Challenging Conversations
I think that challenging conversations are an important part of life for people who don't want to stop learning or growing. The things we say can be divided into three categories:
1) Communication of facts
2) Genuine expression of love or kindness that is gratuitous to bare physical existence but not directly challenging.
3) Challenging conversation
4) Bullshit
A certain amount of (1) is necessary. This would include things like "we ran out of milk," or "the cat barfed on the rug."
I sometimes have a hard time with (2), and I suspect that others do as well. It could range from "thanks" to "girl you look so pretty to me, not unlike the Spanish city to me." Sometimes (2) feels like (4). I think a good litmus test is, if it feels obligatory, it's bullshit.
By "challenging conversation" I mean questions or arguments that force someone to defend their actions or opinions, or at least to think about them more closely. This kind of talk bugs some people all the time and all people some of the time. First, you have to think. Second, you may be placed in the awkward position of realizng that your deeds or opinions are stupid, and nobody likes that. Also, it can seem confrontational--it often is confrontational, especially when the person doing the challenging is not open to being challenged.
A certain amount of (4) is necessary as well. I include everything commonly referred to as "small talk" in this category. I accept that some amount of meaningless conversation is necessary to build rapport and make friends. What makes my day, though, is the unexpected challenge that brings a converstaion out of the realm of (4) and into (3). For example, imagine this hypothetical conversation where someone returns from working overseas and sees old acquantances for the first time:
A: When did you get back?
B: Last month.
A: How was the experience?
B: Good.
A: (pause)
In general, an awkward pause after a short, uninformative answer like "good" is a good sign that your conversation is deep into (4) territory.
B: It was a good experience. I learned a lot.
A (option 1): Good!
A (option 2): Why was it good? What did you learn?
If A goes with option 1, there is no harm done (unless we count wasted time as harm, which we should.) If A goes with option 2, we have created a challenging conversation. B will have to think before answering, and reflect on why the experience was "good" and what he or she learned. If B was just shovelling out (4) and hoping to continue in that vein, the transition into a challenging conversation will be like a slap in the eyes.
The other day Jehovah's Witnesses came to the door while I was painting. They got right into challenging conversation, by asking me what I thought of all the pain and suffering in the world. I gave my thoughts, basically that it's a necessary corrolary of having freedom, that without it we'd have nothing to do, and that an honest look at the world we live in suggests God may be a little more "Old Testament" than we'd prefer to think. Then I had to defend my ideas, and also defend why my beliefs about the Jesus, prophecies and the Bible did not line up with those of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Honestly, I didn't mind. If I can't even articulate my beliefs about these important issues and defend myself against Jehovah's Witnesses, then maybe I should convert. (I didn't convert.)
The only problem with those types is that they are usually there to challenge, not to learn or be challenged. I read in the paper once that the problem with the evangelical religions is that it changes people from students and observers of the world into "fixers"--that at the age of 5 they already have the answers to all of life's deepest questions. At the age of 5 I had all the answers, too. I wonder what happened in the interrim to make me so much dumber. Anyway, as long as I'm in a good mood I like to talk to missionaries as long as possible, because I figure most people like them less than I do and if they're talking to me they're not talking to anyone else. It's a service to the community.
I usually enjoy it when someone asks me a challenging question, or responds well to my challenging question. I agree that it may be uncomfortable, but I suspect the secret to a meaningful life is to be comfortable with being uncomfortable, and to limit times of comfort to a minimum, like the breaks in between boxing rounds. This is, of course, easier said than meant.
Am I really prepared to live that way? By all means, challenge me on it.
1) Communication of facts
2) Genuine expression of love or kindness that is gratuitous to bare physical existence but not directly challenging.
3) Challenging conversation
4) Bullshit
A certain amount of (1) is necessary. This would include things like "we ran out of milk," or "the cat barfed on the rug."
I sometimes have a hard time with (2), and I suspect that others do as well. It could range from "thanks" to "girl you look so pretty to me, not unlike the Spanish city to me." Sometimes (2) feels like (4). I think a good litmus test is, if it feels obligatory, it's bullshit.
By "challenging conversation" I mean questions or arguments that force someone to defend their actions or opinions, or at least to think about them more closely. This kind of talk bugs some people all the time and all people some of the time. First, you have to think. Second, you may be placed in the awkward position of realizng that your deeds or opinions are stupid, and nobody likes that. Also, it can seem confrontational--it often is confrontational, especially when the person doing the challenging is not open to being challenged.
A certain amount of (4) is necessary as well. I include everything commonly referred to as "small talk" in this category. I accept that some amount of meaningless conversation is necessary to build rapport and make friends. What makes my day, though, is the unexpected challenge that brings a converstaion out of the realm of (4) and into (3). For example, imagine this hypothetical conversation where someone returns from working overseas and sees old acquantances for the first time:
A: When did you get back?
B: Last month.
A: How was the experience?
B: Good.
A: (pause)
In general, an awkward pause after a short, uninformative answer like "good" is a good sign that your conversation is deep into (4) territory.
B: It was a good experience. I learned a lot.
A (option 1): Good!
A (option 2): Why was it good? What did you learn?
If A goes with option 1, there is no harm done (unless we count wasted time as harm, which we should.) If A goes with option 2, we have created a challenging conversation. B will have to think before answering, and reflect on why the experience was "good" and what he or she learned. If B was just shovelling out (4) and hoping to continue in that vein, the transition into a challenging conversation will be like a slap in the eyes.
The other day Jehovah's Witnesses came to the door while I was painting. They got right into challenging conversation, by asking me what I thought of all the pain and suffering in the world. I gave my thoughts, basically that it's a necessary corrolary of having freedom, that without it we'd have nothing to do, and that an honest look at the world we live in suggests God may be a little more "Old Testament" than we'd prefer to think. Then I had to defend my ideas, and also defend why my beliefs about the Jesus, prophecies and the Bible did not line up with those of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Honestly, I didn't mind. If I can't even articulate my beliefs about these important issues and defend myself against Jehovah's Witnesses, then maybe I should convert. (I didn't convert.)
The only problem with those types is that they are usually there to challenge, not to learn or be challenged. I read in the paper once that the problem with the evangelical religions is that it changes people from students and observers of the world into "fixers"--that at the age of 5 they already have the answers to all of life's deepest questions. At the age of 5 I had all the answers, too. I wonder what happened in the interrim to make me so much dumber. Anyway, as long as I'm in a good mood I like to talk to missionaries as long as possible, because I figure most people like them less than I do and if they're talking to me they're not talking to anyone else. It's a service to the community.
I usually enjoy it when someone asks me a challenging question, or responds well to my challenging question. I agree that it may be uncomfortable, but I suspect the secret to a meaningful life is to be comfortable with being uncomfortable, and to limit times of comfort to a minimum, like the breaks in between boxing rounds. This is, of course, easier said than meant.
Am I really prepared to live that way? By all means, challenge me on it.
Labels: challenge, conversation, thoughts
posted by Paul | 6/24/2007 11:32:00 PM
2 Comments:
You are a conversationalist. And I've been the Jehovah's Witness.
"I agree that it may be uncomfortable, but I suspect the secret to a meaningful life is to be comfortable with being uncomfortable" Frankly, I think one reason (among many) some don't like our visits is that they make them uncomfortable. JWs are speaking on a subject on which many are unsure and possibly don't care about. But, if they don't care about it, many are still uncomfortable, imagining that they should care. The skillful Witness should detect all these things and maneuver to avoid awkwardness, but it takes a while to do that. There is a learning curve.
"The only problem with those types is that they are usually there to challenge, not to learn or be challenged." Yes, again! Of course, the mere fact that I've come to your door indicates I have something to say, but I always hope to learn something: a different fact, viewpoint, personality trait, whatever.
This is a pretty good blog.
Thoughtful! Loved this part, "I figure most people like them less than I do and if they're talking to me they're not talking to anyone else. It's a service to the community."
Post a Comment
<< Home