to another viewpoint, you will fail to explore your current one in greatest depth.

Thus, the OV style is not to be despised in and of itself. Instead, simply be aware that not all debaters are using the form for exploration.