disagree without being disagreeable quote This is a topic that many people are looking for. thetruthaboutdow.org is a channel providing useful information about learning, life, digital marketing and online courses …. it will help you have an overview and solid multi-faceted knowledge . Today, thetruthaboutdow.org would like to introduce to you How to disagree productively and find common ground Julia Dhar . Following along are instructions in the video below:
“Days it feels like nthe only thing we can agree on is that we ca can t agree on anything public discourse is broken. And we feel that. Everywhere panelists tv. Nare screaming at each other we go online to find.
Ncommunity and connection. And we end up leaving nfeeling. Angry and alienated in everyday life. Probably nbecause.
Everyone else is yelling we are so scared to get into an argument that we re willing not to engage at all contempt has replaced conversation. My mission in life is to help us ndisagree productively to find ways to bring truth to light nto bring new ideas to life. I think i hope that there is a model nfor structured disagreement that s kind of mutually respectful and assumes a genuine desire nto. Persuade and be persuaded and to uncover it nlet me take you back a little bit so when i was 10 years old ni.
Loved arguing this like tantalizing possibility that you could convince someone nof your point of view. Just with the power of your words. And perhaps. Unsurprisingly.
My parents and teachers nloved this somewhat less laughter and in much the same way as they decided that four year old julia might benefit nfrom gymnastics to burn off some energy. They decided that i might benefit nfrom. Joining a debate team that is kind of go somewhere nto argue. Where they were not laughter for the uninitiated.
The premises of formal debate. Nare really straightforward. There s a big idea on the table that we support civil disobedience nthat. We favor free trade and one group of people nwho speaks in favor of that idea and one against my first debate in the cavernous auditorium nof canberra girls grammar school was kind of a bundle nof all of the worst mistakes that you see on cable news.
It felt easier to me to attack nthe person. Making the argument rather than the substance nof. The ideas themselves when that same person challenged my ideas it felt terrible. I felt nhumiliated and ashamed and it felt to me like nthe sophisticated response to that was to be as extreme as possible and despite this very shaky entry ninto.
The world of debate. I loved it i saw the possibility and over many years nworked really hard at it became really skilled. Nat..
The technical craft of debate. I went on to win the world schools ndebating championships three times. I know you re just finding out nthat this is a thing laughter. But it wasn t until ni started coaching debaters persuaders.
Who are really nat the top of their game. That i actually got it the way that you reach people nis by finding common ground. It s by separating ideas from identity and being genuinely open to persuasion debate is a way to organize conversations nabout. How the world is could should be or to put.
It another way. I would love to offer you nmy experience backed evidence tested guide nto talking to your cousin about politics. At your next. Family dinner reorganizing.
The way in which your team ndebates. New proposals thinking about how we change nour public conversation and so as an entry point into that debate. Requires that we engage nwith. The conflicting idea directly respectfully face to face the foundation of debate.
Is rebuttal. The idea that you make a claim nand. I provide a response and you respond to my response. Without rebuttal.
It s not debate nit s just pontificating and i had originally imagined nthat. The most successful debaters really excellent persuaders must be great at going to extremes. They must have some magical ability nto make the polarizing palatable and it took me a really nlong time to figure out that the opposite is actually true people who disagree the most productively nstart by finding common ground no matter. How narrow it is they identify the thing nthat.
We can all agree on and go from there the right to an education nequality between all people the importance of safer communities. What they re doing is inviting us into. What psychologists ncall shared reality and shared reality nis. The antidote to alternative facts.
The conflict of course is still there that s why it s a debate. Shared reality just gives us na platform to start to talk about it. But the trick of debate nis that you end up doing..
It directly face to face across the table and research backs up nthat that really matters professor juliana schroeder nat uc berkeley and her colleagues have research that suggests nthat listening to someone s voice as they make a controversial argument is literally humanizing. It makes it easier to engage nwith. What that person has to say so step away from the keyboards nstart. Conversing.
And if we are to expand nthat notion. A little bit nothing is stopping us from pressing pause non a parade of keynote speeches. The sequence of very polite npanel discussions and replacing some of that nwith a structured debate. All of our conferences could have nat their centerpiece.
A debate over the biggest nmost controversial ideas in the field each of our weekly team meetings ncould devote 10 minutes to a debate about a proposal to change nthe way in which that team works and as innovative ideas. Go nthis. One is both easy and free you could start tomorrow. Laughter and once we re inside.
This shared reality debate also requires nthat. We separate ideas from the identity nof. The person discussing them so in formal debate. Nothing is a topic nunless.
It is controversial that we should raise nthe voting age outlaw gambling. But the debaters don t choose their sides so that s why it makes no sense nto. Do what 10 year old julia did attacking the identity of the person nmaking. The argument is irrelevant because they didn t choose it your only winning strategy is to engage with the best.
Clearest nleast personal version of the idea. And it might sound impossible nor. Naive to imagine that you could ever take that notion noutside. The high school auditorium.
We spend so much time dismissing ideas nas democrat or republican rejecting proposals nbecause they came from headquarters or from a region nthat. We think is not like ours. But it is possible when i work with teams ntrying to come up with the next big idea or solve a really complex problem i start by asking them all of them nto submit ideas anonymously so by way of illustration two years ago. I was working with multiple ngovernment agencies to generate new solutions.
Nto reduce long term unemployment. Which is one of those really wicked sticky. Well studied npublic policy problems..
So exactly as i described nright at the beginning. Potential solutions were captured nfrom everywhere. We aggregated them each of them was produced non an identical template at this point they all look the same nthey have no separate identity and then of course nthey are discussed picked over refined finalized and at the end of that process nmore than 20 of those new ideas are presented to the cabinet ministers nresponsible for consideration. But more than half of those nthe originator of those ideas was someone who might have a hard time ngetting the ear of a policy.
Advisor or who because of their identity might not be taken nentirely seriously. If they did folks who answer the phones nassistants who manage calendars representatives from agencies nwho weren t always trusted imagine. If our news media ndid. The same thing you can kind of see it now na weekly cable news segment with a big policy proposal on the table that doesn t call it nliberal or conservative or a series of op eds nfor and against a big idea that don t tell you nwhere the writers worked our public conversations neven.
Our private disagreements can be transformed by debating ideas nrather than discussing identity and then the thing that debate. Nallows us to do as human beings is open ourselves. Nreally open ourselves up to the possibility that we might be wrong the humility of uncertainty one of the reasons. It is so hard nto disagree.
Productively is because we become nattached to our ideas. We start to believe that we own them nand that by extension they own us. But eventually if you debate long enough you will switch sides you ll argue for and against nthe expansion of the welfare state for and against compulsory voting. And that exercise nflips a kind of cognitive switch the suspicions that you hold about people who espouse beliefs nthat you don t have starts to evaporate because you can imagine yourself nstepping into those shoes and as you re stepping into those you re embracing nthe humility of uncertainty the possibility of being wrong and it s that exact humility nthat makes us better decision makers neuroscientist and psychologist.
Mark leary. Nat duke university and his colleagues have found that people nwho are able to practice. And it is a skill. What those researchers call nintellectual humility are more capable of evaluating na broad range of evidence are more objective when they do so and become less defensive nwhen.
Confronted with conflicting evidence all attributes that we want in our bosses. Colleagues discussion partners ndecision makers all virtues that we would like nto claim for ourselves. And so as we re embracing nthat humility of uncertainty. We should be asking each other nall of us.
A question our debate moderators. Our news anchors nshould be asking it of our elective representatives nand candidates for office. Too and this by the way isn t some fantasy about how public life nand. Public conversations could work it has precedent so in 1969 beloved american children s ntelevision presenter.
Mister rogers. Sits impaneled before the united states congressional nsubcommittee on communications chaired by the seemingly very ncurmudgeonly. John pastore and mister rogers..
Is there nto make a kind of classic debate. Case. A really bold proposal an increase in federal funding. Nfor public broadcasting and at the outset committee disciplinarian.
Nsenator. Pastore is not having it this is about to end nreally poorly for mister rogers. But patiently very reasonably nmister rogers makes the case. Why good quality children s broadcasting.
The kinds of television programs nthat talk about the drama that arises in the most ordinary of families matters to all of us even while it costs us. He invites us into a shared reality and on the other side of that table senator pastore listens nengages and opens his mind out loud in public on the record and senator pastore nsays to mister rogers and this is the first time ni ve had goosebumps in two days. And then later we need many more mister rogers. People.
With the technical skills nof debate and persuasion. But on the other side of that table we need many many nmany. More senator pastores and the magic of debate nis that it lets you it empowers you to be both mister rogers nand senator pastore simultaneously when i work with those same teams nthat we talked about before i ask them at the outset to pre commit nto the possibility of being wrong to explain to me and to each other nwhat. It would take to change their minds.
And that s all about the attitude nnot. The exercise once you start thinking about nwhat. It would take to change your mind you start to wonder. Why nyou were quite so sure in the first place.
There is so much nthat. The practice of debate has to offer us nfor. How to disagree productively and we should bring it to our workplaces. Our conferences.
Nour city council meetings and the principles of debate can transform nthe way that we talk to one another to empower us to stop talking nand to start listening to stop dismissing nand to start persuading to stop shutting down nand to start opening our minds. Thank you so much ” ..
Thank you for watching all the articles on the topic How to disagree productively and find common ground Julia Dhar . All shares of thetruthaboutdow.org are very good. We hope you are satisfied with the article. For any questions, please leave a comment below. Hopefully you guys support our website even more.
“Some days, it feels like the only thing we can agree on is that we can t agree — on anything. Drawing on her background as a world debate champion, Julia Dhar offers three techniques to reshape the way we talk to each other so we can start disagreeing productively and finding common ground — over family dinners, during work meetings and in our national conversations.nnCheck out more TED Talks: http://www.ted.comnnThe TED Talks channel features the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world s leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design — plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more.nnFollow TED on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/TEDTalksnLike TED on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TEDnnSubscribe to our channel: https://www.youtube.com/TED”,
TEDTalk, TEDTalks, Collaboration, Business, Personal Growth, Communication, Social Change, Politics, Society