We’re just talking here

Photo by Jorge Alvarez Lecaros: https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-men-pointing-to-each-other-2750174/ (This is not a picture of Ken Chan.)

Part of the long shadow of the pandemic, I believe, touches how we interact with one another in actual (as opposed to virtual) settings. At the risk of projecting my experiences on others, opportunities to connect with strangers and looser contacts very often leave me reflecting on my behaviour or that of others (i.e. Was I oversharing? Were they even listening?).

Last week, I was part of a wider networking event that followed a tried-and-true formula: Pre-Talk Networking, followed by “The Talk,” followed by (you guessed it) Post-Talk Networking. I was part of a handful of audience members who approached the presenter for an informal Q&A (Pre-Post-Talk Networking?). A conversation was already underway that exposed very different fundamental understandings of the context explored in “The Talk.”

For transparency, Ken Chan was sharing insights from Executive PhD research into the activity of lobbying. The discussion/discourse seemed to be hinging on whether or not corporate lobbying of government entities worked to the advantage or disadvantage of broader public interest. Shortly after I started listening, while waiting to raise my question, I heard Mr. Chan use the magical phrase (and elegant discussion ender), “Let’s agree to disagree.”

If one enjoys, as I do, engaging in conversation where there is civil disagreement, psychologists (and improvisational comedians with their, “Yes, and” discipline) will encourage highlighting areas of agreement. Reinforcement slows the entry of emotionally charged exchanges resulting from someone feeling attacked or demeaned. In such instances, our brains can engage automatic defensive responses that increase the emotional component of our contributions. Disagreeing tactfully can avoid the vicious cycle that ends with one party yelling, “I AM NOT YELLING!”

Some will compare and contrast debate with dialogue and/or discussion. In the spirit of exploring complex ideas, here are some thoughts on “agreeing” while disagreeing, by exploring the question, “To/with what can you agree?”

1 - Substance Agreement: You have made a valid point.

Were we debating: “Be it resolved that lobbying is a noble activity that should be both permitted and embraced by all parties,” any reasonable person would acknowledge some level of “it depends” in the context of real world activities. One can admit that the vast funding available to a large Oil & Gas company would create much greater capacity for their lobbying efforts (e.g. more people in more lobbies) than that available to a donator-funded grassroots advocacy organization. More does not necessarily mean more effective, but more is indeed more. Conceding a factual reality does not necessarily mean having to agree with the other party’s entire argument.

2 - Directional Agreement: You have raised something that is worth exploring.

The distinction between dialogue and debate becomes clear when we encounter an area that could be clarified. Both/all parties should “agree” that clarifying is good no matter what this reveals. We can be fully aware of our individual biases to find what we want to find, but also engage in a discussion that enlightens by identifying ambiguity. This may involve agreeing upon sources for credible information, as well as using better language to draw clearer distinctions.

NOTE: One of the persistent areas of ambiguity in the above context was how to gauge the effectiveness of lobbying. Mr. Chan shared that successful companies lobby, which raises the unanswerable question: Are they successful because they are lobbying (i.e. Lobbying brings material success) OR Are they lobbying because they are successful (i.e. Owing to material success, they finally have the financial room to engage in such activities)?

3 - Hypothetical Agreement: Your argument would make sense to someone (e.g. you) who had a very different understanding of the situation than I do.

Here we find, “Let’s agree to disagree,” but followed by the context. In the above instance, one may preface this hypothetical agreement with, “If I thought that large corporate entities were able to objectively evaluate the long-term implications of decisions that deliver short-term financial returns,” OR, “If I thought that the public scrutiny was sufficient such that public servants maintaining objectivity was a systematic requirement rather than a personal whim.” The immediately add-on would likely be, “But I don’t believe that,” and could easily include your reasoning.

There is an intellectual rigour in spelling out exactly what you would have to believe in order to agree. This functions as an invitation (or even a confession) in the form of, “If you can show me instances where this hypothetical belief is actually happening, maybe I can come around to your fundamental argument.” In reality, even when shown such “proof,” critical thinking can play a role in identifying whether or not such instances are exceptions or outliers. Many of these areas remain complex and our understanding is a function of what we have grown to believe.

Two take-aways to help lighten the post-Covid shadow on civil discourse:

1 - If we can hang onto both our convictions (e.g. our beliefs), as well as the possibility to have them swayed, we can make such dialogues a lot more satisfying for the participants and more insightful for any audience.

2 - Pick your spots (and partners) for such discussions and be ready with a low-rigour “Let’s agree to disagree” if the situation gets a little too spicy.