By Edwin Cooney
Last Monday, February 1st, I read a column in the editorial section of the New York Times by Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist, asserting that when indulging in conversation on controversial subjects, the outcome of those conversations is likely to be more satisfying if we stop trying to change each other's minds. Dr. Grant, whose interest has to do with the need for parents to vaccinate their children against the spread of communicable diseases, writes of the frustration he felt when he tried to convince a friend on several occasions who was totally opposed to giving vaccinations to his children to alter his outlook for the betterment of those children. The more he argued statistics and logic to his friend, the harder his friend resisted what he had to say. Anxious to keep his friend, Dr. Grant realized that it was time for him to stop being a "logic bully" and try another tactic.
The new method Dr. Grant discovered he calls “motivational interviewing.” Rarely can you or anyone else change a person's mind when they reach a conclusion. However, to the degree that your Donald Trump friend gets the idea that you're interested in his or her thinking, your conversation can take on a new flavor. While it's not likely that you'll change his or her outlook, you may discover that you and "the Donald" fan have kindred concerns if not kindred fears. The truth is that most of us, when we're interested in a controversial subject, seek solutions to issues according to our own experiences and value judgments. Subsequently, we come to own our conclusions and only time and new experiences can alter our outlook. Certainly we're not likely to allow ourselves to be wrenched from our conclusions by someone's prosecutorial or bullying tactics!
About a year ago, I got a message from a reader telling me she was canceling her request to receive these columns because it was obvious to her that I'd taken the “liberal Kool Aid" which, she implied, poisons too many minds against reality and patriotism. Not wanting to be too presumptuous or aggressive, I wrote her back agreeing to take her off my reader's list. I'd have been better off and I think she'd have been better off if we'd indulged ourselves in a series of Adam Grant’s motivational interviews. People who enjoy observing or participating in debates are usually seeking information as to how to vote or what steps to take on a controversial matter or they may be primarily interested in seeing their position or candidate prevail in a debate. Seldom do those who debate change one another's mind!
As I understand it, the reward in motivational interviewing can be discovered as we get information about the variances of knowledge and actually comprehend the other person’s perception of a situation or an idea.
From the time we're very young, many of us are taught how important it is to be right about everything. Subsequently, having the right answer to every question becomes the sole point of learning.
Back in 2005 when I began writing these columns, I offered three purposes for these weekly musings. They were and remain as follows: to provide information, stimulate thought, and entertain the reader. Specifically, I've tried to avoid being too self-righteous when stating my position or opinion on controversial subjects. I've even been scolded by some readers for not being definite or even righteous enough in my conclusions. In personal political discussions however, I've been much less diplomatic when it comes to stating my opinion. Like too many other debaters, I've too often surrendered to the tendency to prosecute rather than actually communicate with those with whom I disagree!
Just recently I scolded a Trump supporter for not recognizing that most Americans voted against the president not because they particularly preferred Joe Biden but because they were sick and tired of Donald Trump's anger. I've seen this gentleman once since that discussion and mentioned that I was looking forward to a further discussion of the 2020 election. "Nope," he said, "the election’s over. I won't be talking about it anymore!" My guess is that he'll talk about it with others, but not with me. I can't say I blame him!
Adam Grant says that if you get someone to talk about what it takes to solve a national issue, for example health care or climate change, they will be invariably more cautious and circumspect on the issue than when they address their feelings about a prescribed solution to those issues.
Yes, indeed, I still love a good argument or, if you prefer, a good debate. Nevertheless, from here on, I'm going to make an effort to be more circumspect as to whether or not the likely outcome of that discussion is about being right versus being companionable!
Adam Grant writes that he's come to realize that it's not his job in life to change others' minds. Me, too, Adam -- I hope!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment