It’s not always easy just to have a simple conversation among friends about topics like movies, books, illnesses, diets, new restaurants, and gossip. Some contentious issues can pop up to weigh down the mood with strong opinions and irreconcilable positions. A conversation between friends aims to be quiet, punctuated by soft laughter and perhaps a slapping of thighs, your own or the other’s, but not too lingeringly.
In a conversational setting, there are no points to score. Ordinary dialogue does not attempt to characterize another’s opinion as irrational, badly thought through, or full of logical holes. A colloquy from Latin meaning talking together aims to seek common ground, finding subjects worth talking about (or not). It is meant to be a pleasant exchange.
How does conversation descend into argument, or a debate with two sides clashing?
Of course, debate has its place. Its purpose is to put forth a proposition, say, “should we move to a federal system of government” and then have two sides argue the case for and against. It is clear from this format that dissent is expected. Agreeing too readily with the other side, except when engaging in irony, is merely accepting defeat — hey, you’re right and I’m wrong.
Carrying on a conversation with a determined debater can lead to emotional stress, even a headache. Why should we go to the theater when we can download the movie on the phone? You just want a dark place with air conditioning. Besides, have you read the reviews of this film? (Do you have to analyze everything and provide supporting facts?)
Any topic can be the subject of conversation or debate. And the latter need not be in an academic setting or a competition for medals. Social interaction can move like a dance with graceful coordinated steps, moving with the music; or it can be a discordant tug-of-war where everything a person says is challenged and rebutted.
Conversation really entails listening. A view is expressed and allowed to develop. The other person adds to the appreciation of the topic, giving a different perspective or providing a new insight. There is head-nodding — hey, I never though of it that way. (Yes, the narrator in the play is indeed unnecessary and even jarring.) After all, conversation allows disagreement too. It is treated as a different point of view that doesn’t need to be torn down to conform with one’s own.
It is hard to deal with an opinionated person especially if one does not agree with his beliefs. Still, this predictability (say, a rabid affection for the chief) allows conversation to flow to other unrelated streams, say the impact of online shopping on the retail industry.
Much harder to manage is discourse with a knee-jerk debater. There is no subject to hide behind as each topic is challenged with a contrary point of view. It is even possible that the view being expressed is actually the one previously held but just because the same opinion is now being supported, the opposite view is immediately embraced with gusto. If you’re white, then I have to be black. Let the games begin.
It is not right to give up and simply walk out of a contentious exchange — “okay, you just don’t make sense. You never do. Let’s just stop talking.” This reaction, though understandable, is too emotional. It’s best to just keep drinking your coffee and declare a verbal truce — hey, it was good to catch up with you.
Conversation and debate happen to use different kinds of thinking. Nobel laureate economist and psychologist, Daniel Kahneman in his book, Thinking, Fast and Slow describes fast thinking as “system one” which is basically intuitive and requiring no deliberate analysis, like when you find a woman attractive without thinking through the details of why. Reading a map or figuring out the subway system of Manhattan on your first visit is “system two” thinking. It is deliberate, rational, and requiring methodical analysis. Thus conversation which is intuitive and easy clashes with debating which thinks up of arguments and logical thrusts.
Both conversation and debate are needed in social relationships, though the latter may be more useful in corporate settings, legislative halls, courtrooms, and TV talk shows. There is a time and place for both conversation and debate. It’s something worth talking about… and arguing over.
A. R. Samson is chair and CEO of Touch DDB.
