Thursday, 4 June 2020

Do Not Cause People to Panic

 

Words fail me, which is a thing I grapple with. This post is me grappling with with the current social media fire sale: where reasonable people dismiss any feedback that contradicts their beliefs and opinions.

When objections are dismissed, it makes it impossible to discuss the topic outside of the "box" it is framed in; some examples:

You're not arguing in good faith.

You give yourself away as having ill intent.

This is not up for discussion (it has all been discussed before, your views are unwelcome, detrimental to the cause).

Then actual labeling people as objects (you're racist, you're a fascists etc.).

This is all part and parcel of confrontation. However, confrontation can be positive or negative. Negative confrontations start from assuming the other person is behaving badly.

I will listen to responses. I recognize that I am very assertive, so please feel free to call me out if:

I cause people to panic.

I treat people as objects.

So this post is me owning my understanding by processing my thoughts into words.

I want people to talk with me about SF fandom or larger societal issues. Therefore, I want confrontations on social media around SF fandom or the larger society to be positive.

Problem

Let's start with current problem du jour: Black Lives Matter.

Seems like a harmless enough statement, but how often have you heard, All Lives Matter?

How do you respond? Is it:

Of course all lives matter, or

This isn't about white people, but black people dying at the hands of white cops or white Americans murdering Blacks as part of systemic institutionalized racism.

If it's the first and a person has responded with the second response what happens next? My guess is a retort, often indicative of "what did I do wrong?" or very broadly panic, from being told they're at fault.

I have lost count of the number of times I've seen this happen, escalating the confrontation into an argument? Then I see people start rolling out the objections I listed at the beginning of the post.

Is it common for the confrontation to end in a positive result? Let me define the minimum level for a positive result:

Come to a common ground or agree to disagree in a polite and civil exchange.

I find the answer to this question is generally "no" which has driven me to write this post.

Let me start by laying out my assumptions and process.

Assumptions & Process

I start with positive assumptions, because we all have implicit assumptions and bias, so make them positive.

I don't assume malice when thoughtlessness is always a better explanation. I assume people are well-meaning with good intentions, and at worst just ill informed. I'm open to feedback that defines the problem with my response.

I don't respond when I'm angry, because emotions should serve me, not control me.

I analyze all behaviours through my core profession: cognitive behavioural therapy. This means I look at thoughts, feelings, and actions.

What's Happening?

Black Lives Matter is a simple slogan meant to encourage rapport and empathy for those who have been killed.

So when I reply, All Lives Matter; I'm giving feedback. If my feedback is denied, by telling me I'm wrong, then what has happened is a confrontation.

My problem with it, and most slogans, is simple: it automatically excludes rather than includes, which is fine – if that's the aim – but here it seems to me to be contrary to the goal.

What has happened is a failure of the slogan to communicate what was intended.

Positive Confrontation

If you were a person who came to me for therapy, and told me that every time you used a particular phrase you got a negative response, despite your good intentions, I would say words to the effect:

"How long will you need to be convinced that this isn't working out as you planned?"

I'll add a caveat here, people often do things repeatedly expecting a different result next time, and on occasion it's not what's being said but how it's said.

Then I would explore with my client a way of saying what they want to say more effectively.

So let me repeat, the sentiment behind a slogan may well have good intentions and still fail; if so, functionally, it becomes a poor slogan.

Then, assuming you want to create understanding, when confronted by answers you don't like, or cause you to become angry, instead of challenging the statement, ask them to help you understand their answer. 

If your response includes any of these assumptions:

They're not arguing in good faith; They have ill intent; This is not up for discussion (it has all been discussed before, their views are wrong); or you label them with a slur such as racist, or fascist.

Stop. All that has happened is that the slogans has generated negative feedback. When a slogan generates negative feedback, a reappraisal is required.

You have to ask yourself is that what you want? Keep it SMART and remember KISS:

Specific.          Keep
Measurable     It
Achievable      Short and
Realistic          Simple.
Time frame.

This post is an example of me asking people to help me understand what benefit is there from making well intentioned statements that generate conflict.

Understand that people's behaviours are in response to yours. Understanding them means taking feedback, and owning the responsibility for failure to communicate. If you wish to succeed, it starts with listening.

Remember my goal is to either to come to a common understanding or to agree to disagree in a polite and civil exchange.

I will listen to your feedback of this post because I take ownership of what I say.

Terms & Conditions Apply

You can't control what other people do.  You are not responsible for other people's feelings.  The best anybody can do... is be a positive influence.

Dwelling on the past injustices won't make things better. Accept what has happened and move forward.

TL;DR:

When confronting a statement be polite and civil. State what your issue is, what you want, and check with the other person that they've understood you.

Note: The title of this piece is an allusion to the fact that "free speech" doesn't mean you can shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, which should also provide context to why I labeled the current social media wars a "fire sale." 

13 comments:

  1. The older I get the less I think protests, ideologies or systems are helpful in solving any problem. Start with trying to be kind to the people around you. A small thing but doable and with big results en masse. In this vein, concentrate on what you personally can realistically do in practice towards a solution. Do not fly first class around the world to protest against global warming, for example.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think applying the scientific process to debate is the way forward. I can test the hypothesis by looking at what's happening, and of course testing the Null hypothesis to see it is right.

      Delete
    2. Protests etc lead to bigger masses of people concentrating on personal actions, and expanding the scope of what's doable. Consider: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YknhztcrURY

      Delete
  2. In my experience, the discussion so often fails, because, the listener attaches his own meaning to what the other party is saying, feels inclined to defend first, and generally embraces a perspective that manifests because of, and with the intent to pacify their insecurities. Getting past these issues seems to be nearly impossible, most of the time.

    If we were able to converse in person, I would offer that your presentation above is too mechanical, and not "human" enough, but I suspect that in implementation, your method is functionally less mechanical and more "human".

    There is so much here that I'd like to discuss, but this forum makes it slow, and I'm already late in leaving for work. Thanks for offering this post, I will consider it at some length through the day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand. Yeah, it's difficult to convey nuance when describing a process.

      There are entire books on managing confrontation and de-ecalating conflict. I recommend this one:

      The Power of Positive Confrontation: The Skills You Need to Know to Handle Conflicts at Work, at Home, and in Life by Barbara Pachter & Susan McGee

      Link added to the post above.

      Delete
  3. Just found out that the term "fire sale" can also be called and "Estate sale."

    Defined as: An estate sale or estate liquidation is a sale or auction to dispose of a substantial portion of the materials owned by a person who is recently deceased or who must dispose of their personal property to facilitate a move.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's interesting that your "Positive Confrontation" section reads equally well as a criticism of "All Lives Matter."

    I think you are mistaken when you say "Black Lives Matter is a simple slogan meant to encourage rapport and empathy for those who have been killed." I believe the purpose of the slogan is to increase awareness of how disproportionately blacks continue to suffer institutionalized iniquity. Trying to supplant it with "All Lives Matter" is to suppress awareness of that disproportionality.

    (Getting people who don't see the point of the slogan to talk to people who do is the point, so the slogan is basically successful in that regard. I think you're right that the breakdowns in such discussions are the same kind of breakdowns as in any discussion; and it seems like there should be a pre-packaged essay or manifesto or FAQ or something so people don't have to take the whole weight of these confrontations themselves.)

    Additionally, the phrase "Black Lives Matter" automatically carries historical and cultural context which makes it relatively easy for an average person to find out more, and by being more focused it makes it easier to target specific policies. A more generic slogan like "All Lives Matter" would be a step backwards in those regards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right. Slogans don't do it for me. And because it wasn't clear, my response was feedback, the obvious one.

      The fact that it's also a slogan, and equally useless is correct.

      My intention, which clearly I have failed to communicate, is that slogans do not work, because they create conflict, which then leads to the polarization of people's positions.

      I want good leadership on both side of this debate, with the willingness to listen and take responsibility for the failures.

      None of that happens if both sides label the other and chant them as slogans to drown out a solution.

      Delete
    2. A slogan is an attention-grabber and a point of focus. They can be successful and useful for that purpose. Trying to use them outside that role is a mistake, I agree; I don't think they are automatically polarizing though, and while they can cause friction I don't think friction is the same thing as conflict.

      It's possible that I have not been watching the news closely. Did I miss an event where a chanting crowd drowned out a legislative assembly as they tried to form new legislation, or a leader trying to engage reasonably with a leader from the other side?

      Delete
    3. Two points to clarify.

      First, I read Orwell's Animal Farm as a teenager, and the one thing I took away from that was the use of slogans. Four legs good, two legs bad, and how the pigs then morph it to Four legs good, three legs better.

      I am a cynic about anything to do with politics.

      Second point, in short no, I haven't either, but chanting by crowds that incite violence is definitely a thing. Not that all chants by protests lead to violence, but see my comment about my cynicism over politics; mostly down to my belief that a politicians main drive is getting re-elected, everything else is secondary.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for clarifying. I agree on both points.

      Delete
  5. Okay, two years late, but what the hell. The clash between those who say 'Black Lives Matter' vs those who say 'All Lives Matters' is basically a deep political difference. The slogans just identify their sayers' political views.
    Those who like the slogan 'Black Lives Matter' believe, with SkilTao, that the bad conditions of many American Black stems mainly from "how disproportionately blacks continue to suffer institutionalized iniquity. " Those who don't, and like another slogan, like "All lives matter" don't believe this. Rather they -- we -- believe that the bad conditions of many American blacks stems primarily from their own behavior, and that there is little that a free society can do to change this.
    Although this is ultimately a factual question -- like whether or not there are chromium deposits on Mars -- it's approached as a moral question by many. If you believe the Black condition in America today is the fault of whites, youi think of this belief as something so obvious, that not to believe it reveals you as a wicked person. Thus the emotional response people like me get when we beg to disagree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is, a divide that only widens when people manipulate problems to create confrontation, rather than see problems as opportunities to make things better.

      I sit more in the science camp, and by that I mean we have far less control over our choices than we tend to believe. The fact that the future is unpredictable doesn't negate the fact that we live in a deterministic universe.

      And, I would be the first to admit that I have no solutions, or even knowledge required to come up with a solution that would improve anybody's life. I just don't.

      But I do know what bad solutions look like, because I can look to history, and can see what happened. Mobs shouting slogans and creating conflict rarely lead to a good outcome.

      I will finish with a quote from Aldous Huxley:

      "The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats."

      Delete

GDPR

I currently do not run an email list and have no plans to do so in the foreseeable future.

For those who subscribe to email updates for this blog, your personal data may be collected by the third party service. I have no control over the tool.

Blog posts or comments may include personal data such as the names of people who've made comments or similar. These posts are often shared on social media including my Twitter and FaceBook pages. The privacy policies of Twitter and Facebook will apply to information posted on their websites.

If you would like any personal data which is included in my blogposts or comments to be removed or have any questions, please email me through my contact widget.