Thoughts.com Blogs - A Discussion Upon Discussion

View Blog

A Discussion Upon Discussion

This post, and subsequent responses, are meant to address a fundamental question, "What is the value of discussion?" Specifically, we will be attempting to tell to you, the reader, why we are taking the time to discuss topics such as religion, science, current issues, ethics, and other such subjects. Peripherally, we will also be discussing the difference between a quality discussion and a poor discussion. This is going to be done in order to establish clear guidelines for ourselves, as well as in the hope that it will encourage commenters to our blog posts to consider them as they offer their responses. We feel it is important to establish these items now, in the beginning, in order to both inform the reader as to why these blog posts are worth reading, and to cement our own desires to write them in the first place, as well as to put some solid game

Discussion is important because it accomplishes the following, and more:

Clarifies peoples' understanding of topics
Raises awareness of important issues
Exposes opposing viewpoints
Allows people to learn from one another
Forces us to consider our positions more deeply
•Can foster tolerance (if done right!)

The above list is certainly not exhaustive. The advantages of discussion are far too numerous to list here, though I think the list given above is enough alludes to the importance of a quality discussion. A quality discussion is one that accomplishes the following:

Purposefully begins with and addresses a question
Remains focused on the topic at hand
Tries to weigh opposing views equally
Is free of bigotry and insults (follows the "Nice-to-people Rule")

Purposefully begins with and addresses a question

There are few more effective ways of inciting a discussion than to ask a question. In fact, it can be argued that discussion, or argument, as philosophers would say, is largely a process in which one critically analyses a question in an attempt to come up with a better question, ad infinitum. Of course, this is not to say that the is such a thing as a bad question or a stupid question. Really there are only undeveloped questions, which are a critical part of the process. It has to start somewhere! So long as questions are being asked, discussion will be had, and that is exactly what we want.

A discussion is most valuable when it offers clarity on a subject that did not exist previously. To this end, the discussion should develop with the intention of answering the question that initiated it in the first place.

Remains focused on the topic at hand

Tries to weigh opposing views equally

Nice-to-people Rule

The "Nice-to-people Rule" is described well by Chris Crawford in his blog "Civil Discussion Between Liberals & Conservatives" (http://civildiscussionbetween.blogspot.com/)
No entry may contain any direct or indirect reference to any participant.

It's a clear and simple rule, and while it may seem a bit silly on first sight, it's actually a very good way of insuring that the discussion is confined to the issues, not the personalities. It does impose a somewhat stilted style upon the discussion, but it also guarantees that there will be no ugliness, nastiness, snideness, or any of the other sins that universally stain blogs. Here are some examples of the wrong way to make a statement and the right way to make a statement:

Wrong: "That's an idiotic statement."
Right: "That statement is wrong."
Why: the first statement indirectly calls somebody an idiot. After all, the only person who can make an idiotic statement is an idiot. ...

Wrong: "Sorry to puncture your balloon, but..."
Right: "I disagree."
Why: The giveaway is the use of a second person pronoun. This also violates the Nice Principle because it is patronizing.

Wrong: "Yeah, right, and I've got a bridge to sell."
Right: "This idea fails to take into account the fact that..."
Why: the first statement implies that somebody is naive.

Wrong: An Arabic salutation offered in opposition to a statement about Islam that the writer finds unacceptably charitable.
Right: Counter the idea, not the person.
Why: the Arab salutation is an underhanded way of insinuating that the first writer is a terrorist. The same thing would apply to using such phrases as "Sieg Heil" or "comrade" in reference to another person, because these suggest that he is a Nazi or a Communist.