Discussion

This is an epic point in my life. I never dreamed, in all my wildest imagination, that I would some day need to define 'discussion.' It seems such a farce, discussion is two people talking, done.

I wish it were that easy. Maybe it is, I'm going to think on this for a bit.

What do we require for a good discussion? At least one person, as long as they're schizophrenic, two if you aren't haven't any luck finding one. Then you just need an idea.

Discussion can just be a monologue, I suppose, if you consider the audiences' internal dialogue. Discussion can be an agreement, words of support, questions to fill in blanks, disagreement, hostile, whimsical, comedic, venting, whatever.

Discussion is when one person is attempting to communicate with someone else (unless you're schizophrenic, and you're cool in my book.).

People sometimes disagree, during discussions, and discussions become some sort of informal debate. Person A believes that X will cause Y and we should do Z. Person B believes that X has to be done, and Y is hyperbolic, for example.

B needs to get their point of view to A, so that he can garner support for X. X has to be done, there is nothing else that can be done, the guillotine was dropped, and no one is going to reach out and lose fingers to stop it.

A needs to be able to see B's point of view, because it happens to be based on fact. B can attempt to convince A that Z is a less than optimal solution, because it requires further resources or would cause additional harm.

B can also discuss their concerns with Z, because they don't know much about Z. Perhaps A is indeed correct, and B needs to be the one who opens their eyes, because A has some pretty solid facts, too.

A and B need to reach an understanding or Q will happen, and that is whatever Y would have prevented, or happened while the problem went unfixed.

Discussion is not about reaching agreement. I am so tired of hearing people say 'let's agree to disagree, i could literally [REDACTED VIOLENT IMAGERY]. That phrase is most often said to excuse a lack of understanding. Not a lack of agreement.

Discussions seem to more commonly be about convincing the other party they are wrong, and not understanding each other's point of view. You keep disagreeing, because you can't get over the fact that you disagree long enough to understand one another.

I am personally trying to avoid this by asking questions during discussions. Asking questions about things you are not certain of allows you to choose which facts you provide the audience. Throwing all the facts in their face at once, without knowing what they are having an issue with, is giving up. From their point of view, you've just dropped a novel on them, and told them the answer they want is somewhere in there, good luck.

Throwing what you believe to be facts in someone's face, without any support, is asking them to find the patience of a god and sift throught them, themselves, to try and understand how these facts piece together to form your world view. Long story short, why bother discussing anything with someone who refuses to listen?

You could shout into a pillow to the same effect without risk angering someone. Or you can find someone else who is willing to listen to what you have to say. Why are we so concerned about angering people who don't respect us? It may just be easier to walk away. There are plenty of other people out there who are willing to listen to what you have to say.

If all parties involved can agree to understand and respect one another, that is all you need to look for. Seeking agreement is a luxury, once you both understand each other, the 'right' answer may be one neither of you thought of.

=let's do lunch= i hear the words ‘next week’ and ‘sometime’ when speaking with new friends a lot, and i finally kind of figured out why that bothers me, and what i’m working to do about it.

the thing is, ‘sometime’ never happens. we all intend to get around to it, and hang out, and grab coffee. let’s do lunch, they say, without meaning in television and movies all the time.

it’s almost taken with a cavalier attitude, tongue in cheek, between two people who don’t actually want to have lunch. somehow the people we want to hang out with become the people we don’t actually want to hang out with, over time, due to a lack of exposure.

i’m not saying i feel this is the case, with the people i am shepherding toward friendship, but i mean it about the people i have been friends with myself at some point, and the friends and co-workers i have met while here in California and who have meant to spend time with me for months, but ‘just can’t find the time,’

it makes sense; if i’m a new friend to you, you’re not going to spend much time thinking about developing that relationship, unless you also have no friends. if you have a friend network in place, you’re not going to ‘need’ to add new friends to your network, because you feel your time is already short.

it’s something i’ve started thinking of as the ‘i have too many friends already, i cannot find any time to sleep’ syndrome.

the new guy at work isn’t going to really add a lot to the party, even if he seems kinda alright.

so i have to get in people’s faces, and it is seen as nagging. because i have to constantly remind you people who have social lives that i do not have one, so you might bring me to a party once in a while, so i can expand MY group of friends and stop fucking nagging you.

imagining hostility in my words
if you infer insult in my words, i would like you to address the imagined insult with me.

if you cannot show me that modicum of respect, i quite honestly don’t have time for you.

i do what i can to look out for those around me, but i am not going to walk through life imagining there are tigers in the bushes. i do not have the energy to pry into your life and ask what’s going on, i need you to share that with me, and to be forthcoming with information.

living in fear that there are boogie men around each corner and sinister meanings in people’s words all the time is exhausting. i’m your friend, i am not the media. i have no interest in lying to you.

if you cannot clarify your concerns with me and get them out of your system and choose to continue assuming that i am talking down to you or that i am asserting i am better than you constantly, that is your fault.

if you are inferring that i do not care about you, love you as a friend or respect you, talk to me about it. you are more than likely incorrect.

why do you give a shit what i think? especially if you don’t love me?

look, it’s really simple.

if you just want to go ahead and walk through life assuming i am an asshole, that’s fine, i don’t care.

if you want to be a friend of mine, and you think i’m an asshole, maybe you should talk to me about it, and clarify your reading of my words before leaping to the negative all the time.

my understanding of arguments
i’m human, i have a lot of strong opinions. i also have a lot of strong opinions that are forged on shaky ground.

i defend my opinions, especially if i believe they are the right methodology for me. i expect you to defend your opinions as well. i want to understand your logic and reasoning so i can potentially spot flaws in my own logic.

if i firmly believe that 2+2 is 5, then i am going to make an ass out of myself defending it. if you firmly believe 2+2 is 4, when i debate and discuss with you, i expect you to defend your belief. if you don’t believe strongly enough in something, and you aren’t sure you are correct, maybe you should listen to me.

no matter how ridiculous it sounds, maybe i have some preconceptions that are incorrect that lead me to believe that 2+2 is 5 and i need you to be patient with me to explain i am wrong.

if i believe strongly, i will defend it.

why shouldn’t you defend YOUR opinions? and why do we constantly work from the angle that OUR opinions are infallible?

i’m really getting tired of getting into arguments with people where they don’t believe firmly enough in their opinion that they feel they are being attacked by me. if your opinion isn’t strong enough, maybe it is incorrect.

just because i am defending my viewpoint doesn’t mean i am not seeing the flaws in it you are pointing out. i am either explaining the flaws to you or defending them as not being the flaws you are seeing them to be. if you are unwilling to see my viewpoint, there’s no point in having a discussion.

i am listening to you, and hearing your words, and adjusting my view as necessary. please do the same for me.

a friend is pointing out the math example isn’t the best, but i don’t necessarily agree, i think it is an extreme example that demonstrates how absurd some people’s beliefs can be, and how weakly based they can be.

perhaps i strongly believe that 2 + 2 is 5 because in multiple additions of 2, a irrational 1 gets added… so 2 + 2 + 2 becomes 2 + 3 + 4. i don’t. but if i did, i would probably present that, and test it, and find out i was wrong, maybe following some advice you recommended.

communication expectations too high?
i’ve been under fire a lot recently about my extraordinarily high requirements for communication with my friends and the people in my life. i want to let everyone know that i understand where you are coming from. if it takes extra effort for you to share with me, i’m likely not going to hear from you, unless you want me to hear you.

i know i am asking a bit. i know i am asking you to put more energy into communicating with me, and making some extra efforts by communicating with me through means that i feel are more appropriate for various conversations.

i’m only requesting that you understand my position. as long as you understand where i am coming from, keep communicating with me how you feel is most appropriate. i can only control the distractions in my life, and manage them. i can let you know what about certain forms of communication i disagree with, but if you’re not willing to listen to me or understand me, or ask questions so you do understand, why am i bothering?

i am a very distractable person. i do what i can to make sure that i communicate in a means that is clear and easier to understand for my friends and the people who want to get me. many people seem to take this as a personal attack on their preferred forms of communication, and the knee-jerk reaction to my requests is getting pretty old.

i recently added a do not disturb script to my phone that, when DND is enabled, all calls are hung up on, sent to voicemail, and you have a period of 5 minutes to call me back and ring through. a text message is sent to the incoming number to let people know that i am probably busy, and if it is urget, please call back.

but that’s rude somehow. telling someone you’ve blocked their call. why? isn’t it rude to just call me out of the blue and expect me to drop everything so i can talk to you, regardless of what i’m doing, or how close to ejaculating i might be?

so here’s the thing; i do have high standards for communication, i am going to eventually write a full article about how i PERSONALLY prefer to communicate, so my friends and others can be aware.

i’m not constantly changing the rules for how to communicate with me, i am trying to find the best way to communicate effectively and to reduce unnecessary distractions in my life.

i am being perfectly clear about my expectations for communication. you do not have to satisfy them, you can communicate with me however you like. by ignoring my requests that i have explicitly made clear, you are being rude to me and not showing me consideration or respect.

philosophical circle jerks, and the benefit of masturbation
i posted recently about ‘preaching to the choir’ as being a sort of philosophical circle jerk. and i still stand adamantly behind that, i think conversations are much better when you get some difference of opinion involved.

however, i overlooked one of the great benefits of good conversation, even if you’re agreeing; the crazy tangents you find yourself following in the conversation. the thoughts you spark and the ideas you begin to germinate.

it’s almost as if group-think can spawn some sort of asexual reproduction of ideas.

taking advice
i have been sharing a lot of my opinions and viewpoints on issues lately, hoping to engage people in discussion and debate topics and argue opinions. the more i seem to ask for advice, the more reasons people seem to find to not dispense any.

if you share an opinion on something or a recommendation for something, i expect to be able to openly discuss your opinion or recommendation. if you didn’t put any effort into your recommendation or just came up with your opinion on the spot, and don’t actually know why you feel that way, it’s going to be apparent to me, when you share it.

even if you have put a lot of effort or thought into your words and advice and recommendations, i am still going to discuss it with you. this means i am going to critique it. if it’s not a solution i was looking for, i am going to explain that to you, and tell you why it isn’t going to work (IN MY OPINION) for me.

if that means you are less likely to share things with me, because i poke holes in your theories, that’s your fault. i am not going to go through life coddling people and rewarding them for behaving in ways i don’t agree with.

i am going to do everything i can, resources affording, to figure out where you are confused, where the miscommunication is, what words i said that you interpreted the incorrect way.

and where i haven’t completely understood you, i will ask you questions, to try to understand.

because you tell me i could do X, and i tell you that X isn’t a good solution for me because of A, B and C, don’t get all huffy with me, for turning down your advice. take my criticism, and apply it to your idea, and see if there is a solution for A and B, or C and A… or maybe all three.

i just had an argument with my mom, for example, over the phone, talking about my new idea to have my phone calls screened so i can be distracted less, in life, by people cold calling me.

she told me that my outgoing message was rude, and i asked for feedback on how to improve my message. she told me i should simply answer the phone or not, and i explained to her how that doesn’t fit my situation, and how my solution is closer to what i want.

i called for specific feedback, my outgoing message is something along the lines of: ‘if you have a scheduled call with me, or this is urgent, please hang up and call back. if it is not urgent, please leave a message, send me an email or a text message.’

i feel the content of that message is very important to someone calling me and going straight to voicemail. i feel it is important, and so i wanted to know how i could make it more digestible.

the issues i am worried about are: 1) google calling me for a scheduled phone screen from an unknown number, 2) waking up at 3am for anyone who calls because they decided to drunk dial, instead of only being woken up for emergencies, like server failures or my mom dying.

we then went round and round, me trying to explain to her why i feel it is important to control the incoming distractions in my life, and i don’t feel i got through to her about that at all.

she accused me of not listening to her advice, and telling me that i should not ask for feedback if i am not willing to receive it.

and i do not see where i failed to receive her feedback.

this is not a one-off, my friend Lisa did the same thing with me last night, presuming i was not hearing what she was saying. i was hearing exactly what she was saying, and i disagreed with it.

because i disagreed with it, and defended my opinion, she felt i wasn’t taking her advice, and so i am disingenuous in asking people for advice…

bullshit.

the effort you put into your advice and opinions is the effort you are going to get out of it. if you propose an idea that took you 3 seconds to think of, it’s likely got a lot of flaws.

if you have spent 20 minutes thinking about it, and doing research, you probably have a good idea of the existing flaws and potential solutions, so you can more accurately defend your opinion.

a friend pointed out the following: > if you call someone to ask for advice, let them give you their opinion > and that’s it. don’t argue w/ it won’t work for you, just say thanks. > It sounds almost liek you just wanted to hear what others opinions > were just to say no that wont work for me.

i don’t disagree with this, sometimes. sometimes i just want someone’s opinion to think about. but more often these days, my intention is to open up a discussion and talk about things, and educate myself.

that is my interest in hearing your thoughts and opinions. not to use, as another friend suggested, as ammo against you. i want to hear your ideas, and talk about them. i expect you to defend your facts, and i will defend mine.

but one man’s ‘facts’ are another man’s ‘fiction’, so keep an open mind that either of us could be wrong. and that there are multiple right answers in life.

user mail!
Anonymous asked: Don't quite get the "philosophical jerk session" phrase. Are you saying that the conversation is futile, or the exchange of ideas, or what? I do think I understand your disdain for casual conversation, or for dialogue that doesn't change anything. I mostly admire that you get it that understanding the other is primary, and that agreement is unnecessary. It is enough to get the other's point of view.

thanks for asking for clarification.

i don’t have disdain for normal conversation, per se. as i mentioned, i was able to share more about myself with Steve, and learn more about him, and that is a great benefit of conversation; learning about others.

but when the discussion is about mutual disgust, and it’s just two people venting at each other, agreeing with everything that is said, there are less opportunities to learn.

to make matters worse, venting to like minds directs your energy at people who already agree with you, and understand your perspective.

of course that doesn’t always hold true, so it’s not like i’m saying ‘stop talking with people.’ sometimes you have people with like-minds where one just hasn’t heard something phrased eloquently, and it all makes sense.

eyes can still be opened, and seeds can still be implanted and take root. and depending on the people, maybe things can actually grow from a conversation between like minds.

the side-effect i noticed, however, last night, was a sense of accomplishment, being understood by someone i was speaking with, knowing my words were heard.

and feeling satisfaction.

but when i started to analyze the satisfaction, it wasn’t as fulfilling as having a new idea dawn in my own head, or seeing my ideas take root in someone else’s head after arguing with them for 45 minutes.

so that’s my issue with it; it gives a sense of satisfaction, of a job well done, when nothing much was accomplished.

there is nothing wrong with satisfaction, but i’m trying to keep an eye on it, i don’t want to become complacent and satisfied that people have heard my words, and stop talking, and stop trying to open others’ eyes;

i feel that philosophical circle-jerks expend that energy and nurture that feeling of satisfaction that lets you rest on your laurels.

there’s nothing wrong with a good passionate discussion and the exchange of information, but you can rest on your laurels when you’re dead… am i right?

edit:

also, there is the idea of ‘group think’ which i’m not well read on, but is a major issue with discussions of like minds. feeding on each other’s inaccuracies and wild statements, and believing things that aren’t necessarily proven.

=disagreements=

don't be afraid to disagree
be afraid to not reach a level of understanding, instead.

arguments are not about right and wrong, they are about learning a different point of view. if you don’t have much to argue about, you’re not introducing new information to discuss.

i got to thinking about this, tonight after doing my first terrifying open mic session, while i was speaking with the gentleman who has run the open mic at Red Rock for (over?) 15 years. i stayed late passionately discussing similar ideas with one another, and it occured to me as i was walking toward my car in the dark, that we hadn’t really learned much in the process, i don’t think.

we learned a bit more about each other, which is pretty cool, so i would use that as a great defense for what i am about to state.

it’s nothing more than another philosophical circle jerk session.

we’re not implanting any seeds anywhere, i’d much rather have a philosophical mad-orgy, where everyone ends up gooey, covered in seeds of knowledge.

instead, we’re blowing our loads into kleenex and flushing them down the toilet; boiling off all that pent up anger and frustration, wasting it. metaphorically, it quenches our thirst, and our lust to breed knowledge is sated.

i’d rather shout until the veins in my neck are bulging at someone who is just NOT getting the point. i’d rather have that moment, mid-shout where my brain snaps, and i realize i was WRONG, ending up with a load in the face.

are you picking up what i’m putting down, people? are you hearing me? doesn’t anyone out there disagree with me, or not feel like you’re understanding exactly what i am saying?

i know i am not right. i want you to show me your view.

make me sticky with your seed… (oh god, i just couldn’t resist…)

p.s.

i am more interested in promoting ideas than i am people, but i have to give the man credit for opening my eyes a little wider tonight, the man behind the open mic nights, Steve Cavin.

i know so little about him, but i find his life story, that i have heard so far, extremely fascinating. he lent me a copy of his book ‘To Find Out’ which is about his journeys hitchhiking around the world, when he was 18.

i know my ex girlfriend Heather, in particular, would find his story appealing on some levels, so if she happens to see this, check it out.

p.p.s.

when i finally finish reading his story (which is exactly the type of book i was looking for, but frankly, i don’t read as much as i should), i plan to return it to him, or pass it along to someone else who would like to read it (and pass it along, and so on)

accepting things
it occurred to me when a friend first showed me the interior view of a restaurant on google maps’ streetview, my first instinct was to tear it apart. i was looking at all the negative i could see coming from it, and getting ready to shit on it, when i realized how good a resource that is for people who are afraid to explore new places.

so then i realized that’s just how i go through life. and i suspect it’s instinctive to do so.

when provided with something new and unknown, it is imperative to assess the risks and dangers before accepting it as useful. if we didn’t do that, we’d still be eating berries and dying from dysentery. hell, we probably wouldn’t have made it to the eating phase.

so yeah, i know i throw a negative slant onto things, and i pick things apart, and focus on the flaws. but occasionally, i see something good in it and accept it. if i don’t see a use for something, i don’t use it, and when people come to me and tell me to try it anyhow, i defend my point of view.

that doesn’t mean i won’t be able to accept your point of view, or even come to agree with your point of view. but if you’re not willing to share it with me, so i can look for flaws, and find a good use, i’ll never see things the way you do.

we need to reach for some common ground here. i want to understand you, and i am attempting to make it easier for you to see me. so you can poke at my flaws, and show me the right path, if need be.