War of Words
How to recognize calamitous conversations and what to do about them
In disputes upon moral or scientific points, ever let your aim be to come at truth, not to conquer your opponent. So you never shall be at a loss in losing the argument, and gaining a new discovery.
These words, written by Arthur Matine in his 1866 etiquette handbook and guide to politeness, have been following me around since one of our Monday team meetings.
Our team assembles every morning at 9am to brief on projects, and when the well is dry or we simply don’t have anything to name, we chat. The other morning, with nothing to name, one team member shared a story of an argument he had with someone in his extended family, a conversation that didn’t end with a handshake and would surely have disappointed Matine.
The two were discussing free will, a topic with a history of great debate but no real evidence to crown a winner. So, not surprisingly, the two didn’t agree. Rarely does a philosophical debate end with one participant swayed to the other side and feeling better for it. These debates are mostly fiery, petty things.
They have lasting effects too. My coworker, a person who doesn’t normally show his cards, was still thinking about the conversation days later and even shared with the team. This goes to show how stressful these types of conversations can be.
So, what was the point? I have seen many well-intentioned conversations take a turn for the worse because the debate becomes about defeat rather than truth. American cognitive linguist and philosopher, George Lakoff has even commented how war is the metaphor for arguing in the English language. Competition knocks out compassion.
You’ve seen it, too. Two people are debating a topic when the flavor of the talk becomes bitter and unpalatable. The opponents (Matine’s word) are speeding towards a brick wall with all goodwill lost along the way.
But I imagine we all know how it feels to dig one’s heels into a conversation, unwilling to back down regardless of truth, fact, or caring. I guess that’s human nature for you. There is something animal in us that sees acquiescence as defeat, and confrontation as an opportunity to trample an opponent. Dog eat dog and all that.
Conversations about creative work can suffer from the same problem. We often have to hold a client’s hand, leading them to the type of work that would benefit their brand. Unfortunately they aren’t always willing to follow our lead and sometimes flat out refuse our expertise due to fear of change or failure.
I’m no expert in conflict mediation or politeness, far from it, but there are a few tricks I’ve learned to employ when the direction of a conversation steers towards confrontation.
Let’s start with something basic like monitoring feelings. This tip seems more complex than it is, meaning there’s no real skill involved. You merely have to feel what is happening inside your body during a conversation, like looking at fish in an aquarium. Is your heart rate above 180? Is your skin flushed? More often than not if I notice anything other than a cool stream flowing through my body than I’m reacting, not listening.
It’s worth listening to yourself too — quite literally. Your mind can play many tricks on you, making you say some outrageous shit. Have you ever ended a heated conversation, wondering what just happened? This might be because your brain and body were overtaken by emotions. Author and science journalist, Daniel Goleman calls this amygdala hijacking in his book Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Being hijacked is an emotional response that is immediate, overwhelming, and out of measure with the actual stimulus because it has triggered a much more significant emotional threat. In an argument, I often see this in my own language in the form of verbal jabs and acerbic witticisms. So take stock in your language — it’s a sure fire way to make sure you’re not the troublemaker.
Finally, it’s worth asking yourself: What is my goal? This is where Matine and my coworker come back in. Are you trying to win an argument or seek truth through dialogue? This isn’t an easy task, far from it. Personally, I think Matine may have made an oversimplification here, like saying if you want to stop smoking cigarettes just don’t smoke cigarettes. Logically sound. Practically impossible. Yet there’s truth in what he’s saying and you don’t have to dig too deep to unearth it.
During these types of heated debates, stop and ask: what am I trying to achieve? If it’s anything other than truth, I hope you land the next punch.
