Modern Western dialogue has become too competitive and this is detrimental to intellectual progress. This piece will trace where this attitude originated from and highlight some of the undesirable consequences I have observed regarding the tendency to treat dialogue as a competition.
We often hear the metaphor of a ‘marketplace of ideas’ used to explain how free expression leads us closer to ‘truth’. For this piece I will treat this idea as not merely a positive one, but a normative one. I take for granted that a competitive spirit and a desire to convert others to our perspective on a matter is a motivator for some people, some of the time, to engage in dialogue. A market of ideas feeds off this tendency. Yet I am concerned with the implications of encouraging this competitive spirit through the forums which facilitate our dialogues.
One such forum is Intelligence Squared Australia. For those unfamiliar with the format of debate hosted by this organisation this explanation from their website sums it up nicely: “The audience votes on the motion before and after hearing the arguments, providing both a ‘democratically’ voted winner, and by looking at the shift in sentiment from ‘before’ and ‘after’”.
The incentive structure impels speakers to provide arguments in favour of their position, and craft strong attacks against the arguments of their ‘opponent’. Putting aside those speakers who might lie or resort to hostile tactics to gain an advantage, my concern here is that competition detracts from the ‘task’ of understanding. The incentive structure is not built with the intention of providing a deep understanding of the other speaker’s perspective. The ‘opponent’ need only understand the arguments put before him well enough to discredit them, and make his argument appear more credible.
I cannot prove empirically (without funding) that in dialogues, on a given topic, with a random sample of relevant intellectuals, a debate will result in speakers having a shallower understanding of their counterpart’s take on the matter compared to a panel discussion. Yet the fact the incentives are structured to prioritize persuasion over comprehension make this possibility seem likely to me.
I have seen before the extent to which the other person’s actual opinions can become irrelevant. For five minutes (I checked the time), a couple of colleagues had been heatedly discussing multiculturalism. I interrupted and asked that they both define the key term in their discussion, ‘multiculturalism’. Shock and awe! They were not even vaguely talking about the same thing.
I am sure the more engaged readers have also encountered these cases of misunderstanding. I have seen quite a few on IQ2. My concern, and observation, is that due to the distraction of competition the task of definition is liable to be ignored. The heat that competition brings into an argument is simply not congruent with painstaking nature of the task of demarcation that is so vital for mutual understanding.
Another possible problem is the risk of a competitive mindset leading to yelling or other nastiness. This can make the entire exercise of dialogue unbearable to the listener and the speakers, risking disengagement. The unjustified salience of the charismatic and the confident also appears to me particularly pronounced in competitive settings.
The insistence on approaching dialogue as a competition is not an imperative, nor a compulsion, but is rather a habit of the mind that can be changed. Even if the institutions around us encourage competition it is indolent to concede to these subpar engagements without due consideration.
For quite a while now my attitude has been quite different. Free speech leads to truth (empiricist truth) through a different process:
First, a few people have an interest in specific question.
Next they determine to answer the question.
They utilise each other’s unique insights and combined brainpower to help shed light on the question for themselves (for the subjective aspects), as well as gain further insight into the empirical aspects of the riddle before them.
Dialogue is a partnership. Through an attitude of intellectual partnership I can gain information, enjoyment, and insight. It is a taxing pleasure to engage in dialogue as a source of sensory excitement or to bolster an ego. The tax is levied in the form of unattained insights. Instead of focussing on being persuasive, I strive to be calm and clear with my intellectual partners.
I do not pretend that any of this would be useful for research. Yet should any of you determine to try dialogue grounded in intellectual partnership, I would be interested to see if you experience the same informative and pleasant change I did when I abandoned my stall at the Market of Ideas.
razipilli 