Dialogue versus Debate

[Robby Russell]

Hey all,

I came across this web page, which has a nice comparison of Dialogue
versus Debate.

http://www.ullerymanagement.com/art_of_dialogue.htm

Worth reviewing. :-)

*discuss*

-Robby

--
Robby Russell
http://www.robbyonrails.com/
http://www.planetargon.com/

[Mike Pence]

I am afraid that our president who campaigned as a "uniter" has so
sharply divided our country
that most people could not distinguish between dialogue and debate
today. Too much of our conversation in the political realm is the zero
sum game of debate.

We all suffer for that. Personal attack has replaced thoughtful
discourse and religion especially has made seeing that the other side
has a valid point of view impossible.

[Robby Russell]

On Oct 10, 2006, at 5:34 AM, Mike Pence wrote:

> I am afraid that our president who campaigned as a "uniter" has so
> sharply divided our country
> that most people could not distinguish between dialogue and debate
> today. Too much of our conversation in the political realm is the zero
> sum game of debate.
>
> We all suffer for that. Personal attack has replaced thoughtful
> discourse and religion especially has made seeing that the other side
> has a valid point of view impossible.

I'll stray from current world affairs... but I believe that you're
absolutely correct in your assessment of the current state of
conversation. As a society, we're relying on debate in the name of
progress. Perhaps there are various times where debate is much
needed, even in software development. However, I'm not convinced that
debating with your client about their Really Great Idea is going to
provide the foundation to collaborate together.

Back to current world affairs... I wonder how much debate has
prevented political parties from engaging in thoughtful dialogue.

How has debate affected your teams and projects?

[Mike Pence]

I think that people revert to debate to protect their turf, especially
in corporate environments. People build up silos of influence and
jealously protect their status in the organization by using debate
instead of dialogue, because admitting that another group has a valid
point of view is to acknowledge that they, on some level, are as
important as you.

Some of the most heated arguments I have seen in the meeting rooms of
corporations have been about naming and terminology. Getting disparate
groups in a company to call things by the same names is often
virtually impossible. The language of the sub-culture is tightly bound
to their identity.

On 10/10/06, Robby Russell <ro...@planetargon.com> wrote:
>
>

[Brasten Sager]

On Oct 10, 2006, at 6:03 AM, Robby Russell wrote:
> Back to current world affairs... I wonder how much debate has
> prevented political parties from engaging in thoughtful dialogue.
> How has debate affected your teams and projects?

I don't think it's reasonable to expect politicians to dialogue more
-- and even if they did it wouldn't accomplish much. Dialogue is OUR
job, not theirs. We point fingers and blame and elect politicians to
be our representatives, so they in turn point fingers and blame --
thus representing us accurately.

But I digress a bit. We shouldn't vilify debate too much. Dialogue
explicitly rejects the notion of a 'winning argument'. This is great
where shared understanding and general thought exploration are
important. Debate provides a method of discourse where a decision or
final result must be made. Successful debate must allow for many
points of view, and those involved must be willing to explore
opposing arguments and adjust their positions accordingly. It's
exactly this kind of debate that we need MORE of from our politicians
and leaders.

It is also exactly the kind of thing we need to remove from the
requirements gathering and other customer interaction phases, but I
suggest it's appropriate for architectural discussions amongst
developers.

-Brasten