Why do we need dialogue?
November 22nd, 2005 | by A T M |Excerpt from the PDF I found on the web.
On Dialogue Vs Discussion. Very thoughtful.
‘Discussion’ comes from the same root as ‘percussion’ and ‘concussion.’ It really means to break things up. It emphasizes the idea of analysis, where there may be many points of view
and where everybody is presenting a different one—analyzing and breaking up.
That obviously has its value but is limited and will not get us very far beyond our various points of view. Discussion is almost like a ping-pong game, where people are batting the ideas back and forth
and the object of the game is to win or get points for yourself. The basic point is to win the game.
In a dialogue, nobody is trying to win. Everybody wins if anybody wins. There is a
different sort of spirit to it. In a dialogue there is no attempt to gain points or to make your
particular view prevail.
A dialogue is something more of a common participation in which we are not playing a game against each other but with each other. In a dialogue everybody wins.
Why do we need dialogue?
People have difficulty communicating in small groups, much less large groups. This is because people have different assumptions and opinions. These are deep-seated assumptions about the meaning of life; about your own self-interest, your country’s interest, or your religious interests; about what you really think is important. These assumptions are defended when they are challenged. We could also call these assumptions ‘opinions.’ An opinion is an assumption. A person identifies herself with their opinions and assumptions and has an emotional investment in them.
Related posts
- Superbowl 2008
- Seeding Successful Start-ups
- Better visual for boring data
- Reservations about Reservations
