What would it look like if a debate was focused not on one participant defeating the other, but on EVERYONE learning about the issue being debated about?
Love this!! There's some shift to the vibe that happens when the focus goes from the people to the issue. It's so relieving, liberating even! Open Space may be a great tool for self-organizing live groups of people to practice the "anti-debate" format.
Braver Angels is another organization bringing folks together across the political divide. They do workshops with equal numbers of "red-leaning" and "blue-leaning" folks - that may be a good format for practicing anti-debating. Happy to help out with such an effort!
Rock on! Glad you are connecting with them - you'll do great things together! I've been a facilitator for the Idaho BA Alliance for two years - great org - I have witness many amazing moments in those workshops.
The very people who "need" to engage in your process likely won't do it. Steel-manning presumes a mental ability and willingness to hear outside of one's "box" of beliefs/positions on some subject matter. People who are entrenched/stuck in their position/box generally if not virtually always are unwilling, even if they have some ability, and won't step out because they experience it as too disturbing, uncomfortable, scary, as a trick, and even as an attack on their identity and what they identify with (their box).
Just because someone tries, no matter how exalted and honorable the intentions, to get them to steel-man doesn't mean they can or will. It's highly unlikely when they see "the other side" as stupid and dangerous to their sense of meaning making and wellbeing.
They might do so with a subject matter that is perceived as entirely inconsequential to them. But if the subject is politics, religion, or any other "sacred" topic or territory of thought for them, forget it. And if you try the process with some inconsequential topic to "warm them up" to the process, then move to the tough stuff, they'll probably feel manipulated and shut down, ruining your credibility with them.
I appreciate and admire your intentions, but I don't think you've thought it through given the audience you actually want to reach and engage.
Yes, I saw that debate a few years ago though not via the link you provided, and not that that matters.
BTW, even though Peterson "acknowledged" that Harris did steel-man his position, I don't think he did; Peterson was unduly gracious and yielding about it.
Stephanie, I'm curious that you didn't respond at all to my point: "The very people who "need" to engage in your process [of steel manning] likely won't do it." I'd say that most people don't have the mental and emotional capability to steel man. As such, how would one "maneuver" two people in conflict to do so with each other? Especially so in this day and age when people's identities are so entwined with their beliefs, virtually rendering them incapable of listening to anything that they feel attacks their beliefs/identity. Perhaps your not responding to that point is an example of my point: not wanting to hear let alone deal with something that's is experienced as challenging to one's beliefs/identity.
Anyhow, know that I do respect and admire your intentions to promote the values of steel manning and have very much enjoyed your videos!
Yeah, a deeper issue is like, when someone is sorting through political issues, their friends/family/coworkers are implicitly part of the background; even if they might actually have hidden sympathies for the other side's concerns, and be open to changing their mind if those around them also did, it might be a very hard sell to get them to change their identified stance when that would put them at odds with people they're close with.
I've been working on a bit of synthesis stuff too and I see this as one of the biggest challenges. My current main plan for addressing it (which I don't think addresses a large fraction of it, to be clear) involves encouraging the dialogues to actually be between people who are already close and care about each other, but have different views. So that there's a sense that the dialogue is already happening within the social space, to some extent. But still, if you have one estranged Trump supporter in a family of committed DEI activists... if one of the latter has a convo with the former, it could be pretty intense for them to change their views even a little, knowing it would put them at odds with other family. (And same vice versa ofc, if the family were mostly Trump voters!)
Yes, much of one's identity is typically tied up in family and even co-workers, and most certainly political affiliations.
I don't think one's ability to hear a differing point of view is about how close they are to that person, but more so about one's ability to take a point of awareness outside one's beliefs, a very difficult competency unless the person has had training and experience in doing so. I can personally speak to this because of my educational/training background in such abilities; even so, it can still be difficult if the person I'm engaging with, or trying to, is vehemently and myopically entrenched in their perspective/position Point being, it takes two.
Again, for most people, being asked or demanded to look at one's own position on an issue is very threatening to them because their identity, who they know themselves to be, is very tied up in their beliefs/positions.
Is what it is. That said, I very much appreciate and admire Lepp's intention in her work here. I wish her all the best, and look forward to her finding practical, realistic, easy-enough solutions to this intra- and inter-personal conundrum.
This is what I do 😎
NICE 🥰
Love this!! There's some shift to the vibe that happens when the focus goes from the people to the issue. It's so relieving, liberating even! Open Space may be a great tool for self-organizing live groups of people to practice the "anti-debate" format.
Ooh thank you! Do you have a specific reference for Open Space, or just the model in general?
Yes, here is the open space site: https://openspaceworld.org/wp2/what-is/
Braver Angels is another organization bringing folks together across the political divide. They do workshops with equal numbers of "red-leaning" and "blue-leaning" folks - that may be a good format for practicing anti-debating. Happy to help out with such an effort!
Nice, thank you! Auspicious — just today I spoke with the head of debates at Braver Angels :))))
Rock on! Glad you are connecting with them - you'll do great things together! I've been a facilitator for the Idaho BA Alliance for two years - great org - I have witness many amazing moments in those workshops.
The very people who "need" to engage in your process likely won't do it. Steel-manning presumes a mental ability and willingness to hear outside of one's "box" of beliefs/positions on some subject matter. People who are entrenched/stuck in their position/box generally if not virtually always are unwilling, even if they have some ability, and won't step out because they experience it as too disturbing, uncomfortable, scary, as a trick, and even as an attack on their identity and what they identify with (their box).
Just because someone tries, no matter how exalted and honorable the intentions, to get them to steel-man doesn't mean they can or will. It's highly unlikely when they see "the other side" as stupid and dangerous to their sense of meaning making and wellbeing.
They might do so with a subject matter that is perceived as entirely inconsequential to them. But if the subject is politics, religion, or any other "sacred" topic or territory of thought for them, forget it. And if you try the process with some inconsequential topic to "warm them up" to the process, then move to the tough stuff, they'll probably feel manipulated and shut down, ruining your credibility with them.
I appreciate and admire your intentions, but I don't think you've thought it through given the audience you actually want to reach and engage.
Yup, those who don't agree to the terms don't get to participate.
Have you seen the clip of Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris steel-manning each other? Case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh-DKbKlfag
Stephanie,
Yes, I saw that debate a few years ago though not via the link you provided, and not that that matters.
BTW, even though Peterson "acknowledged" that Harris did steel-man his position, I don't think he did; Peterson was unduly gracious and yielding about it.
Stephanie, I'm curious that you didn't respond at all to my point: "The very people who "need" to engage in your process [of steel manning] likely won't do it." I'd say that most people don't have the mental and emotional capability to steel man. As such, how would one "maneuver" two people in conflict to do so with each other? Especially so in this day and age when people's identities are so entwined with their beliefs, virtually rendering them incapable of listening to anything that they feel attacks their beliefs/identity. Perhaps your not responding to that point is an example of my point: not wanting to hear let alone deal with something that's is experienced as challenging to one's beliefs/identity.
Anyhow, know that I do respect and admire your intentions to promote the values of steel manning and have very much enjoyed your videos!
Sincerely,
Larry Kiehl
Yeah, a deeper issue is like, when someone is sorting through political issues, their friends/family/coworkers are implicitly part of the background; even if they might actually have hidden sympathies for the other side's concerns, and be open to changing their mind if those around them also did, it might be a very hard sell to get them to change their identified stance when that would put them at odds with people they're close with.
I've been working on a bit of synthesis stuff too and I see this as one of the biggest challenges. My current main plan for addressing it (which I don't think addresses a large fraction of it, to be clear) involves encouraging the dialogues to actually be between people who are already close and care about each other, but have different views. So that there's a sense that the dialogue is already happening within the social space, to some extent. But still, if you have one estranged Trump supporter in a family of committed DEI activists... if one of the latter has a convo with the former, it could be pretty intense for them to change their views even a little, knowing it would put them at odds with other family. (And same vice versa ofc, if the family were mostly Trump voters!)
Yes, much of one's identity is typically tied up in family and even co-workers, and most certainly political affiliations.
I don't think one's ability to hear a differing point of view is about how close they are to that person, but more so about one's ability to take a point of awareness outside one's beliefs, a very difficult competency unless the person has had training and experience in doing so. I can personally speak to this because of my educational/training background in such abilities; even so, it can still be difficult if the person I'm engaging with, or trying to, is vehemently and myopically entrenched in their perspective/position Point being, it takes two.
Again, for most people, being asked or demanded to look at one's own position on an issue is very threatening to them because their identity, who they know themselves to be, is very tied up in their beliefs/positions.
Is what it is. That said, I very much appreciate and admire Lepp's intention in her work here. I wish her all the best, and look forward to her finding practical, realistic, easy-enough solutions to this intra- and inter-personal conundrum.