How do we make sure everyone is heard?

[Marduk]

I know you're not talking about me. And I respect you for that. If we're being honest, I know you're right about your feeling that it would not be well received here. But it SHOULDN'T be that way, and it makes me sad that you're right.

[vorpal blade]

In regard to the "Dialogue vs. debate" debate, I'm sure there is room for both in this forum. By the way, here is the way I see the difference between the two.

Dialogue vs. debate
• Dialogue is deceptive: one or more sides work secretly to advance their position.
o Debate is honest: two sides oppose each other and attempt to present the truth as they see it.

• In dialogue, getting the other side to come to see it your way is the goal.
o In debate, standing up for truth as you see it is the goal.

• In dialogue, one listens to the other side(s) in order to stealthily undermine them.
o In debate, one listens to the other side in order to find flaws and to counter its arguments.

o Dialogue affirms a participant’s point of view.
o Debate enlarges and possibly changes the bystander’s point of view, if not always your own.

• Dialogue conceals assumptions to avoid evaluation.
o Debate reveals assumptions for public evaluation.

• Dialogue causes critique of the other position in order to arrive at a common understanding more to your liking.
o Debate causes introspection on one’s own position in order to defend it.

• Dialogue does not reveal one’s own true position, which one secretly believes is the best solution, in order to influence the outcome of the dialogue.
o Debate defends one's own positions in an above board manner, with a “may the best man win” attitude.

• Dialogue gives the deceptive appearance of an open-minded attitude.
o Debate creates a strong-minded attitude; a determination to know what you think is right before you debate.

• In dialogue, one gradually submits ones best thinking, knowing that other people will be taken unaware.
o In debate, one submits one's best thinking and defends it against challenge in order to honestly show what he thinks is right.

• Dialogue calls for subtly temporarily suspending other's disbeliefs.
o Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one's beliefs.

• In dialogue, one searches for basic agreements favorably to oneself.
o In debate, one searches for important differences.

• In dialogue one searches for flaws and weaknesses in the other positions, but doesn’t reveal this information directly.
o In debate one searches for flaws and weaknesses in the other position.

• Dialogue involves a fake concern for the other person and seeks to not alienate or offend.
o Debate involves a countering of the other position without focusing on feelings or relationship and never belittles or deprecates the other person.

• Dialogue assumes that there is a right answer and that you can manipulate many people to accept it if they think they have worked it out together.
o Debate assumes that there is a right answer and that someone has a better idea about it than someone else.

• Dialogue remains open-ended until you get what you want.
o Debate implies a tentative conclusion.

[thebigcheese]

I suppose you could say that debate doesn't really allow for validation, but dialogue does. It seems to me that we're all seeking acceptance here. We all want our opinions validated by someone, so we either beat the dead horse until someone concedes or we hide our opinions to avoid the backlash. To avoid that kind of scenario, we all need to be more accepting of others' views.

[Marduk]

I'm not sure what I'd define as the difference between the two, and I'm not entirely approving of the idea of assigning labels to various styles. This just leads to semantics where little is solved. Rather, I'll present some caveats of what I'd like to see here on the board.

A genuine appraisal of one's own thoughts and feelings on a particular matter are necessary. Without this, no true understanding can be fomented.

Everyone's point of view is given the dignity it deserves. Anyone is welcome to disagree with anyone else, and if seen as necessary, bring in alternate sources to defend their point of view. At no point are they allowed to criticize or belittle. But respect and love comes before disagreement.

Everyone may reply as much or as little as they like. Those posting are encouraged to acknowledge those who respond less frequently.

Our goal here is neither to bring others to our point of view, nor to "stand up for truth" as our grasp on truth is just as tenuous as anyone else's. Our goal here is to present all sides of a discussion and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. Only in this way can true intellectual progress be made.

Assumptions are to be brought to light, whether by one's own admission, or the admonishment of others. In this way, any idea is fully concieved and understood before an honest appraisal is given.

We are all to find common ground as much as it exists, when possible. In the legal world, this might be called "an examination for discovery." Only by fully understanding where we agree can we begin to appreciate where we disagree, and the distance of ground between the two points.

Above all, genuine concern and love for everyone else, regardless of background or belief must be established. Someone who feels their opinions (and by association, themselves) belittled and demeaned will have more reason to avoid true analysis, not less.

That's what I'd like to see here. I think these things are difficult to balance, and will require work from anyone who wants to participate in this community, but in the end will allow for a much more healthy and productive environment.

[melbabi]

Vorpal, while I disagree with your interpretation of dialogue and debate, I respect your thoughts and seeing as I already brought up my thoughts on it, I will leave it at that. I hope we can agree to disagree.

Marduk, I knew I was interpreting it wrong! Thanks for elaborating, I appreciate it! Also, I like your list and I would also add that belittling or demeaning someone's experiences is not part of respecting individuals and should be avoided.

[Tao]

Whistler brought up a good point as well:

Another, and perhaps separate issue, is to divorce your ideas from you. If someone attacks your ideas, they should state so carefully and perhaps remind you that you are not your ideas (though your life may be predicated on them). I know that for subjects discussing religion and lifestyle it is difficult to separate these things, but I believe that some detachment is necessary for fruitful discussion. If no one is willing to change their ideas, there is no point in discussing them.

This runs parallel to something I learned from the Baha'i faith: when we give an idea to the group, we have just done that: given it up. It is no longer ours, nor should we attach our pride to its success or demise. Being willing to throw out an idea then see its flaws and discuss them rationally is a vital aspect to progress. We all can say "here are my experiences and the conclusions I've drawn from them so neyah!" It is quite a different challenge to look at said experience and discuss the biases that went into the formation of conclusions, and how reality may differ therefrom.

Our goal here is to present all sides of a discussion and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. Only in this way can true intellectual progress be made.

Well said.

[thebigcheese]

One of my former design professors taught us that we need to learn to divorce ourselves from our artwork. That way, when the criticism comes (and it certainly will), we aren't so personally offended by it -- rather, we see it as constructive and are able to learn from it. Apply that as you will.

[vorpal blade]

[It is not that I am uncomfortable exploring other belief systems, but that I don't feel that my agnosticism is well received or respected by some participants here (no, I'm not talking about you, Marduk)

I honestly don't know anyone in this forum who would not respect you or your beliefs. They may not agree with you, but we can certainly respect those who hold different beliefs.

[vorpal blade]

I suppose you could say that debate doesn't really allow for validation, but dialogue does. It seems to me that we're all seeking acceptance here. We all want our opinions validated by someone, so we either beat the dead horse until someone concedes or we hide our opinions to avoid the backlash. To avoid that kind of scenario, we all need to be more accepting of others' views.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'd like to add something to this.

Last week I was listening to a conversation between two women. Every time one of them would finish what she was saying the other would start her part of the conversation with an affirmation of what the other had just said. "That is so true! And, you know what...." And then say what she wanted to say. As each began to speak she would first validate what the other had said. This went on for more than a half hour, with each person making dozens of comments, but each time the other felt the need to state agreement before she could speak. I got to thinking that this is a nurturing sort of dialogue. I think there is a time and place for this kind of discussion. But I think that it is basically a feminine way of talking. Men don't spend a lot of time validating what others say, nor do they participate in discussions for the purpose of seeking acceptance, speaking in generalities and acknowledging the exceptions.

So, I don't see anything "incorrect" or wrong for a man to be speaking and acting as a man. Men and women have different styles of conversation, and we need both. Men are more into debate, of protecting something, and there is nothing wrong with that. I don't come here for validation or to find acceptance. For those who do, that is great. I have no criticism of that. Thank you thebigcheese for calling this to my attention. I'll try to keep it in mind.

[Whistler]

:-{ = whistler + gender stereotypes

[Marduk]

Yeah, Vorpal, I don't agree with that stereotype at all. Maybe I'm just a woman.

[thebigcheese]

I suppose you could say that debate doesn't really allow for validation, but dialogue does. It seems to me that we're all seeking acceptance here. We all want our opinions validated by someone, so we either beat the dead horse until someone concedes or we hide our opinions to avoid the backlash. To avoid that kind of scenario, we all need to be more accepting of others' views.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'd like to add something to this.

Last week I was listening to a conversation between two women. Every time one of them would finish what she was saying the other would start her part of the conversation with an affirmation of what the other had just said. "That is so true! And, you know what...." And then say what she wanted to say. As each began to speak she would first validate what the other had said. This went on for more than a half hour, with each person making dozens of comments, but each time the other felt the need to state agreement before she could speak. I got to thinking that this is a nurturing sort of dialogue. I think there is a time and place for this kind of discussion. But I think that it is basically a feminine way of talking. Men don't spend a lot of time validating what others say, nor do they participate in discussions for the purpose of seeking acceptance, speaking in generalities and acknowledging the exceptions.

So, I don't see anything "incorrect" or wrong for a man to be speaking and acting as a man. Men and women have different styles of conversation, and we need both. Men are more into debate, of protecting something, and there is nothing wrong with that. I don't come here for validation or to find acceptance. For those who do, that is great. I have no criticism of that. Thank you thebigcheese for calling this to my attention. I'll try to keep it in mind.

It's probably not true of everyone here, but it seems to me that this is one of the main complaints that people have about this forum.

[Katya]

I suppose you could say that debate doesn't really allow for validation, but dialogue does. It seems to me that we're all seeking acceptance here. We all want our opinions validated by someone, so we either beat the dead horse until someone concedes or we hide our opinions to avoid the backlash. To avoid that kind of scenario, we all need to be more accepting of others' views.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'd like to add something to this.

Last week I was listening to a conversation between two women. Every time one of them would finish what she was saying the other would start her part of the conversation with an affirmation of what the other had just said. "That is so true! And, you know what...." And then say what she wanted to say. As each began to speak she would first validate what the other had said. This went on for more than a half hour, with each person making dozens of comments, but each time the other felt the need to state agreement before she could speak. I got to thinking that this is a nurturing sort of dialogue. I think there is a time and place for this kind of discussion. But I think that it is basically a feminine way of talking. Men don't spend a lot of time validating what others say, nor do they participate in discussions for the purpose of seeking acceptance, speaking in generalities and acknowledging the exceptions.

So, I don't see anything "incorrect" or wrong for a man to be speaking and acting as a man. Men and women have different styles of conversation, and we need both. Men are more into debate, of protecting something, and there is nothing wrong with that. I don't come here for validation or to find acceptance. For those who do, that is great. I have no criticism of that. Thank you thebigcheese for calling this to my attention. I'll try to keep it in mind.

As a student of linguistics, the first thing I'd like to see some actual data or research backing up this claim. If it holds up, then we can get into whether this forum should be more "male" or "female" in its conversation style.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

As a student of linguistics, the first thing I'd like to see some actual data or research backing up this claim. If it holds up, then we can get into whether this forum should be more "male" or "female" in its conversation style.

I'll agree with what Katya said, in less polite terms: My BS detector is going off.

[vorpal blade]

It was interesting to read the five responses I got from my attempts at dialogue in my last post in this thread. First, none of them conformed to the rules of polite dialogue, especially Sauron’s aggressive response when I first read it, before he changed it to its present form. And I consider Marduk’s response to be head-on, confrontational and aggressive—as befits a man. Second, all of them fit the gender stereotypes. I’d recommend the Wikipedia article on Gender role. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role Among other things it was said

Women are more emotionally expressive… Women express more love, fear, and sadness…. Women are inclined to express agreement and support, while men are more inclined to debate. [Emphasis added] Males are more aggressive in all cultures for which data exists.[citation needed] This is related to, but not solely determined by, age and hormones though some researchers would suggest that women are not necessarily less aggressive than men but tend to show their aggression in more subtle and less overt ways (Bjorkqvist et al. 1994, Hines and Saudino 2003).

You might also look at the work of Julia T. Wood. Some excerpts from her writings can be found here: http://www.austincc.edu/colangelo/1318/woodgender.htm Here are a few of the comments I thought pertinent to this dialogue.

Equality between people is generally important in women’s communication (Aries, 1987). To achieve symmetry, women often match experiences to indicate “you’re not alone in how you feel.” Typical ways to communicate equality would be saying, “I’ve done the same thing many times,” “I’ve felt the same way,” or “Something like that happened to me too and I felt like you do.” Growing out of the quest for equality is a participatory mode of interaction in which communicators respond to and build on each other’s ideas in the process of conversing (Hall & Langellier, 1988). Rather than a rigid you-tell-your-ideas-then-I’ll-tell-mine sequence, women’s speech more characteristically follows an interactive pattern in which different voices weave together to create conversations. [I’m thinking of another thread here.]

Also important in women’s speech is showing support for others. To demonstrate support, women often express understanding and sympathy with a friend’s situation or feelings. “Oh, you must feel terrible,” “I really hear what you are saying,” or “I think you did the right thing” are communicative clues that we understand and support how another feels.
Inclusivity also surfaces in a fifth quality of women’s talk, which is responsiveness (Beck, 1988; Tannen, 1990; Wood, 1993). Women usually respond in some fashion to what others say. A woman might say “Tell me more” or “That’s interesting”; perhaps she will nod and use eye contact to signal she is engaged; perhaps she will ask a question such as “Can you explain what you mean?” Responsiveness reflects learned tendencies to care about others and to make them feel valued and included (Kemper, 1984; Lakoff, 1975). It affirms another person and encourages elaboration by showing interest in what was said.[emphasis added]

Men’s speech. Masculine speech communities define the goals of talk as exerting control, preserving independence, and enhancing status. Conversation is an arena for proving oneself and negotiating prestige. This leads to two general tendencies in men’s communication. First, men often use talk to establish and defend their personal status and their ideas, by asserting themselves and/or by challenging others. Second, when they wish to comfort or support another, they typically do so by respecting the other’s independence and avoiding communication they regard as condescending (Tannen, 1990).

To establish their own status and value, men often speak to exhibit knowledge, skill, or ability. Equally typical is the tendency to avoid disclosing personal information that might make a man appear weak or vulnerable (Derlega & Chaiken, 1976; Lewis & McCarthy, 1988; Saurer & Eisler, 1990). For instance, if someone expresses concern about something, a man might say “The way you should handle that is…,” “Don’t let them get to you,” or “You ought to just tell them …” This illustrates the tendency to give advice that Tannen reports is common in men’s speech. On the relationship level of communication, giving advice does two things. First, it focuses on instrumental activity – what another should do or be – and does not acknowledge feelings. Second, it expresses superiority and maintains control. It says “I know what you should do” or “I would know how to handle that.” The message may be perceived as implying the speaker is superior to the other person. Between men, giving advice seems understood as a give-and-take, but it may be interpreted as unfeeling and condescending by women whose rules for communicating differ.

A second prominent feature of men’s talk is instrumentality – the use of speech to accomplish instrumental objectives. As we have seen, men are socialized to do things, achieve goals (Bellinger & Gleason, 1982). In conversation, this is often expressed through problem-solving efforts that focus on getting information, discovering facts, and suggesting solutions. Again, between men this is usually a comfortable orientation, since both speakers have typically been socialized to value instrumentality. However, conversations between women and men are often derailed by the lack of agreement on what this informational, instrumental focus means. To many women it feels as if men don’t care about their feelings. When a man focuses on the content level of meaning after a woman has disclosed a problem, she may feel he is disregarding her emotions and concerns. He, on the other hand, may well be trying to support her in the way that he has learned to show support – suggesting ways to solve the problem.

A third feature of men’s communication is conversational dominance. Despite jokes about women’s talkativeness, research indicates that in most contexts, men not only hold their own but dominate the conversation. This tendency, although not present in infancy, is evident in preschoolers (Austin, Salehi, & Leffler, 1987). Compared with girls and women, boys and men talk more frequently (Eakins & Eakins, 1976; Thorne & Henley, 1975) and for longer periods of time (Aries, 1987; Eakins & Eakins, 1976; Kramarae, 1981; Thorne & Henley, 1975). Further, men engage in other verbal behaviors that sustain conversational dominance. They may reroute conversations by using what another said as a jump-off point for their own topic, or they interrupt. While both sexes engage in interruptions, most research suggests that men do it more frequently (Beck, 1988; Mulac, Wiemann, Widenmann, & Gibson, 1988; West & Zimmerman, 1983). Not only do men seem to interrupt more than women, but they do so for different reasons. L.P. Stewart and her colleagues (1990, p.51) suggests that men use interruptions to control conversation by challenging other speakers or wresting the talk stage from them, while women interrupt to indicate interest and to respond. This interpretation is shared by a number of scholars who note that women use interruptions to show support, encourage elaboration, and affirm others (Aleguire, 1978; Aries, 1987; Mulac et al., 1988).

Fourth, men tend to express themselves in fairly absolute, assertive ways. Compared with women, their language is typically more forceful, direct, and authoritative (Beck, 1988; Eakins & Eakins, 1978; Stewart et al., 1990; Tannen, 1990). Tentative speech, such as hedges and disclaimers, is used less frequently by men than by women. This is consistent with gender socialization in which men learn to use talk to assert themselves and to take and hold positions. However, when another person does not share that understanding of communication, speech that is absolute and directive may seem to close off conversation and leave no room for others to speak.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

If you liked that, you would have loved to read what I deleted before I submitted the first response.

I'm glad you're not here for validation or acceptance because now I know you won't take this personally: to be perfectly honest, I'm done with trying to debate or dialogue-ize anything with you, VB, because in this thread you have shown you take pride in your close-minded-ness. I've realized that any conversation with you is a waste of time, falling on dead ears. I'm officially retiring from arguing with you. Oh I have plenty of rational thoughts about the things you say—like that last post—but I think I am finally content to say "still BS" and go on my way.

[Whistler]

I too wanted to say something initially more vitriolic, and I wanted to write more, but I didn't have time when I posted. I disagree with you.

The statement you emphasized from the wikipedia article cites a social science article from the 1990s, which I'm not sure if we can trust. I did a little research and I found the article "Sex similarites and differences in stance in informal American conversation" by Kristen Precht (I have the pdf; I'm unsure if it's publicly available and was unable to attach it.). They looked at the actual words men and women use conversation and conducted statistical analyses:

In evidentiality, the male and female speaker use similar expressions; the male says "I don’t think," "I don’t know," "I mean," "probably;" and the female says "I don’t know," "heard of." And finally, both use similar numbers of quantifiers: The male uses "really," "a little," "more," "much," "pretty," and the female uses "too," "some," "very," "pretty," "a lot." Despite the fact that men and women don’t use the exact same stance expressions, they do use the same kind of stance expressions.

I would say that the analysis suggests that the way men and women speak is not as different as one might think--an argument which, I believe, could carry over into argumentation styles.


I found another interesting article which disagrees with the idea that men are more aggressive in conflict: "A gender-based categorization for conflict resolution" Journal of Management Development 24.3 (2005) 197-208, first author Sheryl Brehnam. From the abstract:

Results of this study indicate that, when compared with their male counterparts, women are more likely to utilize a collaborative conflict resolution style and men are more likely to avoid conflict. As collaboration is generally considered more productive and avoidance more disruptive in the conflict resolution process, the study suggests that women may possess more effective conflict resolution attributes than their male counterparts.

They found a gender difference and I don't think I need to restate it. Rather than men being aggressive, the research found that they were more likely to avoid conflict. While the study has its flaws, (the population was on only ~160 college students), I think it along with the other article show that we should be careful in our assumptions about gender differences.

[Whistler]

Additionally, VB, something else annoyed me much, much more than your claiming of possibly inaccurate gender stereotypes. The reason it annoyed me so much was that it seemed like you were using these gender roles to justify your style of communication in this forum, which many of us have been frustrated with. For me this claim of "I'm just into conflict because I'm a man" was very, very annoying.

[Katya]

Additionally, VB, something else annoyed me much, much more than your claiming of possibly inaccurate gender stereotypes. The reason it annoyed me so much was that it seemed like you were using these gender roles to justify your style of communication in this forum, which many of us have been frustrated with. For me this claim of "I'm just into conflict because I'm a man" was very, very annoying.

Agreed. And how is it that all of the other men on the forum manage to communicate more effectively?

[Imogen]

Additionally, VB, something else annoyed me much, much more than your claiming of possibly inaccurate gender stereotypes. The reason it annoyed me so much was that it seemed like you were using these gender roles to justify your style of communication in this forum, which many of us have been frustrated with. For me this claim of "I'm just into conflict because I'm a man" was very, very annoying.

Agreed. And how is it that all of the other men on the forum manage to communicate more effectively?

because apparently they're big ole sissies, obvs.

i think it makes someone more of a man to communicate effectively than to be aggressive. VB, you want to see aggressive, come hang out at my campus for a while. you can see how "great" it is when a culture values boys being aggressive, like they do around here. kids getting punched in the halls, fights breaking out everyday during and after school, teachers getting shouted at...it's greeeeeeeat.