Menu
header photo

Project Vision 21

Transforming lives, renewing minds, cocreating the future

Blog Search

Blog Archive

Comments

There are currently no blog comments.

Let’s change meaningless argumentation into meaningful dialogue

Francisco Miraval

I recently learned something I have learned years ago, but now I had to learned it again: you can’t argue with people unwilling or unable to see their own prejudices, because if you do the argument will turn into a useless confrontation.

The idea of being blind to our own ideas, that is, the lack of awareness of our “blind spot” in our minds regarding our own beliefs, has been analyzed in detail by Mahzarin Banaji and Anthony Greenwald in their book Blind Spot, where they emphasize even in the subtitle that those who can’t see their own prejudice are usually and precisely the “good people”.

In a different context, Dr. Otto Scharmer, senior lecturer at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and promoter of the Theory of U, also talks about our “blind spot”, but not at an individual level, but at a global level. That collective blind spot, according to Scharmer, is the foundation upon which the political, economic, and cultural-spiritual divides are built.

So, according to these experts, we have almost totally lost our ability to have a dialogue either among people or among groups. And we are paying the consequences of that. In her book Reclaiming Conversation, Dr. Sherry Turkle (also at MIT), losing the ability to have a conversation (which has been replaced by exchanging information using different platforms) means losing the ability to develop empathy.

Obviously, this is a very complex topic and its proper analysis goes way beyond the limits of this limited column. Yet, it is clear that if we ignorantly remain trapped inside our own ideas (trapped inside our own ignorance) and, at the same time, we prefer digital interaction to human interaction, then at best true, constructive dialogue becomes difficult or impossible and, at worst, it becomes a confrontation.

In his book Falling Upwards, Franciscan priest Richard Rorh describes that situation as the “immaturity” proper of the “first half” of our lives. Such immaturity can’t be solved with arguments. It takes a conscious process of self-discovery (usually guided by a mentor) to understand and accept the superficiality and falsehood of the ego we had constructed. Self-discovery also leads to a new awareness of the unity of being, according to Rorh.

Without that awareness, we will remain trapped inside our own “dualistic thinking” where everything is perceived as a fight between opposites with one side expected to win. If that’s how you think, they you will only see differences and you will emphasize those differences to generate even more conflicts. In other words, dualistic thinking can’t be stop with arguments. If you work hard, you will outgrow it.

Who do we move beyond the negative dialogue, beyond blaming other, beyond closed minds, hearts, and hands? Can we open our minds, hearts, and hands to create a different future? Yes, if we abandon the illusion that change begins outside ourselves and we stop giving cliché answers to new disruptive events. Or, as Paul said two millennia ago, let’s transform ourselves by renewing our minds.

Go Back