Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

Discussions are interesting because depending on the context, I'll have different goals in mind.

When I have a discussion one-on-one, my goal is usually to convince them of my point. This happens a lot with Elaine and I, since we talk so much. Sometimes she will make some point and I will disagree, so I'll talk to her about it and we'll have a discussion. Sometimes, she'll call these debates or arguments, although I think those two words have connotations that imply anger, and I don't think our discussions have that kind of emotion. When we have discussions, my goal is to convince her of my point. I don't always convince her, and she's convinced me I was wrong before, and this seems like a good way for it to be. It's just a private conversation between two people both trying to be persuasive.

When I have a public discussion on a public forum, my goal is usually a little different. It's not necessarily about convincing the other person, but arguing my point so that other people can see both sides and decide for themselves.

Here's an example from job. At my work, we have this public document space. People can write documents or whatever, and people can leave comments and have discussions. Recently, upper management is trying to solidify a process for employee ideas to get approval and money to become real products, so they wrote a doc describe what the process will be. One of the steps is committee review, which is made up of a bunch of other employees. Someone pointed out that the doc didn't specify that a idea submitter couldn't be on the committee, and a director responded that, yes, an idea submitter could be on the committee. Seemed obviously flawed to me, so I pointed out what was wrong with it, and we had a small discussion.

My goal in this context is only partially to convince him. He isn't the only person who gets a say in what the process looks like, so when I had this discussion, I'm not looking to convince just him, but anyone else who might be reading. I think this is an interesting distinction, because even though the listener is a passive entity in the discussion, they will decide where they stand on the subject and maybe influence the process in other ways. It's a bit like the way presidental debates are setup. Candidates don't debate to try and convince each other, they're trying to convince the audience.

I think it's important to speak up, even if you don't think you'll actually convince the other person. I mean, if it's a one-on-one discussion, and you think it's pointless, it's probably pointless, but in any setting where other people are involved, you could talk your point. Just put it out there, and even if the other person is unconvinced, you've at least planted the seed of opposition, which is important for any listener that might think critically.