Quiet achievers
February 24th 2009 02:01
We all like to be heard. We all like to play orator, delivering opinions to what we like to perceive is an appreciative audience. It is a basis of relationships, a cornerstone of friendships and the foundation of democracy.
And it is, the vast majority of the time, from parliament to the pub, garbage.
People get opinionated about issues for many reasons, most of them negative: hidden agendas, ambition, defensiveness, deviousness, a need or wish to impress, the desire to put someone else down, an urge to shout as loudly as the next guy, or the commonplace enjoyment of an argument, whether it has merit or not.
People can be divided into two categories: those who talk and those who listen.
To put it another way, there are those who know, those who want to know, and those who think they know.
There are also educated, urbane, witty and skilled orators who channel these considerable talents into self-serving interests. Any political, business or religious leader who presents an argument which takes no account of the opposing argument is doing listeners a disservice and achieving little.
I have a friend who can discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict at informed and eloquent length. But it is entirely one-sided, as has been much of the discussion on the same subject for more than two thousand years. It offers no compromises and therefore achieves nothing except further polarisation of anyone impressed by the discourse.
I know of an intelligent and deeply committed environmentalist who quotes the beliefs of Edward Abbey, the American author and essayist whose works include the novel The Monkey Wrench Gang, which has been cited as an inspiration by radical environmental groups. Abbey and his followers offer no compromises and therefore will achieve nothing except further polarisation.
Debates are not won by obliterating the opposition. They are won by acknowledging opposing viewpoints, identifying common ground and going to work with honest intention to find solutions based on compromise.
It lacks short-term excitement. It's rarely the stuff of headlines. It's a poor option for those with agendas to push.
About all it's good for is getting things done.
| 110 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
Comment by Chris Champion
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
Money Whither
Great, thought-provoking comment. Thank you
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
people that cannot consider each detail of an issue independantly, quickly reveal themselves as being more interested in winning than in being right
perhaps to "debate" is to try and win regardless of substance, but its not constructive if youre trying to find a workable solution to a problem
Comment by Janet Collins
Acceptable Etiquette
The Social Critic
Janet Collins Blog
We all have some steadfast views, but if you can't even consider another viewpoint there is absolutely no purpose at all getting into a "discussion".
Comment by Chris Champion
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
Money Whither
Comment by Norm
Consumption Malfunction
Equal and Opposite
Arses and Elbows
Footy Power
Comment by Chris Champion
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
Money Whither
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
*rocking like rain man* ..avoid the opinionists with agends ..aha.. avoid them like the plague .. opinionsts with agends, yup, avoid the opinionsts with agendas...
*lol* /seriously/ all i can say ~ apart from the fact that i just loved this post; is
BRING BACK THE TALKING STICK TO 21ST CENTURY SUBURBIA!
L
Comment by Teresa Ralton
MRS SMITH
READ THIS
SISTERS IN CRIME
Comment by Chris Champion
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
Money Whither
That's a great tribute, thank you kindly. I like the image of a "talking stick". Something to lean on when negotiating the paths of détente?
Comment by Chris Champion
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
Money Whither
Subjective emotional reaction is the worst scenario and, of course, is good for little except possibly alienating people, or boring them to death.
I think presentation of facts, however, no matter how scrupulously and honestly done, may also be less than useful if all the facts are on one side of an issue.
Too often, it seems to me, there are two sets of facts yelling at each other across the negotiating table.
Does that make sense?
Comment by The Rusty Can
Everything
I know a few people who will argue for the sake of arguing and will keep going even when what they're saying contradicts what they were arguing for! All they care about is winning. Then there are those who will force their opinions on others, insisting that only theirs are "right". Tsk tsk...
Comment by Chris Champion
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
Money Whither
There is probably a simple, plain message (a psychologist or counsellor may be able to tell me) for people who argue for the sake or arguing, or even just talk for the sake of talking.
I keep thinking of a committee meeting, where a major motive for everyone to say something is to be on record as having said something. And the easiest way to say something is to take issue with a plan or proposal or idea ...
And then everyone's taking sides ...
And then the committee meeting is over and nothing has been decided.
Comment by Teresa Ralton
MRS SMITH
READ THIS
SISTERS IN CRIME