This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
A Communication Dilemma: Can it be solved?
There are two people:
- Person A
- Person B
They have a debate. Person A explains his point. Person B says you're wrong, and he explains his point. Person A agrees and says it's just like what I said, but Person B still disagrees because he doesn't agree with the use/misuse of definitions/analogies. So Person B explains the difference, but Person A still sees no difference and they're effectively the same definitions as his.
A agrees with B, but B doesn't agree with A on a fundamental level. A thinks he knows exactly B's point, but B thinks A has it all wrong. A thinks his definitions are exactly the same as B's, but B sees the misuse of definitions as horribly wrong.
So who is right, and who is wrong? Is A correct and that B is inflexible to others' arguments or is B correct and that A's points and definitions were too loose/abstract?
I realize this question is abstract and lacks context, but that was my point...
Closing Statement from James Zhang
There are many diverse answers and interesting responses, and that this model could be applied to many situations like religious arguments and whatnot.
Whoever is right or not depends on the context.
Someone's answer to this question can also tell you a lot about what kind of person he/she is.
Perhaps the solution to this dilemma may not even be relevant.
Michelle Drake
Kevin McCallum
A is absolutely correct...according to A
B is absolutely correct...according to B
And if I might be C for a moment, I know I am right about this.
John Moonstroller 30+
James, You should look into how the Wampanoag Indians (the Indians who met the Pilgrims) are recreating their lost language. It is an interesting story involving many people who are definitely not experts in their field, yet, have made tremendous progress just reading about linguistics and applying the rules. They have caught the attention of MIT Linguistics department and were sent help in their project. The lady leading the project was presented with an honorary degree for her field work, documentation and progress.
What was lost is now being spoken by hundreds of Wampanoag decedents today. It's a wonderful story and I believe will help you find an answer to your question of how knowledge and progress can be achieve in the face of disagreement among people working on a common cause. I believe the story will inspire you.
It's the end product that best describes our conquests and failures. We are what we do, not what we perceive we can accomplish.
James Zhang 30+
John Moonstroller 30+
B = f + g + h
A says, B is correct c = f + g and d = h and e = 0.
B says that c = f + g but d NE to h and e > 0 so A is incorrect.
They are both correct, only if d = h and e is = 0 or or agree that e > 0 .
As long as they can't agree on d e and h, they will have to agree to disagree.
It's not abstract at all really.
James Zhang 30+
John Moonstroller 30+
James Zhang 30+
John Moonstroller 30+
It's a form of short hand more so than using variables to describe something. Note the use of = and NE to say equal to and Not Equal.
A kind of Morse code of sorts. There are no variables. In fact, for the most part, they are constants.
The point was: Sometime you just have to agree to disagree. Yes, this could put a fork in the road but that is the way life is. It's like 1/x I say it is equal to zero if x is equal to zero but you say......
Mercuro Chrome
Random Chance 30+
Listening is a form of love.
We basically refuse to love and it is so apparent around the globe.
So, we have a communication dilemma.
Think of almost anything and anybody that we should love
and you will find yourself going, "yes, but,.."
The dilemma is simply a refusal to love without any buts.
James Zhang 30+
Like the NBA basketball player Shaquille O'Neal, said that there were some people/coaches he hated working with, and hated them. However, if you don't respect them and for what they do, then you can never be able to work with them.
Debra Smith 200+
James Zhang 30+
Debra Smith 200+
Debra Smith 200+
If I give up, like most people do, it feels as though I am capitulating when I know where this thing is likely to head (or at least think I do).
I think the world got into this state because so many people said: WHATEVER, instead of having the integrity to say NO WAY!
Some call that stubborness. Some call it lack of awareness of the consequences. Some call integrity.
James Zhang 30+
That's why I concluded that in the end, I do whatever I feel needs to be done, or whatever I feel is most important to me and to society in general.
Gail . 50+
You cannot learn from one who does not know.
If you cannot back up your assertions using evidence, you're just arguing for argument's sake.
I do not participate in conversations when I realize that the other person is not really looking for answers or a sincere way to point out any intellectual inconsistency in my idea. Those waste my time, and time, like life, is precious.
James Zhang 30+
So how do you make one want to learn?
"You cannot learn from one who does not know."
Maybe not directly, but inspiration comes from anywhere, and you can learn a lot from even from kids who just ask a bunch of questions on a subject when they don't know much about what they're asking.
"If you cannot back up your assertions using evidence, you're just arguing for argument's sake."
I think this also depends on how much your statement needs elaborating. I know Edward Long on here is incredibly efficient when he makes his statements/posts, but he doesn't always provide evidence to back up his claims.
"I do not participate in conversations when I realize that the other person is not really looking for answers or a sincere way to point out any intellectual inconsistency in my idea. Those waste my time, and time, like life, is precious."
Maybe not all questions need definitive concrete answers, maybe some questions are just meant to simply be thought-provoking, but I understand what you're saying, it can be really annoying when someone who asks a questions doesn't really seek any specific answer, but just answers/replies. It sounds kinda pretentious really... lol
Gail . 50+
2. I cannot learn from one who doesn't know, but if I love learning, I can ask myself a question and go look for an answer. In this case, I haven't learned from the one who doesn't know; but rather, have learned because of my own intellectual curiosity.
3. Backup evidence is not required unless rational thought is insufficient to get the point across. But if you disagree with my examples, and I with yours, then we should both put our evidence on the table or admit that we simply do not know.
I'm thinking of the "God is real" "No it isn't" conversation. Neither can prove that they are right and the other is wrong, but one side can provide evidence to support her beliefs. The other simply quotes bible verses or says - look around you. It's so obvious. There is no legitimate evidence.
4. lol - agree.
James Zhang 30+
That's exactly how I think what everyone should do in terms of learning. What drives you is intellectual curiosity on the subject itself, and teaching in general should be more focused on inspiring others to learn, rather than actually spoon-feeding knowledge when they aren't even invested in your spoon-feeding.
3.
Indeed. The other thing to note is that what's rational to one person, is not rational to another.
Comment deleted
James Zhang 30+
I think it's really important to identify and agree on a common base definition of fundamentally basic concepts.
Lejan . 30+
Comment deleted
Gerald O'brian 50+
B : You're dead wrong, mate. The way you defined God earlier, God has to be non-real. Out of time, out of space.
A : Correct. God exists out of reality.
B : No, no, no, wait. You can't exist if you're not real, see? By definition, you can't. You just can't.
A : That's my point. God has to be real then.
A : There is no God.
B : Sorry, mate. You're wrong there. You and I, this chair, this bar... everything in the world comes from something else.
A : That's my point. If things always come from something else, then a God (which doesn't come from anything else) cannot exist.
B : It doesn't work like this. Things can't come from something else ad infinitum. You need something to get that rule started. At one point, the story begins "something creates something".
A : I have no trouble with that.
So I guess who's right and wrong depends on the context, entirely.
James Zhang 30+
Gerald O'brian 50+
James Zhang 30+
Gerald O'brian 50+
B : Your point of view is subjective and no one can possibly claim to know 'the truth'.
A : I agree. Objective reality is not knowlable.
B : That's because there is no such thing.
A : No that's because of its very nature.
D : That's right, A. I do exist. In fact, I'm one of the fundamental laws of nature.
B : Well, I can see you, now. With my own eyes, so I guess you exist after all...
D : I could be an optical illusion, or an hallucination for all you know.
B : So you're not real?
A : Look, B. What D is trying to say is that "seeing" something doesn't certifie of its existence. The reason you know D exists is that we're having a discussion that we couldn't be having if D didn't exist.
B : Why not?
D : Because of the way you're discussing. If it wasn't for objective reality, you couldn't possibly decide whether conjectures were valid or invalid, and this discussion would be going no where.
B ; So the very fact that progress is possible is evidence that some truth, some reality exists, autonomously?
D : I never thought of it this way. I guess you're right.
C : Yeah, that makes sense. So all these guys saying that...
D : Who?
C : I don't know, I'm just saying. You meet a lot of people who don't think objective reality exists. I guess they're afraid to miss some truth if they narrow it down to a single one. Doesn't sound open-minded either.
A : And yet, it is more so than the obnoxious "there is no such thing as a bad idea". Denial of objective reality is dangerous.
B ; So we all agree here.
C : That's the best part.
D : Glad I could help. Bye, mates.
James Zhang 30+
Isn't that a statement about objectivity? I mean a "bad" idea is also subjective, so objectively speaking, there's no real "bad" idea, since it only depends on who's perceiving it to be bad. So would that statement be a denial of objective reality or something that is actually objective?
Gerald O'brian 50+
And it's not a matter of opinion. It is a bad idea because there is no reason to believe that sacrifice helps agriculture. It is a belief based on a bad understanding of the world.
I see you coming ; Every understanding of the world can only be bad, since we'll never have solved every problem, since it's an infinite process. But because of the objective nature of things, we know which understanding is deeper (better) than another.
Our understanding of meteorology is better than that of the Mayans. So we know better than to believe there is a personnal god controling the weather.
It's NOT a matter of opinion whether our theories are better.
And the danger about so-called open-mindedness is that you soon start believing anything and end up inevitably narrow-minded. To stay open-minded, you must accept that some ideas are dead ends. Some ideas are just crap.
Slavery is crap.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
The scenario you describe is one reason life would be easier if people were less interested in creating and selling new jargons for old ideas. But the situation also arises often when people in different disciplines with different terminology have been addressing the same question. Each within his discipline is using an accepted language but once they meet, communication requires them to figure out the equivalence of their terms and concepts.
If they are unwilling to go through this, communication will be impeded.
Comment deleted
James Zhang 30+
Lejan . 30+
I just noticed, that if two people are really open minded towards each others views and believes, they will not end up within the situation you mentioned above. They will take their time and understanding to solve the irrelevant differences to find out and understand the real ones.
Agreement is never mandatory within a discussion, understanding should be.
James Zhang 30+
Hmm I always thought understanding required some form of agreement on a more fundamental level.
Lejan . 30+
Understanding is no form of justification or approval and therefore it does not need agreement.
James Zhang 30+
But I guess you're right in that understanding doesn't require an agreement with others' on a topic/logic.
Lejan . 30+
There is no absolute logic. Logic works within certain framework conditions and defined initial values. To understand a certain logic you have to 'slip' into those condition, yet there is no need to agree on them to use them.
Crime investigators do this to get to understand and to foresee the next plot of an serial killer, as a killer himself may follow a personal logic in planning his next crime.
If you had to agree on this logic, to get to understand it, you would become at least a partner in crime, which, for the crime investigator and the society, would not have served helpful...
So understanding can not be defined as agreement in logic of something.
James Zhang 30+
Also, would "agreement" be defined as the acceptance someone/something's ideas in conjunction to your own ideas?
Lejan . 30+
Debra Smith 200+
Agreement is not the measurement of learning.
If all else fails, which is obvious by ongoing poor levels of agreement and entrenched opinions = simple respect and humour help.
James Zhang 30+
Debra Smith 200+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
James Zhang 30+
Debra Smith 200+