When Gulliver stumbles upon Lilliput and Blefuscu, the first destinations in Gulliver's Travels, the two miniature nations are fighting a war—and have for generations—about which end of a soft-boiled egg to crack first before eating it. Heady stuff.
A small but valid point about the difference between the two techniques is revealed in the story. But that point was long ago buried under an avalanche of argufying—pushing back against someone else's position because it's their position—as opposed to arguing, the process of moving toward agreement on principles and, perhaps, toward truth.
We've lost that distinction as we've lost the desire for understanding in our schools, courthouses, and legislatures. We as leaders and educators need to push back against this habit of eristic nonsense.
In the mid-19th century Alexis de Tocqueville noted this in Democracy in America. Despite protestations from the Freedom Fries mob, the book praises the American experiment. It also warns against a "preoccupation with goods," the "tyranny of the majority" over reason, and "the judgment of the wise subordinated to the prejudices of the ignorant." These are present in the current rapturous fascination with loud voices and listening-as-weakness: eristic nonsense.
Eris, the Greek goddess of discord, gets the credit here in a word that perfectly captures too much of what we as leaders and learners need to weed out of conversations. It is not an indication of knowledge or wisdom to listen for discord (reversal + heart). Instead, we should be listening for points of symphony (sounding + together). Saying, "We see this very differently" is less eristic than "You're wrong."
I was a debate coach. I love to argue. As a game. But leadership and learning overlap at understanding, not at winning the debate over which end of the egg to crack first. We can begin to deflate eristic nonsense by listening for understanding and letting go of the foolish illusion that listening for agreement is a sign of weakness.
It's not weakness, it's fearlessness.
1 Response