Dialogue ain’t for Sissies!

[coberst]

Dialogue ain’t for Sissies!

 

Human discourse seldom goes beyond adolescent styled discussion, debate, or argument. Intellectually, judging by our discourse, few Americans have the sophistication to undertake dialogue. I am 74 years old and have never experienced dialogue either as a participant or as a spectator. Our discourse seldom takes us beyond tacit (only a vague feeling) knowledge.

 

I am convinced that until we can dialogue we will never be safe from self destruction and perhaps even destruction of the planet for any life forms.

 

Few Americans are prepared to dialogue. Dialogue is much different from discussion and debate. To dialogue requires much preparation and our educational system have not prepared us for the practice of dialogue.

 

Our educational system is almost completely dedicated to rote teaching. Our system is almost totally a system of teaching by telling. Why is this so?

 

A didactic technique of educating young people is the most efficient way of inculcating facts into the memory of children. It seems to me that it is necessary to teach facts to children as quickly and as efficiently as possible during their early years.

 

It is vital that we have knowledge of many and varied types of algorithms. The more our lives are controlled by technology the more algorithms we must know.

 

However, there are no known algorithms for many problems that we face daily. Where we fail to have algorithms we must find ways to facilitate understanding.

 

How does the Socratic technique, or as it is more often called the dialogue method, enhance understanding by a student?

 

A classroom that is focusing on a dialogue technique of instruction would be one wherein there would be the usual teacher and a number of pupils. A question or a matter of interest would be introduced and pupils would be asked to give their opinion on the matter. Each student voicing a point of view would be subject to questions by members of the class and the instructor and each would be expect to defend the opinion as best they can. Such a class program would require, in many cases that the students come to class well prepared and ready to become an active participant.

 

The subject might be the American war in Iraq, for example. One can imagine in such a case that there would be many different points of view. Some students might be from homes wherein varying political affiliations might be held. Some students may be Muslims or Jews of Protestants. Such a question would elicit many and strongly held views. The views of all students would be subjected to questions focusing upon the quality of the argument supporting a view and perhaps questions that might focus upon the biases exposed by the view. Assumptions would be examined and questioned. The whole process is directed toward establishing a critical habit of thought in all students.

 

How does a young person who has finished their schooling develop their own value system?

 

How does a young person develop a sound intellectual foundation upon which to build a life?

 

What is a sound intellectual foundation?

 

How does a young person learn to ask the important questions?

[HydrogenBond]

If you look at all the various points of view in a topic like Iraq, each contains valid points. To see that, one needs to get rid of subjective bias and try to be totally objective without any preconceived opinion. Since they all contain valid points, the whole truth is sort of a synthesis where all the valid points can be expressed at the same time, not as N different points of view, but as one integrated point of view. Culture appears to teach specialization such that each of the N points of view is sort of a specialty niche. A generalists education is not so much concern about one of the specialty N's, but knows a little about all of them to be able to learn any N. But being more aware of the other N's they can go there to. For the generalists, the total data that has to be processed is higher. The specialty approach can be easier, which is why it is preferred. One has to less data to process.

 

An analogy are all the opinions are the components of an engine. Bringing them all together is the only way to make the engine functional. But each speciality opinion is focusing on their component, pretending this is the most important part of the engine. The advantage of specialization is it allows each component to evolve, but the engine is never built. The main problem faced by the generalists, getting the engine to work, may require some part modification so all the parts are able to mess. He may be faced with one component optimized for speed and another economy. Both specialists will believe they have successfully optimized their component and may not wish to change. In terms of the speciality part they may be correct, but if the goal is the engine, it may not be.

 

The next part of the dynamics is connected to ego-centricity. The specialty approach makes it easier to become a master. There is less data to worry about, if one is looking at one component instead of the engine. The generalists has to deal with far more data making it harder to become a master of all trades, since there are too many trades to master. The other way we can distribute this data over 5-10 people. This narrow data allows the specialist more time to practice ego-centric theatrics. The generalists is still trying to move toward just the goal of master allowing less time to practice their entertainment skills. When the debate begins the masters come across more confident, so the engine is never built.

[Tolouse]

How does a young person learn to ask the important questions?

 

to dialog properly, one also has to know the information, i think

 

it's right that in order to form any opinion of their own, they have to be taught early though. but to teach one to hold formed biased opinions and temper to keep from getting into heated debates or arguments would be harder, i presuppose

[Pyrotex]

My first actual dialogues occurred in grad school when I took a Philosophy course as an elective. The teacher was a septigenarian named Dr. Harry Bear. I am not kidding. Grouchy, persnickety old cuss. First day, he asked, "What is the Good?"

 

It took the entire semester for me to "dialogue" to his satisfaction. Half the class never did. It was one of the toughest courses I ever took. Bruising!

[coberst]

Hydrogen

 

Well said. I have encountered few people who are familiar with dialogue.

[coberst]

Pyrotex

 

Based upon your experience do you think many adults can learn to do dialogue?

[Pyrotex]

...Based upon your experience do you think many adults can learn to do dialogue?

Hmmmm...

 

I think most adults could be taught to dialogue. IF they wanted to or saw some benefit in it.

 

But I don't think the vast majority would want to, or see the benefit. Hell, they prolly don't even see the DIFFERENCE between true dialog and what they already do.

 

Dialog is a subtle and difficult art form. Most folks aren't "up for it".

[coberst]

“On Dialogue” written by “The late David Bohm, one of the greatest physicists and foremost thinkers this century, was Fellow of the Royal Society and Emeritus Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, University of London.

 

Bohm is convinced that communication is breaking down as a result of the crude and insensitive manner in which it is transpiring. Communication is a concept with a common meaning that does not fit well with the concepts of dialogue, dialectic, and dialogic.

 

I claim that if we citizens do not learn to dialogue we cannot learn to live together in harmony sufficient to save the species.

[Kriminal99]

The source of the uselessness of common argument is the metaphor that you are so fond of. Not everyone is subject to this weakness in the way we think however. Some people have learned the natural ability to distinguish fact from fiction starting from a small amount of information. These people always "dialogue" when they debate.

 

These people naturally define words differently than others, using a special criteria.

[nutronjon]

I am afraid to respond. Too often when I state my point of view that is the last post in a thread.