I remember Bertrand Russell's writing that if you encounter an idea that is patently absurd, it's better to try to understand it's author's thought process than to simply mock it.
3
I think it is very important to take in all opinions. My parents did not believe that "children's" opinions could be valid. And when I say children I mean teenagers as well. I clearly remember being shot down when trying to discuss a subject by being told "......you don;t know what you are talking about. You're just a kid."
I am in my 70's now but still remember how that stung. It also taught me to remain quite around those older and "wiser" than me.
10
Once upon a time, kids didn't receive trophies in school for participating but instead had to learn to debate, marshalling arguments and evidence to defend a position. Heck, they even had to learn to do so for positions with which they disagreed. The whole school atmosphere of avoiding learning that requires right-wrong answers (not simply right and wrong, but nuanced accuracy and error) leads to students who have temper tantrums when faced with a speaker whose positions they don't like. How much better for them to learn how to engage and fence on the issues rather than to take their intellectual ball and go home when they are confronted with differing views.
11
The creative person in the world?
Human existence if put into a modern science-fiction story form, is that of a large group of people suddenly awakening with no idea of what occurred to them, they are just there, say within an object which is a starship but they have no idea what it is and have to figure it out. They have awakened with no memory and the struggle begins to determine what and who they are, what went wrong if anything etc.
This idea of course goes back to Plato, that learning is remembrance, getting back to the ideas, dispelling shadows on the cave wall. Well, the creative person, the person we today would call of outstanding scientific or artistic or leadership capability is the type of person concerned above all with answering all these so many questions, with organizing people toward project of comprehension, with discovering how things operate, with creating within the situation.
But the people that have dominated all too much over human history and who dominate to this day are those who wake up and seize this or that and say "it is mine" or who organize people only to get something mostly for themselves, or who propagate false views, try to force knowledge, what is what on people. We are all suddenly awake in a crisis situation, no one really knows what is what, and of all things, it seems the maddest, most bullying, sly, conniving, grasping, phony, sophistic, ugly, vulgar people just keep mucking things up when we need a concerted effort to comprehend.
3
The most important point is to argue/debate with logic and facts, not mere persuasion. Anyone can badger another one into losing an argument, but changing a mind? Much harder. Rhetoric, while emotionally satisfying, is not the same as clear, reasoned discourse. Sadly, we have too little of the latter and too much of the former.
6
The bands’ albums are SO much better than the solo albums. E.g. Queen.
3
I grew up watching my mother and father debate my aunts and uncles over various topics. They loved each other but every Sunday, some family ended up at someone's house for another round. Recently, I hung out with a cousin and his friends and we launched into a heated debate during breakfast. The other patrons must have thought we were arguing only to be surprised to see us hugging and kissing each other goodbye in the parking lot! We laughed when we realized that we had turned into our parents.
Healthy debate is a wonderful thing!
6
So, the bottom line seems to be: creative innovation requires a salubrious balance of contention and cooperation. You're welcome!
5
People in my temple assert that if there are three Jews in a room there four opinions, so Jews must be very creative....
7
Debate NOT arguing. Yelling your opinions at someone else is just “venting.” Pointless!!!
Debate is you present your opinion while the other person listens. Then the other person speaks while you listen. Listen means you don’t comment while the other speaks. Very different process. You can learn doing that. Yelling at each other is not debate.
8
I have to work hard to get people to state their point of view. And, once expressed, have to work even harder to get them to share their reasons.
5
Think arguing is bad? How then do you explain the success of democracy? One group rules, and the other’s job, like court jesters, is to howl them down. Then they change sides.
I find this article confused. You seem to suggest that a family which has healthy disagreements (as per your bulletpoints) will be "full of tension". But why?
Surely there is nothing which brings more harmony than the ability to resolve disagreements by listening to and respecting each other?
I fully agree that disagreement is good, and that debating rather than accepting differences is good for creativity. I just fail to see why this would be associated with "tension".
I do agree that growing up in a family which has unhealthy disagreements will probably give one a thicker skin, and make one more likely to succeed in unhealthy disagreements later in life, in work or personal life - but I'm not sure that's a good thing. Because those unhealthy disagreements often results in a short-term win but a long term loss of respect from the others involved.
1
I agree with the major points in this article that support the idea that children should be taught at an early age that disagreements rather than arguments are an essential part in personal and career relationships. When the article refers to the Wright brothers and their many disagreements while working on their airplane, it shows that a skill in productive disagreements is “to get hot without getting mad.” Another key to successfully disagreeing is being able to listen to the other’s point of view. “Argue as if you’re right but listen as if you’re wrong,” an important point in the article, hits home with me because my sister and I tend to argue quite a lot. Most of the time our arguments go downhill fast because instead of listening to each other, we have a tendency to be thinking about our next statement to counter rather than listening to the other’s point of view. A major point in the article is that parents should teach their kids to form productive skills when faced with a disagreement. I would say my parents have done a pretty good job of encouraging us to not be afraid of starting conversations when we believe we have a valid point that might differ from theirs. We may not always win the arguments, but their willingness to let us practice this skill will certainly help in our future.
3
I will turn this car around right now!
5
In order for people to disagree constructively, there has to be trust. When you start impugning the other person's motives, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt, you poison the well. The study of logic, and avoidance of fallacies, would go a long way to teaching people how to do this. As do the teachings of Christianity. The assault on those foundations is the reason why things are crumbling.
If we wanted to enjoy a healthier environment for constructive debate and disagreement, the left could start by abandoning its tactic of calling people racists at the first opportunity, and inventing those opportunities whenever needed.
The problem is when people will do anything to get what they want, and refuse to question themselves and find compromise. Anyone who disagrees with them is seen as an enemy to be destroyed, rather than someone who might offer them a different way of thinking that they never considered.
2
How about if the Republican's president stops using the ad hominem attacks on every, single, solitary person who says anything resembling a different point of view, ie; "liddle", "lyin'", "sad", "disgraceful", "a total clown", also, "a total mess", and "stupid." The insult list goes on and on and on (389 people, places and things per the NYT on 11/4/2017).
Noticeably absent any intelligent discourse coming from trump.
2
Trump represents Republicans, after seeing well-mannered candidates who tried to be "above the fray" eviscerated repeatedly, finally deciding to fight fire with fire. There can be no question that it is the radical left, growing since the 1960s, that has thrown over the table because it doesn't suit them to "humanize" their enemies.
There might be a point here. Even though I grew up in the 60's and 70's my parents never fought in front of me. The implication was actual fighting, even serious disagreement, was low class and I think my Dad associated conflict with the New Haven Streets he was escaping. I never learned to deal with disagreement. I acquiesce or, conversely, quit, too often. Maybe it is important to invent some conflict in front of your children if you do not naturally have arguments? I know my family could have used some more conflict
2
So many missing the point. This article says have a different point of view but don't be a bully. This is about listening to one another not coming to the same conclusion. Having respect for one another's point of view as well as your own. John and Paul were competitive with one another not putting each other down. It was only when they saw their own pain that they fell apart. My family argued at every gathering. Sometimes more sometimes less. But in the end we listened. And loved each other. I am a strong person because I learned to argue.
5
This ought to be required reading on every university campus in the country. Unfortunately, Mr Grant would be shouted down by enraged mobs if he were to try to give a talk about it on those campuses.
sir, my extremely liberal family has sent our extremely liberal son to UChicago, home of Bernie (not a fan) and (Bark (who should have spoken out about Russian attacks far earlier). Rare is the school that doesn't come around. Perhaps you'd consider going beyond the moment at those liberal schools. Then contrast with institutions on the far right that won't allow discussions of evolution.
1
Does this apply equally to introverts?
So how about we live democratically instead of in conflict?
1
Disagreements produce discomfort amongst on lookers and display conflicts rather than cooperation or collaboration. For those whose preferences lie with agreeable interactions with others, conflicts are unproductive and they really believe that they have no useful purpose in bringing people together to address common needs. Instead, they believe that by nurturing and supporting people unconditionally will produce far more agreeable behaviors and sharing which will bring about the better solutions to problems and will facilitate the cooperative behaviors which will resolve them. So they discourage disagreements and sincerely believe that affirming children's behaviors to boost their sense of self worth no matter whether what they do is actually productive of a relevant good solution or not. They cannot understand that the inherent diversity of humans leads to very different takes on situations and sincere efforts to deal with them which might produce real disagreements and emotional displays.
3
So explain to me the harmonious culture of the Balinese.
And yet everyone's an artist.
As for the Beatles, my first thought was that they were best when they collaborated in harmony, not squabbled over direction. When the in-fighting started, the band fell apart.
The cutting-edge cancer cures we are seeing today are the fruition of a new era of collaboration between medical research entities after a long era of competitive research. Science seeking self glory is limited by the refusal to share data.
People argue. This will always happen. But don't try and tell me that the "fighting" is what is most productive. People can have ideas without conflict. Just think about it.
6
Beatles is a bad example. They were best when they lived on top of each other becoming one eight limbed being instead of four men.
1
So, you disagree?
And think that people will come to your point of view if only they think about it? Did not the article require the author to already have thought about it?
This article should make us all stand up and rethink our microscopic snowflake views pertaining to Trump and his team.
This article provides support to Trump's decision to go with a cabinet which, at times.... according to NYT, seemed to be at each others throats.
3
Families and couples who don't argue with one another but instead constantly portray a tensely-fake united front are hiding something. It's creepy.
4
What is weirder is if they really never find much of anything to disagree about. Really...
Obviously written by someone without familial ties to southeast Asian cultures where family harmony trumps individual expression. I'm guessing writer is upper/middle class and white.
2
You could view it as being in favour of an individualistic culture and not in favour of a collectivist culture. Does that mean it is wrong?
Which cultures are more creative...
The phrase "now we live in a time when voices that might offend are silenced on college campuses" demonstrates a failure by the author to see past his white/cis/male perspective. In reality we 'now live in a time' in which women, racial minorities, queer people etc. (voices that might 'offend' current power structures) are allowed to even exist as humans (and therefore go to school). What some schools are doing is demanding a heightened level of sensitivity to allow these minority groups to integrate themselves into academia. If such a demand is not made then women and minorities are excluded from meaningful intellectual engagement by default. So really the skill we need to learn is to argue and potentially become deeply personally offended but retain a self awareness such that we can explain specifically why something offended us. The whole 'get whiskey drunk with your bro and yell at eachother but remember deep down its cool cus you're both some JJ lovin white dudes' is regressive.
4
Well one reason for Trump is your refusal to grant the drunk white dude the cultural agency you ( rightly) demand for other cohorts in the USA. I find much in Redneck cultural seriously mistaken but such people acutley know when they are being condescended to. Thus our President. I guess the trick is to accept who people are without having to agree with what they believe. We tend to see our political opponents as being morally and intellectually compromised at best. We do not have to support White Supremacy to listen to those who find nativism a quick fix. I spent much of my working life trying to explain Social Democracy in terms a culturally conservative working man or woman would understand. Won't fix everything but we gotta try.
1
Not just children, adults too! Even if you're an "old dog" teach yourself a new trick!
3
I totally disagree!
4
Can you please make 535 copies of your four rules, and mail them to every member of Congress?
10
I liked this article a lot, so two suggestions: keep lots of books of different sorts around, read them yourselves, encourage your kids to read them; don't allow your respect for argument and dissent and radical views to talk you into respect for obvious nonsense and bigotry.
Flat-earthism, creationist "refutations" of science, trickle-down economics, the guys who believe that the Vril-powered nazi flying saucers ar hiding in the hollow earth, are fun to laugh at--but arguing with such stuff isn't real argument. It's candy, and will rot your teeth.
WIlbur and Orville argued over real things, on the basis of real knowledge. That's one of the hidden issues here: a lot of us aren't.
4
I used to leave books on the stairs knowing my daughter would read them as long as she wasn’t asked to....
Such arguments are essential. We have too many who believe unbelievable things and there are enough of them to screw up of body politic. I got a Republican Climate Change skeptic ( NOT a denier) to consider that AGW was real cause of Exxon's investment in currently frozen ocean to drill for oil...Some people can be convinced and if you do convnce one they will help lay the groundwork for their friends re considering the issue. Of course this is way limited, but not every Trump can be written off.
2
The article is correct, the US has forgotten how to argue. Arguments do not have to docile and subdued, or as some call it "civilized". They can be loud and raucous, but they are based on recognizing that the other side has the right to their opinions and even could be right. The US admiration for pragmatism over Ideology has reversed itself. Ideology cannot stand arguments, as it must always be right and differing opinions are heresy and must be expunged. If this trend continues, the US might sink to an unsuccessful experiment in freedom, replaced by a suffocating totalitarian society, which is so common in this world.
6
Here is another example: The Sherman brothers, Robert and Richard, have together written some of the most cheerful and beautiful Disney movie and theme park songs. However, in a documentary about "The Boys", it turns out that they did not get along at all.
2
Excellent four basic rules!
Now if only there were a way to make them legally enforceable in politics...
3
Love this article but have one quibble....it’s very ethnocentric. In my experience Mediterranean cultures are the most comfortable with open, frequent argumentation. Those of us who have lived in East Asia know that the thesis of this article could provoke cardiac arrest in those cultures. But no need to travel so far—WASP culture, with its need to put a happy face and “genteel” spin on all interactions is the antithesis of this as well. I always laugh when my WASP friends tsk tsk about shouting parents. Last time I checked, Mediterranean countries not only have some of the longest longevity spans in the world, but they also seem to curiously not breed “postal” antisocial sociopathic behavior. All that passive smiling and “social” agreement has far more costs than lost creativity.
7
Oh. Good point.
I really enjoyed this article but I would never encourage someone who is ambitious to be quarrelsome in the workplace, even if the end output will produce a higher than expected result. I agree that conflict can produce good outcomes but in order for this to happen, everyone involved must have an intimate knowledge and a heathy respect for the other party. This is why, for example, conflict type partnership dynamic worked so well with the Wright Bros but would probably not work so well with my bankers.
3
All this works only if none of the sides insists that up is down and down is up. Only if they honestly look for the truth rather than defend their positions no matter how ridiculous and wrong their arguments become.
2
I feel soooooooo much better. We argue A LOT in our house but we also laugh A LOT and are very silly with each other. To whit, my son tells me I am a "competent" cook which makes me laugh out loud. I totally agree that creativity stems from arguing, I see it in my kids, in me and at work. It can be painful but often it's worth it in the end - you get a better product after the fight....
4
This article is a fundamental misunderstanding of creativity. All creative acts, either internal to the individual or externally in a group consist of periods of open minded brainstorming, jamming, sketching, etc. followed by periods of editing, criticism, etc. Sometimes these activities are almost intertwined, other times they are part of a more lengthy formal process and separated by hours, days, weeks, etc.
But in regards to creative group work, everyone must feel comfortable enough to suggest ideas and feel that they have been heard. Allowing people to bully and control the creative process by immediately shooting down ideas is never the way to go. Otherwise bad ideas that lead to good ideas may never happen and bad ideas go unchallenged, which reminds me of a certain politician.
4
Do you seriously think that the author was advocating shutting people down.
“It’s why one of the cardinal rules of brainstorming is “withhold criticism.” ”
This is a common, and unfortunate, misunderstanding of effective brainstorming. Effective brainstorming sessions mix generation and criticism; however, the amount of space needed between the generation period and criticism period depends on the relational bonds of the group. A group of people less familiar and experienced working with one another may need to generate on one day and then subject ideas to critical analysis the next. A group of people who have developed strong working relationships may intermingle generation and criticism (see “Organizational Psychology for Managers”). The best teams fight constantly; they’re the Weebles of argument: they wobble but they don’t fall over.
Stephen R Balzac, Ph.D.
4
Just look at the sheer number of comments on this topic and you can feel the author hitting a nerve. Let me just go ahead and put teaching this skill on my educator plate, too. I spend hours, days, years teaching children to listen to each other, to find common ground, so they can actually grow to be adults with opinions based on facts and a concern for social justice and the rights of those less glib than they are.
My current book I turn to is "We Need to Talk". Because as one person is busy arguing the other guy is trying to come up with how best to "get him" or trip him up or prove him wrong.
If you want to know about creativity, read Csikszentmihaly's book of the same name.
By teaching your students how to listen, you are teaching them how to argue. Well done, you.
I wonder if you welcome such opportunities, or if you view them as damage control? You will teach your students what you already believe.
The promotion of respectful disagreement implies that there is no correct answer and only a correct process. That works, I guess, in a relativistic world. usually, however, there is just one correct answer, unless we're talking about taste or feelings. In a world of opinions, there can be disagreement, but in a world of facts, there cannot be disagreement. Certainly, people disagreed about whether the world is round or flat, but flat-earthers are entirely wrong, and now look stupid. Perhaps two children can disagree about what they should use for a snowman's nose (a carrot or a strawberry), but two children cannot disagree about the rules of baseball (three strikes is an out and not four).
1
There are facts, and there is uncertainty. Most things people argue about cannot be known with certainty.
I can’t play baseball. If I play with you, may I have four strikes so I can have fun too, please?
What can't be known with certainty? Few people argue about the nature of gravity. People might debate about an agent's motive for his or her action, but the action discussed is always known with certainty (why didn't he call, etc?), but the motive is unknown. I would advocate not speculating on the known.
We should pass over in silence, things that we can neither know nor talk about.
Mostly, things that we can't known with certainty inhabit the realms of psychology, crime, and astrophysics. Perhaps cancer medicine too. I don't believe in psychology or the unconscious. So, that just leaves homicide, astrophysics, and cancer medicine, and I rarely find myself talking about any of those.
People usually argue about opinions (is rap music?), solutions to problems, and personal preferences (IPA vs stout).
Baseball would be a different game with four strikes. So, we couldn't play baseball with that new rule. A game is defined by
a) having rules
b) its set of rules
Hockey has rules. Singing in a round has rules. The latter *could* be described as a game, because a singer can mess up. So, there must be rules in effect. I don't think games need to be competitive or to have scoring. Children make up lots of games with rules, but that are non-comeptitive. Maybe during a "make believe" tea party, one must say "hank you, my queen." That's the rule. But nobody is trying win by saying it the best.
I've read too much Wittgenstein and understood too little of it.
Unfortunately, bad arguing and juvenile bullying seems to have worked just fine in the service of getting a POTUS elected.
Right on! Millennials are the result of cushy parenting. Most of them have no survival skills and slow down progress in the workplace because they never heard the word "No" as a child. They were taught that they are "perfect." Kids who never experience conflict, debate, defeat or the school bully will likely get steamrolled in the real world.
2
This did not start with millennials. I was raised with the WASP aversion to conflict in the 60's and 70's. Maybe we had it worse cause, being Irish Catholics, we were not WASPs. Not new though.
It may be a product of a more Visual age, but more and more people seem to be unable to hear the content of what someone is saying because they tuned out the “tone” or the “wrong” facial expression, or the person talking to them wasn’t looking directly at them, or something like that.
2
Agreed. Look what polite, non-argumentative Middle America gave us-Donald Trump. I'll take disputatious New Yorkers any day.
1
“Disputatious” word of the day.
In support of the benefits of courteous conflict and healthy debate, consider the politics and the investments of Warren Buffett. He's had liberal politics since he was a teenager. Warren often argued politics with his very conservative father, but never convinced his dad to change his politics. Since then, for over fifty years, he has often argued politics with his even more conservative business partner Charlie Munger. He never convinced Charlie to change his politics either.
Losing political arguments with his dad and his business partner made Warren Buffett a winning investment manager. His failures at changing their thinking changed Warren's thinking for the better. He learned how to think things through much better. His success at making his political points, even though he did not move his dad or Munger to change, led to better decisions, and much more investment success than he had ever imagined.
7
A good lesson for Congress. Instead of hearings and debate and expert testimony and amendments -- instead of compromise -- the leadership meets behind closed doors without opposition and presents the bill, Minerva-like, for the body to pass along strict party lines.
Consider the health bill and the tax bill are both giveaways to the oligarchs at the expense of the general public. I'd love to hear a rigorous defense of the beneficiaries of such anti-democratic legislation.
9
Here is one example of why we do not debate; the vindictiveness of the Rabid Right. The rest of us are having a pretty vigorous but not personal discussion. This gentleman cannot help himself but to start blaming some imaginary 'Leftists" for all the worlds problems.
1
Conflict can be sorted into two categories; affective and cognitive. Cognitive conflict is the push and pull between ideas and is healthy disagreement. It is absolutely essential to creativity and change. Affective conflict is the personal and emotional version of conflict. It sends the message that disagreement is about who we are and that one of us is a better person than the other.
The world would be a better place if families understood the difference and learned to avoid the affective and live in the cognitive.
16
Except, we *all* live in the affective *all* the time. The affective must be nurtured to allow the cognitive the room it needs. My sense is that if you do this, you will be less frustrated. If you listen listen listen, they will feel it.
1
In addition to developing the skills of being able to engage in and manage disagreement and discussion (arguments), I would add that parents need to allow their children to fail, early and often. I believe my job as a parent is not to prevent failure, but to teach my child how to manage, recover from, and persevere despite it. I'm relating this article to another recent discussion of extreme anxiety plaguing today's youth. If children experience handling disagreement and failure early in life with help from key adults, they develop the skills and resiliency necessary for dealing with those things throughout life. We do our children no favors by "protecting" them from the adversities inherent in life. Children learn to manage disagreement by experiencing disagreement, just as they learn to manage failure by experiencing failure. Life is hard, and life is not fair. Better to calmly impart the skills necessary to deal with those realities, rather than futilely attempt to "save" our children from them.
11
"Now we live in a time when voices that might offend are silenced on college campuses, when politics has become an untouchable topic in many circles, even more fraught than religion or race."
Not just on college campuses but all through K-12 and into the workplace. And there are very real consequences; not just 'silencing'.
But how can any of us have a reasonable discussion when too many people truly believe they are 'on the right side of history'?
5
How politically incorrect. And refreshing. Political correctness is the new uptight moralism. And it's just as tedious as the old uptight moralism. Trump's deplorable election is part of a backlash I think.
7
Trump's deplorable election isn't a backlash against PC; it's a perfect expression of right-wing, white Republican PC deployed largely on behalf of the wealthy.
2
One more time 'Politically Correct' was a JOKE. The culturally Right decided it meant being reasonably courteous to others. Politically correct referred to overly humor challenged Progressives in the 1970's.
The "good vibes only" workplace ethos is substantially squashing innovation at work...any sign of dissent is seen as negativity and dissenters are ostracized...managers need to remember that positivity is all well and good, but workplace innovation stems from creative dissonance, not constant compliance.
6
Great article. One of my favorite quotes as it relates to business - if two people agree on everything, there's no need for one of them.
12
There is a whole lot of real-life wisdom in this article, some of which I practice with great success.
Thank you, Adam Grant
4
'Don't shout I am having an head ache' shouted our 4 year old in the car. I told him We are not angry at each other as I kissed my wife's wrist I said we are discussing'.
At that point I had wondered how to instill the spirit of healthy confrontation, discussion without insulting other, which unfortunately is being spearheaded few leaders around the World.
I liked the four rules provided here by the author, especially the 2nd suggestion that instill the patience to listen with full attention.
I do think the header is bit misleading and at one point author mistakenly puts down a necessary value for e.x "What if we taught kids that silence is bad manners" Silence isn't bad manners, Silence at time of speaking against/ pointing out/arguing seeing a wrongful act is bad manners ,in fact detrimental to society's well being.
4
Jagger and Richards.
8
Even better Ray and Dave Davies.
This is not a plug, but it is noteworthy that Ray Dalio of the hedge fund manager Bridgewater has sought to create such an environment. I had the pleasure of working at Janus Capital (now merged and no longer the same place) a dozen years ago and experiencing the internal portfolio team culture which was often argumentative until they left work to down a beer at the RuBar. Having come from a conflict averse family, it was a challenge for me to acclimate to a frictional peer group, but I soon learned that the best thinking was a product of internal challenges to weed out the dumb ideas and find stronger solutions.
something to be said about pearls and oysters and sand......
8
This is one of the best articles I have read on childhood development and conflict in quite awhile.
13
Agree. You don't want to either encourage or discourage fighting. When it happens, stop it only if it gets out of hand and step in as the arbitrator.
It is kind of like at my dog run, the dogs play fight and the owners only stop it when the dogs escalate it to a full fledged fight.
5
Excellent piece. I have often felt that our politics are in such disarray because we, as Americans, have not been talk how to respectfully talk and disagree with each other. The Democrats are now calling for "unity." Why? Let's hash it out! But sadly, it is more likely that any problems will be quickly swept under the rug to provide a united, but ultimately weak, front.
12
Since the author speaks in favor of arguments, here is one.
The argument doesn't provide a broad overview of benefits and detriments of conflict, but instead takes a narrow view that conflict is good and provides just the evidence to support that point.
The author's second point: that a discussion ( regardless of whether it's conflicted or not ) that is rational, based on facts, and done in a respectful manner will be more beneficial than a discussion that's full of logical fallacies, made up things and screaming with fingers tucked into your ears is too trivial to even be a point of argument at all.
I think that some people benefit from conflict and some people are hurt by it. But I can't imagine people who benefit from conflict lose as much from a non-conflicted discussion than people who are hurt by conflict lose from a discussion that is conflicted.
7
Can you offer evidence that conflict is *bad*?
Not sure, maybe Quiet, a book about introverts, would have some insight.
yea - my family
Perhaps it is worth considering that Samuel Johnson became a genius not because his parents taught him to be one by arguing in the right way, but because he was Samuel Johnson. Creative genius is rare. A parent can't manipulate their child into being a creative genius just by arguing in the right way. For every little Sam J. there are going to be 1000--or 10,000?--people who learn what Grant would probably think are the 'wrong" lessons from a dispute-filled household--domination, manipulation, security-seeking, escapism, mollification, raw fear, or maybe just a pleasant but unproductive conversational dilettantism--because lessons come as much from within as without.
5
Creativity?
Probably at its simplest it's the recognition of a decent idea in oneself or others and acting on the idea. The less creative people do not recognize a decent idea in themselves if capable of having one in the first place and certainly stand in the way of someone else having an idea. The greatest tragedy in human history is that to this day the people who have few ideas and stand in the way of others are in power as they always have been in power except for rare occasions.
To be creative is to subordinate oneself to the best idea. To somehow build up the patience in oneself for a decent idea or to somehow disrupt the mind whether it be immersion in others ideas or drugs or creative company, the goal being to somehow move with the best idea even if this means sacrificing oneself. Most people are incapable of this. They do not listen to and act on best thoughts and do not listen for and act on such thoughts in other people.
The problem standing in the way of creativity is primarily vulgar human power. The problem in oneself of just not being able to give up in direction of creativity and of not being able to give up when someone else presents a decent idea. Most people want things, want control over other people, wealth, material objects. And resist mightily having such things cut out of their lives.
The story of human creativity so far is largely of the individual after odds succeeding. It is nothing as it can be of social system as whole always besting self.
6
This comment is as important - or more so - than the article itself.
It should be a NYT pick. It's my pick.
Bravo.
Daniel, Ok, but what if the best idea is to create a Ferrari? To some people, capitalism is the best idea. To other, it's socialism. I'm a lot happier in a world with 400 horsepower sports cars, skiing in Colorado, single malt, and fine Italian suits. To me, a Ferrari engine a great idea but I doubt it would come about in a socialist society.
You seem to think the best ideas are socialism, anti-materialism, and buddhism. If I disagree with that, am I failing to subordinate myself to the best idea. I don't agree with Bentham's Utilitarianism, but to Bentham Utilitarianism was the best idea.
To the four excellent rules for arguing at the end of this column, I would add a fifth: Always assume the good intentions of the person with whom you are arguing.
11
That's a good one too. People spend way too much time judging other people's motives as if they are lawyers. In many situations, it really doesn't take away from a point.
The four rules advised are perfect.
Is perfection of this world ?
1
It is not just children. Conflict in my adult life has produced better results than times where the team appears to go along with the flow. I am in the military, so I get chances to see this in action every 2-3 years when I change duty stations.
A key factor is how the person/group responds to the conflict. Brush it off and learn from it? Or grudge for life?
What I loved about arguing with my mom, and my sister was how we deferred to expertise. Whether researched and brought back to the dinner table a day later, or sumoned on queue, we were pretty good at understanding that the validity of our opinions were only as valid as the supporting evidence. This made both my sister and I voracious researchers.
One critique I have of the older generation is their stubbornness. I think our electoral politics are a pretty good example of that. So many people who weren't that engages telling those who were what to do and what to think without a factual basis for doing so. I guess they, like us someday, just turn into our own parents eventually.
2
I think that it might be better to phrase it as learning to question (politely but firmly). Just because a teacher or a parent says it does not mean it is correct.
Question, though, means to make an attempt to back it up with facts and logic and also to digest and pull back.
Those with power and authority should applaud such a child and not attempt to hammer away with "discipline" instead of logic.
6
Organized sports officiated by adults have taken away a way for children to arbitrate disputes among themselves. Now they grow up into adults who call the police when their neighbors annoy them rather than settle things themselves, or they turn into the annoying neighbor who cannot be reasoned with. Let kids play games where disputes may arise (no harm, no foul in basketball and soccer) and let them work things out themselves. Forget some higher authority making the judgement (including religion!) and let us learn to live with our neighbors by making peace ourselves. It is far more likely to occur when children start with the small stuff (safe/out) and work up to meatier matters.
7
To develop the ability to "fight fair," it is necessary to call out unfair fighting when it occurs and explain why it is unfair.
I am also a little skeptical of the "candidate of my dreams" or despair standpoint. In 1968, when I was in college, my dream candidate was Robert Kennedy, who was assasinated (talk about unfair fighting and despair!). Hubert Humphrey was a good, capable, honorable man, but he didn't excite young people's dreams, so we got Nixon instead, who did a lot to destroy hopes and dreams. Coming forward to the 21st century, I voted twice for Obama, my dream candidate. I then voted for Hillary in both primary and general, in spite of her faults, not just because she is a woman, but because I saw her as someone who knew how to get things done. To me, Bernie has good goals, but even after years of government service, no concrete idea how to achieve them. In 2016, I remembered 1968 and Nixon. There isn't always a dream candidate to vote for, but voting for a less than ideal candidate can avoid nightmares.
4
I certainly agree, Adam, and I applaud your recommendations. However, isn’t this exactly the opposite of what’s happening on most college campuses today, with their micro aggressions and safe spaces?
2
Great article. Very much in line with preparing little humans to embrace Ray Dalio's "Principles" in the workplace. "Fight for Right."
I loved the anecdote about the Wright bros father being a preacher and also keeping books about atheism in his bookshelf. Fantastic advice. The best opinion is a carefully reasoned one built by examining the arguments of others, because you can defend it ... you have already considered those arguments, and dismissed them.
2
One of the main reason our conversation has become dull, yawn-inducing or cell phone-reaching is because it does not much challenge us. This, indeed, subtracts so much pleasure from our lives. In an effort to become over-polite, we have diminished our ability to access joy that jovial sparring with a genuine and sincere intent to make ourselves known in an effort to advance greater knowledge -- and mutual respect provides. Flattered by the number of "likes" is the price of abandoning challenging, stimulating discussions.
3
You don't know my culture, for instance, Mr. Gray. I grew up with nine brothers and eight sisters, and I only disliked one. In 18 years I spent at home I never argued with any of my brothers or sisters. We had differences of opinion, but our positive feelings for each other were never at risk. I do not see this in the U.S. and I think it's a serious problem (especially for people like me).
I must admit my father contradicted me, constantly, so I grew to dislike him.
1
Creativity, of whatever types, is both a dynamic, interacting, multidimensional process as well as being an unpredictable outcome- partial, completed as well as revised-notwithstanding planning efforts and their implementation.With an endless range of actual as well as virtual medium.In addition to the contribution of experienced conflict,
and internal tension, as well as in one’s life space, is the transmuting of anger and outrage into constructed and expressed creative outcomes through a person’s natural as well as honed skills and abilities.The person’s environment can, and does, serve as a barrier as well as an enabling bridge to such expression.As do a range of a person’s personal condition and state: physical, psychological,spiritual, social, economic, etc.It is difficult
to feel, BE, and express creatively in a survival mode; when one’s very existence is being threatened.And yet people,for example, were in concentration camps.An all too often often overlooked barrier to expressing creativity is the fear of failure in our "making It,"success-driven cultures and society.However "failure" dimensionalized and experienced.I have been helped, daily, in my creative efforts, by Samuel Beckett’s caveat:”Ever tried.Ever failed.No matter.Try again. Fail again. Fail better.” Our children grew up in a home in which "failure," in its various nuanced forms, and states of being was a welcome guest.Not feared. Embraced. Given various names. Spoken to.And with.
1
Whatever might be emphasized about the values of non-violent debate--it is hard to see how we would have had the Renaissance or Enlightenment eras without them--violence will be there. War and combat appear to be built into our genetic code. So is a tendency to be impolite when challenged--hence the importance of forgiveness and tolerance, often in short supply.
If we are discussing creativity in the sense of originality, that is going to escape most of us, no matter our general approach to learning. That said, I cannot think of a single intellectual figure--philosopher, scientist, theologian, humanist or other label--who did not understand the importance of informed argument or dissent.
There are any number of historical figures, some more malevolent than others, who sought to suppress intellectual discussion or other sorts of dissent, but they were not out to educate their children in a broad sense. They were not interested in the importance of being wrong, of being ignorant, of making mistakes. They were interested in varied sorts of power.
I'll have to disagree that creativity comes from quarrelling. Rather, being afraid of conflict, and therefore giving in to groupthink, inhibits creativity. (There is a difference between creating and not destroying).
In art at least, your creativity will do just fine as long as you are confident enough: 1) to listen to others, and 2) not to be swayed by other's opinion without a convincing reason. No argument necessary.
1
'Thoughtful arguments' would work only if everyone accepts them. Nowadays, differences and disagreements are deal with on the extremes, they're either silenced up completely or fuel a tough fight between both parties. Years of schooling has taught, if not anything else, that obedience and conformity will give you a comfortable life. Who cares about innovation and creativity if we can have a 'comfortable life', right?
1
Very enjoyable read thank you. No matter how hard we may try my daughters, my wife and I find it very hard to practice arguing constructively. Recently (last week) we introduced a new absolute rule that anybody may say "Un at home" and all discussion MUST cease for four minutes. "Un at home" comes from the adventures of Pooh Bear and the 100 acre wood :)
1
Fighting, disagreeing; arguing are different creatures. How I wish the author had decided to omit the attention grabbing title. How about "Teaching Children to manage conflict?" I work with about 700 "kids" every day and very few require lessons on how to argue. Managing the origins (and outgrowth) of those arguments is what is needed-- even among the *adult* children (more than ever).
3
yes except for parenting - kids benefit from a united front when parents have a united parenting approach.
2
Interesting article. However like most research related to children in pieces like this in this newspaper it does not report on actual relevant research on children. Rather we hear about how adults turned out related to reports of or about their childhoods. There is a large and growing literature of ethnographic and other studies of the positive aspects of conflict and debate in the lives of children not only for their development of important social skills and knowledge, but also how these debates and conflicts contribute to their enjoyment of their lives as children. This research is often overlooked with all the important emphasis on the negative aspects of serious conflict, aggression and bullying. Bit there is need for a broader view of conflict in children and youth peer cultures. Take a look at this book for a review and discussion of such research https://www.amazon.com/Sociology-Childhood-New-Century/dp/1506339905/ref...
1
So glad to read this!
I can't tell you how many times I'm called to task for disagreeing and offering a different approach.
In my mind, I'm proposing a slight change, or what I consider a more effective way of proceeding with a project, but my opinion is taken as personal criticism. Not at all my intention!
people nowadays are too thin-skinned. everything is personal, even when it isn't meant that way.
1
Can we revisit now the studies on how first-borns do much better than the rest of us siblings?
Part of it is that they generally dominate in all sibling rivalry.
So get your kids fighting -- as if they don't already! -- but know that one is building confidence while the other just curled up into the fetal position again.
5
I disagree completely. There, I already feel more creative.
3
There are risks involved in family arguments and debates:
1) A better debater may always seem to win, making others feel like losers.
2) Win a battle and lose a war. Winning points doesn't mean being right.
3) "Thank You for Arguing" and www.ArgueLab.com (by Jay Hendricks)
Also, it might pay to write down arguments, so that they can be examined, carefully, for true strengths and weaknesses.
2
On the subject of argument as personal attack one thing I've noticed from arguing with kids online is that there are some that interpret disagreement with their ideas as a personal attach and usually try to retreat behind a shield of forced civility to stop the disagreement. It's difficult to have an honest conversation with such people because they're not willing to engage with you. I think of them as being like snails: soft creatures that retreat into their shell as soon as they feel threatened.
If you know them in real life you can patiently try to winkle them out, but with online spaces making it easier and easier to block people it's difficult to have a real discussion with someone if they're not prepared to be challenged.
2
Additionally, fact checking and the demand to seek quality research supports any argument, hopefully a growing trend that will emerge as a result of our toxic fake news environment that this current administration has used to their benefit.
1
I think another problem we end up with is adults who shy away from conflict in relationships or become passive-aggressive. If you have never seen your parents argue constructively, where else do you learn it? Instead I see people hold resentments and anger inside until it explodes. Marriage and relationships are hard work and that includes being able to listen to your partner wholeheartedly and without derision. Too many people never listen - they are instead thinking about “what they just have to say next”.
2
Two quick questions:
1. Does Albert’s work hold up amid the replication crisis that’s been rocking psychology for the last few years (subject of the recent article, “When the Revolution Came for Amy Cuddy”)?
2. Do conflict avoidant cultures less frequently produce creative standouts? If not, is the article’s thesis still tenable?
1
Thanks for this thought provoking piece, Adam Grant. I think your points are well -taken but there is another important point of view.
In the book, Women's Ways of Knowing, published in about 1986 by Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule, the authors identified two ways of knowing: separate and connected. Here is an excerpt from a more current essay on this idea.
"Jim likes to remain 'objective' without including emotions. When in a discussion with other people who may have different ideas, he likes to defend his own ideas, using logic to find holes in his opponent's ideas. He is critical of new ideas unless they are proven facts from reputable sources such as textbooks, respected teachers or his own direct experience. Jim is a very separate knower.
Mary is more sensitive to other people. She is skilled at empathy and tends to listen and ask questions until she feels she can connect and "understand things from their point of view". She learns by trying to share the experiences that led to the knowledge. When talking to others, she avoids confrontation and will often try to help the other person, using logical suggestions. Mary is a connected knower. Some studies have shown that statistically men tend to be separate knowers and women tend to be connected knowers. Yet any individual can be anywhere on this spectrum and it is best for people to be able to use both ways of knowing. (paraphrased from https://docs.moodle.org/33/en/Separate_and_Connected_ways_of_knowing)
True,but Einstein's work prospered because thousands of people who were NOT creative followed and understood his ideas.
America wants to be a land where everyone is a leader but this is a crazy fantasy.
An army of "leaders" once invaded Slobovia. Then the generals looked at each other. There were no soldiers, only generals! Realizing that they could not win, the generals went home and had a beer.
2
As a child of a wobbly family, I agree wholeheartedly with Grant's argument. His statement on the monopoly of truth--or lack thereof--is most important: by engaging in meaningful dialogue with people you care about, you can get real without getting dirty. Well done.
2
Relationship between creativity and quarreling?
I can understand an association between creativity and quarreling provided it is more along lines of good natured quarreling, but unfortunately the history of humanity is marked by bad natured quarreling and the creative person, being in the minority group of the creative, is all too likely to go under, to be destroyed by power.
Examine the history of the human race. For all creative power here we are today with the same old types of people in power, the creative people having been something of a bubbling up from underneath but the same old power like a stopper in the way, and now we have catastrophic weaponry and who knows if the bottle will explode or if we will get really creative and just get those same old power, control, money, faux aristocratic, nepotistic, etc. types out of the way.
In other words, for all creativity of the human race it just never gets past that curve (mathematically chart it) of the same old power types pressing down on it, controlling it, manipulating it, often choking the life out of it and being a danger, and now the ultimate danger, to us all. Creative types are the most dangerous people from perspective of power and have been ruthlessly persecuted. They are not with just an identity like being gay but with capacity, creative power. Power hates being exposed in its incapacity not to mention in its evil.
Therefore creative types still need to quarrel carefully and ideally with own kind.
1
"good natured quarreling"? You've GOT to be kidding. Where are these kids? It wasn't me and my friends as a child , nor my children nor my grandchildren.
Kids go for the jugular and their fights are dangerous and damaging.
They can't be stopped, but no one would take the fights of kids as good natured who truly lived among the 'natives'.
And 'academics' are the WORST when it comes to arguments and fights.
Pipe dreams, that is what this is. Sorry.
3
Too many marriages fail because the partners never learn how to fight fairly. That often lands them in counseling.
I think learning how to disagree should be taught in pre-school and beyone (since only children--like me--often don't learn it at home if the parents have either a dysfunctional marriage or there is no marriage or partnership at all) as it's important no only in the examples Professor Grant gives, but in succeeding in life (assuming that you can't buy your way in and out of everything).
17
I grew up with a mother who asked us why we thought she was the head of the UN, and to go work it out. She intervened when she could no longer stand us, and that was only to send us somewhere out of her earshot.
My own kids got the same treatment. But in truth I wasn't trying to foster creativity, just independence. I didn't want to be a full time arbiter; and I definitely didn't want to be a witness.
Real argument or debate - not bickering, sniping, insulting, shouting and taunting which are the things parents are desperately trying to put a lid on before they consider infanticide - teaches the skill of how to frame an argument and communicate it. And as every high school teacher reading an essay will tell you, a complete and convincing argument well communicated is a rare thing.
I found with my own kids, that the debate and creativity came when they weren't arguing, but collaborating. Because they collaborated on their own, not at parental direction - it meant they actually wanted to get something done.
20
The Japanese avoid intragroup conflict, and experience extreme difficulty in saying 'no,' and yet no one will accuse them of having failed as a civilization. I think what the author is advocating will be rejected in many cultures.
24
Absolutely. The argument expressed in this article is extremely ethnocentric - completely from a Western viewpoint. Most other cultures value harmony over disagreement. Are we going to argue that Western societies have had a historical monopoly on innovation and creativity?
4
The Japanese have done an incredible job adopting, creating, and refining manufacturing techniques since WWII. They are known for deliberating slowly and carefully, then, once the conclusion is reached, acting swiftly and directly. However, the U.S. has remained and even accelerated its position as the leader in innovation, particularly in technology, but also in other fields. Part of this is down to U.S. culture (which is being attacked from within, including the very good an productive parts) which does not punish "failure" and allows people to reinvent themselves (new restrictions being introduced there too). But part of it is down to U.S. culture having allowed open conflict. At Intel they even had a concise term: "constructive confrontation". It worked and still does.
I think we are becoming more like the Japanese in our attitudes.
1
Thank you! You've articulated what I've been trying to say for years. That disagreement, arguments -- including raised voices -- is healthy, so long as the argument remains on the topic, and isn't reduced to ad hominem insults.
I was appalled when I found out that a relative was called to school because his kindergarten child was being suspended for a day: she had raised her voice when she was angry! Instead, she was supposed to calmly say to the other kid, "You are upsetting me/making me angry." How are kids supposed to know what real passion and feeling looks like, if they aren't allowed to ever see it, much less express it? Isn't that hypocritical? Isn't stifling such feelings unhealthy?
The example of the Wright brothers is telling: they got "hot" but not "mad", i.e. they argued about substance, but didn't insult each other.
I grew up in a warm, loving home, with parents who were united on almost everything (although there was a certain level of daily bickering over little things). However, like the Wright brothers' father, their sense of justice was so finely honed that they were constantly at war with the powers that be, or plain injustice (cf. the Last Angry Man by G. Green) and taught us critical thinking and skepticism. That upbringing has stood me in good stead throughout my mostly happy life, where I've been able to rise to meet and overcome many challenges.
24
Respectfully, parents are sometimes called to school when their children are so angry that they endanger themselves or other children by ongoing yelling, screaming, hitting, throwing, rampaging, necessitating the removal of all the other children from the classroom, and the intervention of school behavior/psychologists. No one gets "suspended" in Kindergarten for raising their voice. Also while children do get angry and do need to learn how to work it out, there are many programs to help them learn how to listen to others and express their opinions, emotions, feelings, and disagreements respectfully. The problem is that their parents also need these programs, because when they go home, the often experience or witness disrespect, silence, or violence.
No, this child wasn't out of control, wasn't endangering anyone, wasn't screaming, hitting, throwing things.... This was San Francisco at the the height of PC, about 15 years ago. She was supposed to quietly say to the other child that he was "upsetting her"; IIRC, even the word angry was to be avoided if possible.
The parents weren't and aren't violent, disrespectful or neglectful.
In fact, the then child is a successful college student, who is also working and living independently.
The whole incident stuck in my mind because it shocked me with its hypocrisy.
I strongly maintain that if a child doesn't learn how to link feelings, words, emphasis and facial expression at a young age, they'll never be able to "read" people, or learn how to cope with strong feelings, whether their own or others.
I've been living abroad for many years, where the culture is more accepting of normal emotions at the kindergarten level, e.g. letting boys cry without shaming them, letting kids express their anger -- verbally, not physically or violently, -- and not insultingly. The kindergartens are separate facilities, not part of the school, and have fenced in, sizable areas with playground equipment and toys to stimulate their interest & curiosity. The kids spend part of every day outside, and are able to release the normal energies of pre-schoolers. Perhaps that's why we see so much less of the behavior that you describe.
Anyway, your speculations were off the mark in this case.
2
The ability to engage in a healthy disagreement that includes, respects and encourages differences of opinion is clearly a good thing that stimulates creativity. But that is a far different than idolizing a culture of competition, squabbling, and arguing, which can, in businesses, degenerate into a culture of conflict and power games (take note of our political culture and congress) and in families into a dysfunctional system.
Good "arguments" require quite a bit of cooperation and agreement. That is why environments where that is most necessary are structured by rules and accepted practices. Grant's article offers a set of rules that would provide that kind of structure. Paradoxically, the ability to "squabble" in a form that is creative must be nested in a larger context of healthy agreements.
In a good "argument" the goal may be that everyone is respected and heard, or that a solid decision is made and accepted after exploring divergent ideas. I a culture that idolizes conflict whoever has the most power, the biggest stick, or is least inhibited about attacking those who disagree, wins. The process is less about developing good arguments, and more about accumulating power.
Some of the best practices for heathy debate have been developed by the most peaceful of people: Quakers. There are many ways to stimulate creativity. "Squabbling" (of course that depends on how it is defined) doesn't strike me as one of the best.
Creativity is a push, a pursuit of something outside of yourself. A desire to find the greater dimensions of common community. A vision that calls forth an openness and wonder that abandons smug, self-deceit for a greater truth.
Fights/conflicts/quarrels are the process of inner failure: A failing imposing a static if expanding view of order upon others to hide and deny inner shortcomings--the inner battles we lose continually to ourselves that we try to win by imposition victory from our inner defeat.
Contradiction is a part of creativity--but contradictions are not conflict! Every truth has an edge where it encounters doubt--no truth is absolute. That edge of doubt leads to higher order, greater integration, a deeper peace when its answer is found.
Slavery was a profound contradiction; the way to freedom meant building from within a heart and spirit immune to brutal outside forces. Abundantly present was creativity, in strategy, music, song, language, community, and resistance/ All strengthened the moral heart and soul of the enslaved.
They did not accept cruelty, but laughed at it and grieved it and held their humanity. At the end of chattel bondage, the enslaved emerged laughing, dancing, rejoicing; unbroken!
The lack of fighting redefined the terms of what they faced; they created new inner space from their own responses, by not letting someone else create their terms. Instead, they created lives that embraced their contradictions, sidestepped conflict and won!
1
Excellent article!
To make it work everyone involved needs to know the rules and 'buy-in'. Then, 'persistent' and 'consistent' practice over time (months) can make this a true, usable skill.
The benefits are increased understanding and knowledge gain, and improved interpersonal relations i.e., communication, problem-solving, decision-making, and conflict transformation.
Not to be too argumentative, but everything here can also be explained by the possibility that creative, argumentative parents have creative argumentative kids, and all the arguing is an effect, rather than a cause, of being creative.
There are a lot of interesting unacknowledged sources contributing to the flow of thought here, and the "four rules" Grant concludes are worthwhile. While I am not convinced by the originality of these ideas, I think their framing is interesting. I am reminded of ideas from the Harvard Negotiation Project and the contributions of de Bona, i.e.Lateral Thinking, and Brewster Ghiselin's The Creative Process, applied to the history of child raising and the innovation of original ideas.
But what troubles me is, original kids don't necessarily fit into conformist formulae. Indeed, conformity is often the difficult path non-conformist kids have to navigate.
BOTH-AND, not EITHER-OR.
2
I was drawn to read this piece because of its title. I was hoping to glean advice to pass on to my son and daughter-in-law who have two children, under the age of seven, who engage in constant battle. Unfortunately, their unresolvable quarreling involves the desire for control, not creative thought spurred on by constructive intellectual discussion. They don't want to figure out how to build the best tower in a cooperative way. They just want to possess all the blocks. I believe that most of the quarreling my husband and I engaged in behind closed doors was over control, not a search for creative solutions to our problems. Constructive discussion/argument in pursuit of common goals is something we all long for not only at home, but in the workplace and in politics. We just don't know how to do it. And human nature just seems to get in the way. Children don't need to grow up in conflict in order to be creative and thoughtful adults. The author is not talking about conflict. He is talking about teaching children to think, and teaching children to engage in creative and intellectual interactions with others where ideas are posed and defended, examined and sometimes conceded. We adults need to try harder to model such things for our children. So much of the joy of work comes from lively discussion and collaborative effort.
5
So yet another "expert" giving parents an excuse to ignore unhealthy sibling relationships. Almost from the time I left the cradle I was on the receiving end of my 5 year older sibling's "disagreement". The only creativity it taught me was to be very good at finding hiding places - literally for survival. My parents ignored it - because they had heard that that's what they were supposed to do - "let the kids fight it out and resolve it themselves".
There is a huge, huge difference between disagreement and abuse. A difference that Mr. Grant doesn't even seem to realize exists.
I'd tell Mr. Grant exactly what he can do with his advice, but the moderators wouldn't let it through.
1
I enjoyed and agreed with this article; I suggest just a few modifications of the ideas.
As others have noted, what matters is that the argument be about the topic and that it advance (instead of revolving around and around).
Such argument doesn't necessarily promote creativity (an amorphous term), but it does lead to clarity and refinement of thought, which can serve certain kinds of creativity.
There's good-natured argument that doesn't meet these criteria--and raging argument that does. Instead of "good-natured," I'd suggest some other qualifier--perhaps "born of interest in the topic at hand," or something like that.
Finally, arguments must recognize and honor existing knowledge. If you're arguing about the spelling of "invisible," and one person spells it "invisable," go to the dictionary.
In short, intellectual argument must do everything that the intellect does: draw on existing knowledge, pose questions, consider other sides, admit to errors, learn from others, seek greater understanding and expression, and more.
1
I’ve heart the anti-brainstorming argument before, and it strikes me as bogus. The technique is one of many with the purpose of getting competing ideas on the table, of hearing from all participants, even the quiet ones, even the non-experts, even the less powerful.
This form of brainstorming actually requires far more argument than rushing to disagree with whatever is said (although that too may have advantages ). Once the brainstorming is done, the table is filled with competing, often mutually exclusive ideas which must be argued about vigorously to arrive at any productive end.
Wouldn’t a multiplicity of techniques for generating argument lead to innovation and creativity as well as the command to come out fighting every time? While listening as though you are wrong, of course.
1
As a very creative person who grew up in a high-conflict family, I attribute my creativity to the amount of escaping I wanted to do as a child. My imagination was my refuge. And I imagined better solutions/comebacks to all my parents' arguments. Same with everyone else in my MFA program.
1
Not an answer to the question posed here, but a relevant quote from Jane Austen that helps make Grant's point. In one scene in "Sense and Sensibility," Elinor Dashwood has to listen politely to Robert Ferrars, the brother of her beloved Edward, as Robert spouts some self-important nonsense.
"Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition."
You talk about the value of argument but your rules are a nervous attempt to turn argument into non-argument. You want argument without the hurt feelings and messiness. You want a sanitized version of argument. You can’t have it both ways. In real argument things can get ugly. Maybe it’s not argument you’re advocating for as much as uninhibited flow of ideas and opinions. Americans seem to tiptoe around the area of discord like many Western cultures.
Wonderful news I've been waiting for. After justifying, procrastinating, sipping red wine, eating dark chocolates, another shoe has fallen. Who knew the fighting was good!
How can I have an argument when I know I am always right?
This is partly a cultural thing. My wife and I grew up in NYC. When we first moved to North Carolina, people would stare at us walking down the street. They thought we were having a divorce, I guess, while we thought we were just talking.
The problem is that eventually everybody needs to argue, to have a "fight". If you never see one, or aren't experienced, it's easy to over react. There's a Florida town that should, socioeconomically, have high rates of police shootings. It doesn't. The police chief only hires ex-service members or others with plenty of fight experience. Sounds counter-intuitive, right? The chief found ordinary recruits have scant fighting experience, so they misread situations, over react, and shoot too quickly.
Some note that it's important to have a thick skin. But it's important to know the difference between debate and bullying, and be able to act on it. Bullying doesn't work when people stand up to bullies (though that's rarely the message sent to kids.) When bullies have free reign, they don't promote growth, only silence. Look at how our bully-in-chief cowed his GOP challengers during the primaries.
Even this article toes the line, with it's insistence on being "most respectful." In fact, the powerful never give away power because people request it politely. If debaters aren't equal, the weak need to be more insistent, resolute, and sometimes, in the eyes of the powerful, disrespectful.
2
My kids must be incredibly creative.
3
Do they not have debate courses in high school and college anymore? I pray they do, especially in these times. And please include at least a brief study of logic and an inventory of logical fallacies.
1
I enjoy debate, but too many people are uncomfortable with the back-and-forth. I do believe parents modeling constructive arguing gives people an excellent example for dealing with conflict. Bottom line, never hit below the belt. Never use your intimate knowledge as a weapon. Never view winning as the imperative goal.
Nice postulate and how well one can experiment/entertain such an exercise in this current political atmosphere??? given we seem to be embracing stone age emotions and that seems to be lingua franca of nationalism, democracy, exceptionalism!!!
1
I'm afraid I fundamentally disagree with this article.
1
Amen! Thinking is the result of dealing with conflict. Show me no conflict, and I'll show you mindless passivity.
2
Don’t worry, the kids will be fighting “adults” soon enough.
Don’t count on current college students to know how to debate an issue. They want “safe spaces” on campus which translates to intolerance about different points of view.
Don’t upset these students. They want a mirror. Diversity also includes opinion and political preference. If Black Lives Matter...so do all opinions matter. All ears matter. Listen. Think. Think. Respond.
No confrontation. Everyone gets a participation trophy.
1
Especially the so-called president. He even holds meetings just to bask in adulation.
Keep fighting, kiddos to develop a wholesome self but don't kill each other in the process. Always agree to disagree and don't let your parents into it.
Obviously then, there was no tension in Trump's family.
I remember the adage "It' not whether you win or loose, but how you play the game" now it's all about winning and not being a looser.
In the age of everyone getting a trophy, it's become only about showing up, and for these children how you play the game becomes irrelevant.
Our president, shows what warped person results from a fixation on always appearing to be a winner at all costs.
Ah ha! The thesis discussed here is the seminal reason why our Fake Prez and his group-think Cabinet and West Wing lackeys are doomed to fail. Instead of demanding strict loyalty oaths and obsessive acceptance of his every impulsive whim and incoherent prescription, Daddy Donald should be encouraging civil, intra-house disagreements and intellect-driven arguments. A thousand flowers of creative policy would blossom in this Executive garden of greatness. Pruit will accept human-caused global climate change, DeVos will demand that her grandkids attend public schools, Perry will buy an electric vehicle, Zinke will expand all national parks, Sessions will promote sanctuary cities and, at long last, Chief of Staff Kelly will apologize for his offensive remarks and falsehoods. Catch the drift. America will be great again! Trump will run unopposed in 2024.
1
Vis-aVis the scientific method of constructive disagreement.
Argument opens our minds to opposing points of view. It leads us to think of answers to these issues.
Jacob wrestled (argued) with God and therefore was renamed Israel. These is a long Jewish tradition of questioning and reconsidering. That is why there are so many Jewish winners of the Nobel Prize.
1
I was going to write down a good counter argument but I figured it would get "moderated."
Wow. I agree with all this. But does it go far enough?
Why not introduce Oedipal think and explain all that? That one is critical to maturity. Played with care, it frees the human spirit.
Children learn when they must sort out their parents. For some it’s a life long effort. In the mirror.
And then we have the president. Rich material there.
Some must sort out two or three sets of parents. Maturity soon follows.
Not to mention their parents’addictive behavior. That’s a big one. Behavioral and substance. Cascades unless we argue about it.
And then there’s loveless sex. That’s a big one in Hollywood, Wall Street, The White House and Congress. And House of Commons and the cabinet across the pond. The French are awakening.
Ask at Goldman, Sachs about Mexico. That’s where they used go to get paid off. Counselors advise. One stop shopping. Lawyers.
And how about The Groper that brags on tape: President Trump.
Wisdom at The New York Times.
Let’s roll. Everyone can do the hot memoir.
Dr. Grant your amazing work will be heavily disputed by hundreds of professional. Who seem guided my the philosophies of Dr. Mary Poppins. Thank you for bringing a SOUND opinion into this very imbalance world of controlled behaviors, muted opinions and coerced truths!
FMM
https://catacrecis.blogspot.com/
Disagreements between poor, middle and upper class stressed black families can lead to an emergency room or morgue.
This sounds like some more mighty white privileged nonsense that has little if any relevance to how black lIves are lived.
'We ain't where we oughta be. We ain't where we gonna be. But thank God we ain't where we was".
See 'We Were Eight Years in Power' Ta-Nehisi Coates; 'Dog-Whistle Politics : How Coded Racial Appeals Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class 'Ian Haney Lopez
If you are woke then Black LIves Matter is your black mantra.
1
Kidhood happens when you turn nine … maybe ten. It lasts until the day you turn thirteen. Then it’s over.
Tommy Scott taught me to follow directions … by diagramming touch-football plays on my bony chest … with his index-finger. Timmy McCann showed me how to tough out a job … by delivering newspapers thru rain and snow. Joey Dandry proved that being muscled didn’t mean you couldn’t be soft … by singing like a choir boy.
Howard Powell taught me to gut a fish … and Chrissy Keubler showed me how to prime an engine … and suck a gas hose.
Mark Middleton proved that some adults are racist-idiots … who can be perfectly shamed by a cool kid.
Mary Byrne Hoffman showed me brilliant guts … by reciting every line of “The Song of Hiawatha” and George Elliot proved beyond a doubt that playing the piano was way cooler than swishing a bunch of jump shots.
And there was more. Lots more.
Lessons on fighting and forgiveness … winning and losing … and even bravery. Instructions on loyalty … and even honor. Rules on how to take a beating … and defend myself … and when enough is enough. And how to shake hands.
I almost mastered the difference between clever and crude … funny and foul. And I learned about friendships.
Learned all of this outside of my house. With other kids. Not an adult in sight. But we don't dare allow that to happen anymore.
The author draws a sweeping conclusion with no actual proof. Citing the one in a million examples of unique creative thinkers cannot applied to the population as a whole.
The one study he cites was about constructive debate between parents, not conflicts between children.
Disagreements between children are, more often than not, not constructive. but merely assertive. And often, they require the intervention of a parent.
Young children are not equipped to by themselves judge fairness and overcome the overwhelming compulsions of their egos. They rely largely on their own needs.
Teaching children an understanding of what is fair seems to me to be more desirable than encouraging disagreement.
4
An interesting perspective. Yet I can't help think that this behavior is encouraged in men and disapproved in women. My law school often used the Socratic Method. Male students who argued in class were considered leaders, but female students who spoke up were considered weird. I graduated in 1991, not 100 years ago. One reader described Mr. Grant's perspective as unapologetically alpha male and suggested that her brother thrived on it while she (I'm assuming the reader is female) craved quiet. How much of how we feel about this is cultural and starts really early?
11
Unfortunately, public figures (and not just the political elite) don't pratice the standards set at the end of this article. And the fact that ignoring those standards is seen as a path to success sends a powerful message to all others, both adults and children. And they are successful because many in the public prefer to witness fights rather than debates. While parents need to do their important part, it does take a village to show each generation how to behave towards each other.
9
All depends how creativity is defined. Is it the old "thinking outside the box" that company's begged for, then criticized employees for "not going along with the flow" to make the employee psyche confusing?
We might have thought inhouse fighting ended up in just everybody returning to normal in our homes, like parents did. But surprise, surprise, the business world I saw was not ever composed of fight, kiss, and make up. Easier and safer to just smile and go with the flow.
I know. I was one of the "creative" ones who received plenty of blows through my career. Was it worth it, to be creative at work? No.
14
Excellent post. I was a creative within corporations and I sought a career in service to humanistic endeavors. But every industry with which I aligned myself (healthcare, education) proved to be corrupt and nonprogressive, engines to increase the wealth of the few. And whenever I raised my voice or offered opinion in benign attempts to help, I was sidelined, ignored or actually crushed. Hierarchies and competition are the banes of our culture.
I am not an expert on child rearing but I know something of ' a little further down the road'. I work in an analytical profession and agree with the underlying idea that creativity can often flourish under some conflict. My observation is that many managers prefer consensus to dissent (because it is misconstrued as unhealthy for teams) and rarely themselves question the thinking of their superiors /peers. But much inquiry (in many fields) arises from challenging your popular/'others' assumptions.
In terms of childhood, maybe having the opportunities for 'debates' (that don't descend into unhealthy arguments) is key.
5
One thing I've learned in a long, complex life - rules for what works to help us grow and produce are not cut and dried. Feeling "emotionally safe" is a tricky concept, and not a one-size-fits-all. Learning to debate and respect oneself as well as one's cohorts is a great goal. People reach it in different ways.
9
I grew up in a dysfunctional family with lots of chaos. There were four of us kids and we fought like cats and dogs. But the one rule we had was that when it came to dealing with the adults in our lives we would present a unified front. Doing so often meant we were a little creative with the truth.
As a child busy trying to survive we didn't appreciate the lessons we were learning. As adults we've greatly benefited from having to learn how to problem solve and work as part of a team to solve complex problems. We learned how to argue as a group without making things personal and how to present a united front when absolutely necessary.
Stability is nice. But conflict is how we learn. Healthy families find the balance and teach their children the importance of creativity.
22
I join the choir of people whose expiriences (or given examples) don't match what author have described and would be careful with trying to make everyone too creative. But teaching kids how to be assertive and debate respectfully with others is of course extremly important. And I personally see most of what is going on on campuses these days as a progress. Beating someone with words is the easiest, talking about difficult issues with someone sensitive to them is a real art and something worth striving to.
9
Great advice by Adam Grant that can be distilled into one sentence:
Respectful debate fuels creativity.
24
The article discusses a lot of benefits that not only kids can learn from arguing but that adults can as well. I find the most important topic Adam brings up is that when making an argument is that it should not be a personal attack, but that it should be focused on the argument itself and the interaction of the disagreement should be productive in the end. The point of an argument is not to criticize the other person but for each individual to get a better understanding of the opposite side of the argument. In an argument it is important to understand that everyone is different, everyone has had different experiences and through these experiences is how we form our opinions.
13
An unapologetically alpha male perspective- interesting. I’m not sure that these truths are as universal as the author would like to have us believe. My parents argued (not fought, just debated) about everything. My brother thrived but all I grew up craving to create was a quiet space to sit and think in.
In the workplace, I’ve worked with many shy or quiet employees (many female, but a few male ones as well) who need to be coaxed to share their thoughts. In the environment that the author suggests, I really think we would never even hear their ideas, and that would be a loss.
76
I'm female and introverted, but one thing that I find stressful about some of the social environments I find myself in is how low a tolerance they have of respectful disagreement. My sense is that, one, many women in particular are taught that it's unbecoming, but, two, they also associate argument with the threat of anger and anger with the threat of violence. That second concern is not always wrong, so I understand that there are real people avoid open disagreement. However, an environment of suppressed disagreement is an environment in which alpha types can dominate. Open but respectful disagreement is the enemy of the kind of hierarchy in which "alpha males" can exist. I thus do not agree that the article expresses anything close to a straight-up alpha male perspective.
--Not Mike, but my sign in thinks I am.
4
Something along these lines, ie. alpha-v.beta--as someone having first hand experience both as a sibling to bickering siblings and now a parent to bickering siblings, my own observation is that siblings don't develop the maturity to squabble (wobble?) respectfully until they are well out of the house. And the dynamic which develops is one (often the older) always triumphs, at the expense of the other, who is shut down. The result is more far traumatic than you might think (at least in my own, limited sampling), and what you gain in confidence and stability in the one, you pay for, literally, in life-long problems in the other.
I don't doubt that what the author says has merit. And as a parent who shuts down argument in a knee-jerk fashion, because I can smell it descending into mean-spirited bickering, I will try to take some it to heart. However, it's a tad polly-anna-ish and doesn't describe the true complexities of sibling powerplays, which, left of their own, are not only red in tooth and claw, but consistently favor the same outcome, day after day, year after year, the same victor over the same defeated. How does that not take it's toll? And why does the author not mention it?
4
In formal logic, an argument has one or more premises that support an opinion or conclusion. For example, I might say: "The Congressional Budget Office has reported on several occasions that the Bush tax cuts added $1.6 trillion to the debt between 2002 to 2011. Therefore, tax cuts increase deficits." The first sentence is a premise, the second sentence is an opinion or conclusion.
Parents should teach their kids to make an argument, not merely state their opinion. Simply ask: "Why do you have that opinion?"
21
When reading this article, I was reminded of an old advertisement by IBM, a short cartoon strip. A man worked at company A, where he had an idea, represented by a light bulb going on, but others in his group either ridiculed or dismissed his ideas, and the light bulb went out.
At IBM, his ideas were encouraged and he became alive with ideas again. That always resonated with me.
My own experience is much different than what the author describes. I had two older brothers, my only siblings, one 12 years older and the other 6 years. I felt nurtured, loved and appreciated. I loved art and photography and felt not only their acceptance but those with whom I have shared my creativity over the years. I rarely fought with my brothers, though having them be so much older certainly prompted me internally to do my best.
For many who dislike and avoid conflict, I imagine that like me, they don't enjoy tension or conflict, and stress for such people is antithetical to creating. Some people have more sensitive natures, it is important to honor that. I also know of siblings who fought often as children, and when allowed it does sometimes escalate, and to this day, they cannot stand one another.
80
I would agree with this up to a point - argument, yes; intimidation, no. The best ideas are not generally the ones from the loudest people. Creative meetings need some refereeing to make sure they are not dominated by pushy but unimaginative people.
95
It is important for children to sometimes fight with their siblings and friends. It’s also necessary for them to learn the methods to settle fights. Parents should not stop fights. Children can learn by fights that things do not go as they want and develop the skills to go around with others without giving up their aims.
6
Need not be either/or. I've experienced plenty of wonderfully fruitful creative times in harmonious collaborative circumstances as well as times with creative tension. Seems well to develop the flexibility for either.
9
So much of what is framed as "conflict resolution" is actually conflict avaoidence. Neither is really helpful. We need to learn how to navigate the natural state of conflicting needs, desires, and opinions, without tearing each other apart. Learning how to argue fairly at the family level is a good place to start.
8
I must admit, I argue almost every day with my siblings which turns into a big debate about who is right. Most parents punish kids for arguing with each other, but really it should be encouraged. I’m not saying that parents should support all arguments, but if a healthy debate is taking place it should not be stopped. As long as what you are debating about uses facts on both sides, it can actually help you to become more of a problem solver in the future.
The Wright brothers are a key example of using constructive criticism to improve their design. They argued for weeks about the propellers on the plane and how they should be designed, but after considering all of the sides they realized they were both wrong. After they decided that, they worked together to solve the problem. Brainstorming groups generate 16% more ideas when the members are encouraged to criticize one another! Constructive criticism is actually very valuable in the long run.
One key thing to consider though, is that there is a big difference between getting hot and getting mad. It is OK to feel strongly about your side, but you should always be open to listening to the other opinions without getting angry. Also, debates are only successful if both sides are telling the truth. Good debate is healthy in children’s lives and I believe it should not be seen as a bad thing.
9
Many conflicts are not that easily resolved.
The argument between the Wright brothers had a simple solution: try it. It either works or it doesn't.
1
Although creativity may come from those from places of tension, I know that interpersonal tension is not required for creativity. The Nobel Laureate Albert Szent-Gyorgi I believe said it best that discovery and creativity is "seeing what everybody else has seen, and thinking what nobody else has thought."
This takes a kind of self confidence to view things differently and act on it. When I teach creativity, the best single way to increase it is to insist that whatever explanation someone has, they must reject it and come up with at least 2 different alternative explanations. By the 3rd or 4th idea we have real creativity. Yet this exercise has zero tension between people.
This wilingness to accept that your most obvious explanation may be wrong is a hallmark of science along with the requirement that ideas are tested objectively, and rejected if the evidence shows. This is the exact opposite of much of current political argument that has become so rigid and unquestioning.
25
I very much agree with Dr. Grant in this article. I grew up having teen fights with my mother and my father, and as an adult, I am still assertive and opinionated. I think not being afraid to disagree with others has allowed me to think more creatively since I am not trying so hard to fit in and to adapt to my surroundings. I think avoiding conflict is sometimes a necessary survival strategy but survival is not a long-term plan for self-actualization or happiness..... or creativity. I see some of my students are so worried about offending others that--though very intelligent--they don't want to pick sides or to disagree with their peers or their teachers. At the same time, students need to learn to pick and stay loyal to their sides and not to feel alienated from all others.
9
All very nice, but I still keep my distance from self-described "assertive and opinionated" people, even at the risk of reducing my "creativity".
60
Larry, I agree.
"assertive and opinionated" isn't half a debate. It's the whole of a tirade.
2
Just checking - do you keep your distance from assertive and opinionated men?
Like Hegel said, thesis > antithesis > synthesis
Also, the reference to "harmony" is not inappropriate. The entire arc of western music history traces the exploration of dissonance, culminating in the abandonment of consonance in the 20th century. For the modern ear, a tone cluster is a harmony too.
3
Except that we are not the culmination of "the arc". We are simply another point along its changing path. And incidentally, since the rise of composers such as Philip Glass, harmony has gradually been reasserting itself in western classical music.
5
It's not for nothing that, the radical Moderns notwithstanding, we speak of (and listen for and are ultimately soothed and satisfied by) tonal resolution following leaping modulations and daringly exciting dissonances. Music an apt metaphor.
Keep the 99% divided and at each other's throats fighting for mere survival while a strongly united and mutually cooperative 1% reaps the rewards. I wonder which corporation endows Professor Grant's chair?
16
This is exactly how NOT to disagree! You're not talking about disagreeing about an idea, you are lumping all people with high incomes into some kind of sinister cabal.
1
As a parent, the single greatest source of conflict between me and my spouse is our eldest child: he doesn’t fit in any box, how do we parent him? We argue openly and honestly about this in front of him. It’s not always pretty. He happens to be the most grounded, self-assured child in the family. Other factors may be involved (eldest, temperament), but I can appreciate the point that kids start to think for themselves when there is discord at the top.
As a citizen, lately I’ve been thinking America is like a dinner table. For all of my adult life we have been the hyper-civilized, well-mannered dinner table, dressed in our Sunday Best. After dinner, one spouse hit the liquor cabinet, the other stole off to meet a mistress; one child locked themselves in their room to smoke pot, and the other sat lonely, yet grateful for the predictable routine. Since January the dinner table has changed radically: the seats are filled, the volume is cranked up, and every topic is fair game. I wonder if Harvey Weinstein would be exposed (ugh) if the other candidate had won the election? Surely we would be patting our collective back as having voted a woman into the highest office, continuing to gloss over the reality of the female workplace. Surely the wobbly territory we are in yields discomfort, but perhaps individual strength and positive change are the result.
18
I am reading and rereading your fascinating idea about "the dinner table" and while I don't necessarily agree with how smooth this forum has been before January, especially having witnessed the rise of racism against our nation's first black president, I can't disagree about the probable tone of dinner conversation, had Mrs. Clinton been elected.
And how about that latest guest to the table, Ms. Donna Brazile? Boy, her potluck dish is really introducing some new talking points.
1
Jenny through the election season, primaries and general, we ALL knew that things were fishy and that the democratic primary was a sham. I have many many close dear friends who were riding the Hillary bandwagon, campaigning for her loudly, flashing permanent stickers plastered all over their computers, cars and windows. Many tried to convince the ones who were not in love with Hillary, that how dare you not love Hillary, its time for a woman President and that she was the most qualified candidate in the field. It could have been unpleasant except that we also have lots of friends and relatives who are staunch Republicans and have always voted republican no matter who the candidate was. Caught in between these 2 extremes, it was easy to have clarity and not be pulled in either direction. My kids and I stayed faithful to Bernie, he said vote for Hillary, we went. Irrespective of their party affiliations and views, we are still good friends with all those rabid Hillary supporters as well as loyal Republicans. We are all Americans and each if us is free to think, and breathe, thank goodness.
1
The millennials tried very hard in the election season to convince their parents grandparents uncles aunts that Bernie spoke directly to their hearts. A lot of these parents had healthy debates with their children and many were convinced. But then there were many women in the family who would not listen, they forbade their children trying to convince them Bernie was "fringe" and that it was time to have a woman President.
I was talking to my neighbor's 17 + year old who took US Constitution last fall. Their high school teacher required them to listen to every debate and make notes. Today he learned for the first time that his idol, Bernie, got a raw deal from the democratic party. His heart broken, he went thats awful, that's terrible.
Our children, our youth are watching us being lied to, across party lines. They are watching bizarre news making headlines. They would like to dream big and they have a vision, their instincts are right, but no one is willing to listen. Their dreams squashed by pollsters, political pundits, talking heads and moms telling them join the resistance.
8
Interesting but completely irrelevant.
".....moms telling them join the resistance"
Sounds like Moms who need to grow up.
1
Bernie disdained the Democratic Party until he presumed to take it over. Now he spurns it again.
How can children be encouraged to have constructive disagreements when we simultaneously cultivate their participation in games, challenges and life-lesson experiences where "everyone gets a trophy" while being chauffeured between scheduled events by fawning parents?
16
Where does this happen? I keep hearing about these competitions where everyone wins, but I’ve yet to see one.
1
I used to say, OK, if you are going to fight, take it upstairs and come down when it is resolved. Worked every time. They'd take it from the first level of conflict to the next level of creative problem solving.
7
What's fine for family and friends usually isn't appropriate or even permitted at work.
Argue with friends. Argue with family.
Don't argue with your boss. Ever.
17
If you can't argue respectfully with your boss, you have the wrong boss. Or the wrong job. Or both.
1
If not arguing with the boss is the rule where you work, change jobs. Any company with bosses like that is going precisely nowhere in a world of rapid change coming from all directions. Disagree and you're fired? That's Trump's show. And lucky you if you are fired. After a bit of discomfort, you'll get over it and find another job -- or not, in which case you'll go to work for yourself.
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
I’m in STEM and I argue with bosses and with people reporting to me. The important thing is that we argue respectfully and we listen and we argue about the plan or the design choice or the expected outcome.
We don’t get personal.
The arguing prevents a lot of false starts and failures.
1
What wise, sensible thoughts. Sounds great to apply whenever possible. Suppose it's not possible? How about for the next 3 years of the Trump & Friends reign?
Can we use these principles to argue against politicians in collusion with huge corporations who aim to take away our political input, our votes, health care, and basic economic security? We’ve listened, and we know what they’re after.
How do you argue rational facts with those who deny scientific evidence in favor of irrational, self serving slogans?
What are the stakes? Pretty serious, when we try to preserve our democracy against a congress dependent on big money donors, an irrational, authoritarian president and a cabinet out to exploit the public in so many ways.
It’s not just winning arguments. It’s protecting ourselves from many dangers.
Please rewrite this op ed and realistically discuss big stakes political war between opponents with unequal power.
8
I rarely agree with anything in the NYTimes but fully do with this. As a society, we no longer know how to disagree with any degree of civility. By civility, I don't mean we must never get mad or react with passion - I mean we must never make our disagreements personal. It means we engage in "fair fighting".
Fair fighting means disagreeing about an issue, not turning an argument into personal criticism or attack. It means there is no "moral high ground". No "I'm right and you're wrong and your being wrong makes you a bad person". Unfortunately, it appears that this is all anyone knows today. And it's exactly why we're such a fractured society. If voting for a particular candidate makes one a horrible person, common ground is impossible to achieve.
Yes, it should be taught to children. And yes, they should be allowed to fight in order to learn how to resolve differences between people in a safe way. And yes, parents should disagree in front of their children and then show them that disagreeing or not, they still love one another. This is essential for them to someday have strong relationships.
I had a therapist when I was going through a divorce, who had a small blackboard on her wall. It said "Confronting is caring." When we don't confront, we're discarding the relationship- it's just not important enough to bother. Yet confrontation might actually lead to a peaceful resolution of the problem. If we value the relationship, we confront.
30
Where arguing fails to create positive results is when one side argues with utter disregard for facts, especially when the lying side wins the argument.
11
As someone smarter than me once said, progress comes from struggle. Unfortunately, our modern day workplace is not designed to foster creative differences. Feelings and sensitivity now rule the day. And god forbid a member of a certain gender and race criticize the ideas of a person from a less predominant gender and race — excuse me, HR is on the line.
4
Whatever fictional situation allows you to be a free range thinker with the emphasis vacillating between whatever and fictional is the one to give you results. Mostly as parents are job is to say yes
Don’t get mad, file a patent application.
1
By this logic Trump, who disagrees with everyone must be a creative genius and his children growing up in a conflicted environment, off the charts.
3
This is my experience as well. I know I learn best, think hardest, create and innovate best when someone has questioned me hard about my assumptions and plans. I struggle with people who are offended as soon as I question their idea or theory. When I ask questions it is because what they are saying doesn't fit my background knowledge. I want them to fill in the holes or think hard about their idea. I want them questioning mine and asking me why, how do you know, what about?
16
Yes! This!
Most people these days will say something like, "It's ok, I'm not trying to change your mind or anything" when we have just broached a topic on which we disagree, and they avoid further discussion, when I am curious to know why they disagree, because I am open to be convinced if I am wrong. And if they think they are right, why would they not want to convince me, too? I just end up frustrated...and bored.
Nice article, thanks.
1
Not sure what kind of creativity you're talking about, but my most creative moments happen by myself. Creativity obviously involves going against the status quo, and respectful arguing may help a committee invent a slightly better widget. However, I don't think that artists' most creative moments come from actual verbal argument, rather from within themselves.
10
Why does creativity obviously involve going against the status quo? That sounds like a crypto-marcist Russian Formalist notion. Mainstream art can be creative. Design can be creative. There seems to be a deep biased belief that art must be anti-social, a gesture of rebellion (go against the status quo). I call this The Bowie principle, because it is enshrined in punk and post-punk music. But Elton John was a better songwriter and performer than Bowie, and Elton John was a popular artist. Shakespeare may have been original and unique, but I don't think he attempted to be, I don't think art must be original to be good. It seems like many people think that originality is the most important aspect of art. I would argue that most 15th and 16th C poets would not have subscribed to that belief. They slavishly followed the Greek and Roman writers whom they admired. Art as originality is beatknik notion with roots in Marxist ideas about changing society. Renaissance writers wanted to create a culture like Greece or Rome.
You make a good point, but I feel like debating with other people about your idea can really help. When you have a healthy debate with another person, it can open your eyes to a whole new perspective you never even thought of before. You can use the information you get from other people to improve your own idea and make it more creative. The ideas you have within yourself may not be as creative as the ones you talk with other people about.
Alexis,
But doesn't debate benefit you only when you are wrong? If you're eyes are being opened, that implies that you were wrong or that you missed something essential. If you are debating with someone who is clearly incorrect, then it's rarely of any benefit.
Here, I'm talking about facts, that is things about which one can be correct. As far s creativity, I am not sure what that term covers. Is that like debating which wallpaper to use or which wall paint goes best with which sofa? I am not sure that sharing contradictory opinions on matter so taste or aesthetics is a form o debating.
Perhaps one can debate the best course of action to choose: diplomacy vs force. But I wouldn't say that's a creative process, although it is a process aims to lead to a solution.
I'm having trouble with the word "creativity." I am not sure what it defines.
TRADITIONAL ORTHODOX JEWISH EDUCATION Means, for those brought up in such communities, that the boys begin studying the holy books at 3 years of age in a kheder, then continue to a yeshivah where they begin to learn the fine art of pilpul. Students are taught to follow the arguments about the interpretations of verses of the holy books the Rabbis whose opinions were written in the Talmud. So students are paired off and argue opposing points of view. In fact, struggle is in Jewish DNA. After Jacob had a dream where he wrestled with the angel, his name became Israel, from yisra-el, meaning "wrestled with the Lord." The notion of debate pervades the Jewish culture in modern times. It is also far more inclusive than the traditional orthodox model. For example, women are invited to engage in scholarly arguments concerning the interpretation of sacred texts. A central belief in Judaism is the expectation that we will wrestle with ideas in all areas of communication. The names of those Jews who have excelled in their fields include those who have learned to debate successfully. To wrestle with ideas. Not to accept truths as given and passively received. In fact there is a riddle that goes, Why does a Jew answer a question with a question? Why not?
48
Tragic that it's just the boys.
OTOH....
Yes.
But Orthodox Jews, like members of other strict religions, are limited to debate only within the overriding premise of religious belief, which they cannot question.
1
The reference to 'creativity' is to me disorienting.
What you mean to discuss here would seem more about engineering, patentable commercial product design, innovative resolutions (however brilliant or genius) to complex design or strategic problems or challenges.
But 'creativity' as it's usually referred to is, in my experience or observation, rather different.
The actual birth of creative inspiration & invention is rarely if ever a group-effort & relies more on introspective, informed imagination.
What aids this process is less about conflict than trust in one's talents, skills & internal imaginative process, a certain enjoyment in that introspective imagination, personal immersion in what one loves to create or finds compelling.
At its most sophisticated, there's the rarity of genius, but it's generally combined with relentless personal standards & often obsessive application, focus & work.
But then there's the creativity of what would appear to be humble handwork. Some of the most treasured & inspired creative objects are old pottery crocks made for pickling kimchi, or rugs or baskets. These aren't products of arguments.
Interpersonal conflict, rivalry, powerplay, etc. is anathema to the organic process of creativity.
47
Individual creativity within a collective group setting may likely have reached its greatest known or recorded heights with Jazz during the decades from early Satchmo through late Coltrane.
But Mozart locked himself in a room & scored out his concertos on paper.
These heights of creativity weren't furthered by fights or debates, it was flow.
1
There is a very fine line between constructive disagreement and the use of language to bully people into silence and assert dominance.
It's that fine line to which I think we must give much more thought.
I have worked in 2 kinds of environments, one in which any form of spirited discussion and debate was discouraged as engendering "conflict" in a negative sense, and another in which "discussion" was a cover for bullying.
Neither works. But if I'm forced to choose I'll chose the first.
So, what do we do to encourage debate and constructive criticism but at the same time prevent bullies from using it as cover to try to dominate?
25
On a related note, there no actual research that proves that "diversity" in a group leads to better outcomes.
It sounds good and egalitarian but there is no proof.
5
One problem I'd see off the bat is defining "diversity" in the context of group interactions. There are certain measures of dispersion ("diversity") that may indeed improve a certain group context. However, it would be surprising if some superficial definition helped improve group results across the board. In other words, it should be obvious that simply targeting a mix of skin color, gender, ethnicity, etc. won't improve group results in many contexts.
5
I'm curious. Is there any proof that a lack of diversity leads to better outcomes?
I'm sure, RS, that if you bothered to define "better outcomes" you'd be able to find the proof. But if you just use vague terms, you can vaguely claim it doesn't exist.
Socratic Method
Shell Oil's 3 characteristics for hiring college grads for management training in the '50s:
1. Dissatisfaction with the status quo
2. Ability to do something about it
3. A sense of urgency
6
"It’s why one of the cardinal rules of brainstorming is “withhold criticism.” You want people to build on one another’s ideas, not shoot them down. But that’s not how creativity really happens."
This is absolutely correct. What should be obvious, but doesn't seem to be in our culture, is that creativity comes from those who are able to WITHSTAND criticism, not avoid it or create spaces where it doesn't happen. This is true from art to technology to academe to politics.
98
Or another way to put it: the best ideas are the ones that can withstand being picked appart. If you're brainstorming anything regardless of whether it's a new cure for cancer, a new invention or a new video game the issues that it'll run into won't go away just because you forbid people from bringing them up during the brainstorming process, they'll just catch you by surprise later when you might or might not be able to deal with them.
2
Stephen Covey (RIP) called it listening to understand, and to be understood. Rather than knee-jerk blast everything that involves the letters, T.R,U,M.
In that vein -- I'm going to start charging those around me, $1 for starting a statement with DJT. I should be a millionaire, in a few weeks.
There's a LOT of buzz these days in all venues of human talk about "creativity".
What's behind that? I smell dissatisfaction with daily life everywhere in our "high-tech world".
People have lost touch with something important.
2
I think this is really important. Not just to teach to our kids but to foster in our relationships. It is really good to disagree.
8
I was always taught that if I believed something I should be able to make the argument (argument is not always fighting) that convinced me of its rightness so that argument convinces others of it.
This teaches you a lot of things unrelated to the subject at hand. How to argue. How to be honest and why honesty is so important. Why you should not personalize a position no matter whose it is. Why it is you should not just invest in an idea because of a feeling about it until you have worked it out through argument. That some arguments are the arguments you try out as a child but leave behind because they are obviously flawed as you grow up. Meaning that by the time you are an adult all people should have a list of very similar accepted truths in their quiver that do not require debate every time you engage with someone.
I live in a pac 12 town and the lack of depth and inability to deal with anything unexpected is shocking. It often feels like I am living in a post WWII novel about how it might be if the west lost.
10
What is a "pac 12" town?
"The skill to get hot without getting mad — to have a good argument that doesn’t become personal — is critical in life"
That's an interesting perspective. In my life of work, a good argument gets an employee written up. Three of those and you're out of a job. I'm not sure this "skill" will lead these children to fruitful careers.
11
Steven .... a 'good argument' is good to have because it never becomes personal, as opposed to a 'bad argument' where one or both parties break down by taking offense or attacking the other personally...it's an important distinction.
A 'good argument' is a good debate.
Without the 'good argument' skills, children and adults will not go terribly far in life, and worse, they may wind up as sheep blindly following deranged leaders and fascists over a cliff of insanity.
We need all the 'good arguments' we can get.
41
This is true not only for kids but for adults as well. In the community college where I teach, administrators, faculty, educators and everyone in between take so much pain to avoid arguments and be politically correct that policies that pass through are often absurd, meaningless and laughable. In a sense, the fact that education has not changed in any significant way in the last hundred years is because of our reluctance (and sometimes fear) to engage in constructive arguments. So yes, children and parents, start fighting ideas to come up with new and better ideas. The same advice holds also for faculty and administrators in our educational institutions.
20
Yes, same where I teach. And they weed out any candidate for any job who might challenge the status quo of any faction.
4
Beautiful article and up to the times.
As a cousin said:" I just met a most charming person. Agreed with me in everything."
4
Adherence to "faith" makes adherence to ideas personal. It is easy to dispense with beliefs that lack tangible substantiation when one has no personal stake in them, but infuriating to come up against people who cling to beliefs that are demonstrably false.
9
Steve...please stop the war on Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the virgin birth of Jesus....it hurts my delusions.
5
The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.
- Keynes
6
Ah, my sister-in-law 'nailed it' when she said, "Ah, we get our facts from a different source." (aka Fox News).
The weather makes a lovely topic, also travel, family (if very general) and what's for lunch.
No facts involved.
6
Testing your argument against that of another isn't fighting. It is testing your argument. True Fighting, to my mind, arrives when the ability to argue your case or accept a better one breaks down. While I certainly support the idea of an honest creative tension, "Kids, will you please start fighting?" misses the mark.
One need look no further than Trump, who is so eager to fight, yet dismally ill-equipped to learn.
47
I completely disagree. It is the Left, the Progressives and the Democrats who are so eager to fight and so unwilling to learn. Perhaps that is why the Democratic Party has lost about 1000 elective offices in Federal and State positions over the last 9 years.
There is good conflict and bad conflict. Good conflict is grounded in honest disagreement and mutual respect. A touch of humor doesn't hurt. Bullying and mean-spirited hostility are definitely out.
Growing up, my friends traded good-natured insults which helped defuse natural tensions based on our differences. But we were known as the brainy group. It seems to me that a lot of smart kids naturally engage in verbal games as a sport. The more clever you are the better. Among clever blacks, in particular, "signifying/doing the dozens/yo mama talk" is a game of mutual insults among the most clever. Scholars have studied the practice and generally agree that it is pretty much restricted to the verbal elite.
It is my sense that good-natured arguing is constructive for those who know that it is game playing, and that the goal is to win, not to hurt. I would not encourage teaching the practice. Those who are good at it engage in it naturally. Encouraging a child to do the dozens when he or she is sensitive and takes things seriously is to set the child up for a world of hurt. Encouraging a kid to reach for the Ivy League, excel in sports, or run for class president when, practically speaking, these goals are out of reach, is bad parenting. The same goes for verbal contests. Not every kid is good at everything. Know your child.
11
I think it's a regional thing too. Bigger on the East Coast, I think. Generally, I've found people who grew up on the West Coast bemused by that kind of banter, regardless of their verbal abilities and wit. In fact, it seems to make them uncomfortable.
A tendency to play linguistic games seems to run in families.
Nobody is good at everything. The wise know their limitations.
2
Thank you for this wonderful and informative piece.
2
1. Learn about the relativity of all thought (this is especially important when arguing about scientific views - scientists are among the greatest culprits when it comes to absolutist thinking; remember Godel... and if this is too difficult for children, remind them again and again that whatever we know is infinitesimal in the face of the infinity we don't know
2. Practice, regularly,, as often as possible, deliberately taking the opposing point of view and defending it as sincerely and comprehensively as possible. Make it a game - if you believe that your way of throwing a baseball (or studying math, or whatever it is) is the best, take the other person's point of view (but be VERY sure you really understand it and are not just adopting a caricature of the other's perspective). After you've switched, see if you both can come up with a solution which integrates both sides.
3. As you are trying to understand the other person's perspective, adopt this as a fundamental rule: "Assume misunderstanding." Don't ever assume you know for sure what the other person is thinking/feeling - you might call this the "Thomas Angel" rule - we can't ever know for sure "what it is like" to be the other person, to have their point of view.
4. Enjoy the argument.
www.remember-to-breathe.org
17
There is an element of absolutism in the mathematics of science, which clearly delimits what is possible.
1
For extra credit: Try the above steps with Richard Luettgen, but don't expect him to take part.
Re: My previous comment;
SPELLCHECK MADNESS!!!
Sigh...
I had written:
3. As you are trying to understand the other person's perspective, adopt this as a fundamental rule: "Assume misunderstanding." Don't ever assume you know for sure what the other person is thinking/feeling - you might call this the "Thomas Nagel rule - we can't ever know for sure "what it is like" to be the other person, to have their point of view.
*****
Spell check turned "Thomas Nagel" into "Thomas Angel"
Ok moderators - time for an edit function??
There, see, we now have an argument:>)
Your turn....
I'll start
Moderater: "Our job is already hard enough. If we provide an edit function, it's going to double our work, making it nearly impossible to moderate effectively.
Don: [now, you take my side]:
The problem in today's culture is not that there is too little disagreement but rather what is seen as "argument". When the antagonists are locked into their positions and there is no possibility of minds being changed, the interaction degenerates into mindless confrontation. See the bulk of exchanges on social media.
Ideology is one of the main reasons for this. When one's opinions become part of one's personal identity, then disagreement is perceived as insult. This is compounded by the current tendency to see all issues as moral ones. There is no hope of real dialog when one's opponents are not just wrong but evil (expressed in terms of racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and the multitude of other contemporary labels).
Until people have learned to argue dispassionately again, perhaps through more thoughtful child rearing, public discourse is likely to remain unpleasant, tedious, and unproductive.
22
Ideology is silly because it is almost always motivated by conformity to some presumption about what the imaginary figure called "God" thinks about the topic.
I’ve been a manager in creative industries for years and now find myself in an academic environment for strategy designers, and I’ve been observing this as a longitudinal projection for a while. It’s a shame that debate, and healthy debating skills, aren’t more widely taught either in school or by parents themselves.
The four guidelines at the end are spot-on. They point to the use of active listening and emotional intelligence in our interactions, and I think disagreement is the area where these are really tested. To be good at disagreeing—and yeah, I’d make a distinction here between fighting and disagreement—you have to at least try to put yourself in the other side’s shoes and let it be known that you’re trying. Facts alone aren’t always going to sway an opponent or steer a debate in a useful direction. Challenging each other while respecting the other’s perspective, and the facts or arguments they’re reaching for is how disagreements become constructive, and potentially, a place of personal growth.
8
Agreement is usually achieved by the parties reconstructing their own arguments in the terms of the other.
1
The arguments and counsel would serve as pretty good guidance to the most dangerous children we have -- members of Congress.
7
We have to lead by example, Richard. "I am the greatest, believe me!" doesn't cut it.
1
You forgot the most important rule of debate:
Use facts....not alternative or imagined or fake facts.
166
Yes, I'm a big fan. But that's not enough and can even be a trap. A few things...
People often use facts selectively, intentionally (or subconsciously) ignoring other important facts that may weaken a desired (emotionally, politically, morally...) conclusion.
Sometimes important facts are not available, but less important facts are, so people focus on what they know instead of incorporating a measure of their ignorance, which is often essential. It gets worse... in partisan politics we'll often see people actively searching for confirming "facts" - things that are "true" but irrelevant or trivial (*)
Often the facts are complicated or there are multiple interpretations available. So people usually take shortcuts from facts to conclusions without considering other viable interpretations.
So, yes, start with facts, but realize that facts and measures are tools in a toolbox. The frameworks and techniques to work with facts are as critical as the facts themselves.
* For example, a few years ago there was a chart going around of the increase in federal debt under each president from Reagan forward. It was in nominal dollars. It was "true", but completely meaningless except as a motivating tool for true believers. (It is actually meaningless in a number of important, distinct ways!)
1
And who gets to define "what are facts"? You? the lefty liberal media? the establishment? those in power?
1
I agree with the premises but there is a fine line between arguing constructively and making it personal. This is the hardest thing to teach and also practice. Feelings are very powerful and usually get mixed up disagreements or arguments.
I am the product of parents that never argued except for once that I remember. However my father defiantly had PTSD from WW II and had little understanding of three young children. As the middle child and the only boy flanked by two sisters I got the worse of it. I was a dismal failure in school and then my father died at 44 from a heart attack. I actually felt relief coupled with grief which took me years to work out.
It probably made me the more creative of my family and I went on to Earn a PhD in applied sciences and was active in photography and other art forms.
This is more of a cautionary tail of the damage that taking things personally can cause. I think the decoupling an argument from personal is the most important issue here
16
Exactly. I can relate to this, Climatedoc. I’m sorry about your experience with your father.
Different ingredients, similar outcome: I grew up witnessing a very dysfunctional marriage, and as an only child was saddled with a lot of emotional conflict (inside and out), and a total lack of resources to help me process it. Not until I became an adult did I confront it and turn it around. I had to work extremely hard to undo some damage and re-learn healthy ways to process conflict, then figure out how to be open to disagreement and navigate it in a healthy way. Mostly, this involved removing personal hurt and emotion from my reactive impulse and framing (this is because of what I did /said, what they said means I am wrong). This contributes tremendously to where I am now and the work I do.
4
The respectful disagreement and 4 points you describe at the end are very constructive
But I strongly disagree with the idea that “fighting” is good. Getting “hot without being mad” surely is better than mad, but still can divert energy from thought to ego, from problem solving to conquering.
Perhaps people who grow up in homes where everyone is squabbling can seem successful( but are they happier?) because those who grow up in a home where conflict is resolved through thoughtful discussion are stunned and unprepared to have their well- thought out and carefully described alternatives and innovations shouted down at work.
But then rather than require calm thinkers to turn into hot debaters to be successful, let’s just agree to honor your 4 points at the end.
4
Your whole premise is based on assumed and un-argued conclusions.
Assuming the child is being taught proper social rules and what is right and wrong; Arguing, shouting, fighting it lets the kids feel the things they feel and use those feeling to drive their mind down the right paths. It lets them make mistakes and learn when being selfish is wrong and when it is appropriate, when anger is wrong and right etc. It teaches them from direct experience the pleasures and pains of human behavior. They get to hurt and be hurt and make others feel good and receive same.
It teaches them how to live as a human being not some robot whose focus is on appearances and subjective assumptions about what others motivations and feelings are when those things are simply not knowable by observation.
1
While there is little to disagree with in this article with respect to child rearing, I find it curious that readers might regard a professor of management and psychology as some kind of sage regarding creativity. People in academia excel at a great many things, but creativity isn't among them. The path of teaching and publication is well-worn with ruts - there is no path "made by the walking" to be found here.
1
I think Buelteman has a skewed view of academia. Some people in academia excel in creativity and some outside academia excel in creativity. And others are in ruts. So?
9
Is it OK that I cannot find anything substantive to disagree with in this article?
82
I spoke too soon. I found something! Throughout the article the term "conflict" is used approvingly. The paragraph that introduces the four rules states that "we should be modeling courteous conflict" yet the first rule is "Frame it as a debate, rather than a conflict."
Oddly, I also noticed the absence of an essential part of the necessary mindset, namely to separate the person from the position. That goes both ways - avoid ad hominem attacks (they nearly always indicate personal and intellectual weakness) and also avoid feeling insulted when your arguments and ideas are questioned.
A more advanced development of the mindset is to actually *enjoy* when your ideas and arguments are questioned by a competent and informed source. That gets to the heart of curiosity, particularly within a scientific approach.
137
The first rule of Fight Club for children, well the third rule is: stop the bleeding first and send the fighters to opposite corners.
And the scientists I've known (research ones) are vicious in protecting their pet theory and vicious to their opponents.
The bleeding is all internal with scientists.
2
In science, debate is settled with measurable results, regardless of how volatile are different perspectives.
Outside of science, most conflicts are not so easily and with such finality settled. There are few concrete conclusions to rely on, only obstinate positions based on opinion rather than proof.
The Wright brothers were a poor example by the author, as their "conflict" was based on the same principle as scientific query, and it was resolved by the empirical discovery of "what works."
Which brings to mind how unfortunate it has become that "comfort, being comfortable, not being uncomfortable" have become such dominant priorities in the workplace and particularly in schools. There used to be training programs on getting out of your comfort zone in order to solve problems, create solutions, invent. My old boss used to say "When the gears turn too smoothly, the machine loses power. There need to be some sparks flying".
40
I think these four rules are excellent starting point for handling different opinions. My only insert would be to encourage curiosity and questioning of the other's point of view. I recommend Brene Brown in Braving the Wilderness where she provides insights on how to speak up with civility, integrity and inner courage.
9
Too often, people move away from conflict seeing it as something to be avoided at all costs, Unfortunately, it is too often the avoidance of having a conflict that produced the real problems, not the conflict itself. Schools would do well to value and teach conflict resolution skills to students at all levels. Learning how to deal with conflict and resolve conflict without violence could not be a more important lesson for all to learn today.
57
" .. They discover that no authority has a monopoly on truth .."
Would that include those involved with shoving through, massive spending programs, on single-party votes, if I may ask, in a civil tone?
And also in complex public engineering matters, with conflicting forces involving "jobs" and spending? Often left out of the Flint water crisis reporting: how regional officials pushed for a local water authority, while ignoring basic rules of water management. And then further complicated by a financial crisis involving long-incumbent politicians.
2
Discuss and debrief with kids after disagreements or arguments. Have them tell you what they didn't like, and have them tell you what they thought was a good thing that happened during the argument. When children process with trusted adults they can come to a better understanding of what's going on.
Praise them for their inquiry, evaluations and conclusions.
25
Shortage of "trusted" adults. Good ideas and practice though.
3
All the children I know keep their disagreements as far from the 'trusted adults' as possible. This really does see like a La La Land version of parenthood.
1
Wow, would love to have had you as a mom.
2