Summary

  • In an era polluted by fake news, rhetoric and divisive judgement, it has become increasingly hard to maintain productive, rational discourse.

  • 60% of adults get their news from social media.

  • The majority of content we consume each day is selected by algorithms designed to capitalize on our brains’ cravings for novelty by way of hijacking—in polarizing fashion—our emotional response. As a result, rational discourse is becoming a lost art.

  • In the very least, we can save time by figuring out who we’re dealing with—be it a spouse, coworker, friend or Twitterati.

  • My favorite question for helping identify a person’s state of mind is: “What would make you change your mind?”

    • If they can’t answer this question clearly, you are likely dealing with an irrational person, perhaps a demagogue, who is regurgitating dogma. It’s time to cut bait—either on the conversation and/or the person.

7 words to the epiphany

What   would   make   you   change   your   mind?

The simplicity of this question makes it disarming. Its effectiveness comes from tactfully calling into question the person’s objectivity. This question is like going all-in during poker: they have to show their hand.

If you decide to experiment with this question, you’ll likely encounter a stilted pause. Pauses are good these days. It means we’re thinking vs. filling the air with synaptic jargon. 

My hope is this question can help you 1) redirect a conversation toward truth and learning, or 2) save time by avoiding unproductive dialogue.

A tale of two worlds: Dogma or Data?

Their answer to this question will give you a clue into what world they’re operating in: Dogma or Data.

  • Dogma world: this world is built on borrowed thinking, often laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Dogma world is subjective, rhetorical, non-falsifiable and binary.

    • Counterfactuals and refuting evidence are shunned.

  • Data world: this world is built on first principles supported by evidence. Data world is objective, empirical, falsifiable and probabilistic.

    • Counterfactuals and refuting evidence are embraced.

Resisting the temptation of dogmatic debate

Why is this 7-word question seldom asked? Why is baseless debate so enticing? We tend to spend our time fortifying our own argument vs. deciphering the validity of the other person’s mindset. After all, listening is hard. It feels good to get our point across.

Our ego would rather fight to win vs. not lose. One could argue winning an argument with an irrational person is losing—you’ve wasted your time. Twitter thrives on this. Many feverishly-thumbed replies have amounted to nothing more than a myopic pageant of confirmation bias with little new data shared or gleaned.

Dogma world, writ large.

Going deeper

There are many, many fantastic books on this topic which can improve the quality of our thinking and discourse. The 3 that top my list are:

  1. Thinking, Fast And Slow - Daniel Kahneman

  2. I’m Just Saying: A Guide to Maintaining Civil Discourse in an Increasingly Divided World - Milan Kordestani

  3. Clear Thinking - Shane Parrish

My hope is this simple question can help you 1) redirect a conversation toward truth, or 2) save time by avoiding unproductive dialogue.