Losing the Dialectic

A friend reminded me recently that I've always resisted doing something simply because I was told or expected to do that thing. I think actions must be deliberate and require thought. There must be a reason to act, not simply a lack of a reason to not do it. With that thought, a life has purpose. Without that purpose, what is there to life but drifting?

That independence of thought causes more trouble than anything else. Because I have a reason to act, I am more invested in acting than those who act without thought or regard. Unfortunately, those that refuse to think initially often refuse to think when confronted with an opposing view. Challenging the way someone thinks, or acts in the case of stupid people, can be a vicious struggle.

That struggle, while it isn't always between idealism and pragmatism, does reflect different thoughts working towards resolution, either by compromise or by one side being defeated. Many people fail to understand that an argument can, and should, be devoid of personal attack. Instead, the goal is a battle of ideas to generate the best idea.

The process is lost upon people who tie their ego to their argument, refusing to give up when they are proven wrong. These people are difficult to work with and pervert the best of intentions because of narcissism.

One of the hardest things I've had to learn is admitting that I am wrong. It is difficult, but arguing in the face of being proven wrong or irrelevant is stupid and egotistical. However, I do think that I am better for it. Of course, I still argue stupid points, but I do so less frequently.

I find that most people haven't learned and do not care to learn this lesson. Being wrong isn't a sign of losing, it's a sign of progression and education. If you are wrong and learn you are wrong, you are better for it. You have learned something new and better. If you learn you are wrong and continue to argue in support of that wrong idea, you are promoting ignorance and preventing a better outcome.

This is a fairly academic distinction if you are working with a very small group of intelligent people with good communication skills. I'm discovering this optimum solution is rarely present. Instead, there are many larger groups, full of people with their own ideas, unwilling to realize that their idea may be wrong or that there may be a better idea that isn't theirs.

Consequently, I'm regularly demonized as the obstinate one. Yes, I will argue my point until we are forced to make a decision. Yes, I will not compromise my argument. Yet, I will change my argument or give it up completely if it can be proven wrong or inefficient.

In the end, I've realized it often isn't even about the argument. It's about people being petty. The argument and it's pursuit is the ideal. Dealing with the person is the pragmatic element, because people need to be placated and made to feel that they are necessary.

So what is the solution? Do we attempt to ignore the person for the argument? I think that isn't possible in most situations. Whatever action must be taken may be taken without compromise and efficiently in the instant case. But what about the next time you must interact with that person or those people?

Do we attempt to focus on the person instead of the argument? I think this is the flaw that many leaders make. In an attempt to placate the person, the argument for the action is lost. This simply dilutes the meaning of the action, leading to co-option, corruption, and perversion. It gives voice to an element that works against better solutions, legitimizing it for another day and another argument.