Seeking alternative inputs
Last week, I decided to unbundle my link pack from the editorial because it felt like a better experience. This week, I feel great about that decision. Between now and last week, a few dope jams joined the ranks of songs worthy of sharing with you.
My favorite of the newbies, you ask? But of course..
And actually this one that I’m literally listening to on repeat right now as I type
Alright let’s do this.
Seeking alternative inputs
Amidst my infinite internet scrolling, I stumbled on a bit from Adam Grant’s book, Think Again
“When people reflect on what it takes to be mentally fit, the first idea that comes to mind is usually intelligence. The smarter you are, the more complex the problems you can solve— and the faster you can solve them. Intelligence is traditionally viewed as the ability to think and learn. Yet in a turbulent world, there’s another set of cognitive skills that might matter more: the ability to rethink and unlearn.
Mental horsepower doesn’t guarantee mental dexterity. No matter how much brainpower you have, if you lack the motivation to change your mind, you’ll miss many occasions to think again. Research reveals that the higher you score on an IQ test, the more likely you are to fall for stereotypes, because you’re faster at recognizing patterns. And recent experiments suggest that the smarter you are, the more you might struggle to update your beliefs.
The curse of knowledge is that it closes your mind to what you don’t know. Good judgment depends on having the skill— and the will— to open your mind. A hallmark of wisdom is knowing when it’s time to abandon some of the most cherished parts of your identity."
As I read this, my brother finally decided to emerge from his coding dungeon to socialize (he’s building something), and we got to talking…
Though Dan and I are spawn of the same origin, we have incredibly different and often confrontationally opposing views on a great many things. How to communicate is undoubtedly one of them.
Let’s start with a story
A few weeks ago, Dan and our friend Sean were having a conversation at our dinner table. As I took a seat, I realized (er perceived that) they were arguing about something. At first, I just listened. Sean would say something, Dan would retort, Sean would laugh or smile in the way someone does when they disagree with you and are gearing up to respond, Dan would do the same and challenge, then Sean would respond to that, and on and on they went until eventually, I snapped.
It was exhausting listening to them. Back and forth, no conclusion, just escalating confrontation. Or so it seemed to me. I said, “you’re both just ego tripping, slapping your dicks on the table and seeing whose is bigger, rather than having an actual conversation.”
They both looked at me perplexed and replied, “What do you mean? We’re just talking about something.”
I scoffed, and defiantly replied, “How is this a conversation? You’re not even listening to each other. You’re not trying to learn from each other, you’re just trying to disprove or show off how much you know.”
My comments led to the dying off of the conversation.
I remember thinking to myself, self-important in full swing, I hope they internalize what I said and consider a different approach next time.
How naive of me…
To be right, or not to be right, that is the question
As I recounted that story, I said to Dan that I often felt like his version of communication is akin to arguing. As though he’s constantly trying to prove people wrong, that he’s not seeking to understand others, but rather to impart his opinion upon them.
He asked what I thought productive communication was, and I described a scene where people seek to better understand each other in an environment where both parties feel safe to speak their minds. I thought of this as a space where both parties can have opposing views, but be truly open to changing their perspective. What Adam Grant described as “mental dexterity”. This is a space where one might challenge a “cherished part of [their] identity” for the sake of productive discourse.
Dan responded swiftly, “that’s not how or why I communicate with people.”
And in that moment, after many such conversations with Dan, something clicked. I realized there are modes of communication that appeal to different people. I came up with two such modes. Though I’m sure there are others, for now let’s stick to these.
Nina’s Definitively True Models of Communication
Please note, because my brother is reading this, that these are quite obviously written with a strong bias in favor of my preferred mode of communication. This is intentional and is also an opinion. If he could back himself up, I’m sure he would, but alas, he’ll have to start his own blog..
Seeking to be right (confrontational) - This mode of communication is argumentative, tense, might cause yelling, logic and facts only, no room for unfounded opinions, and please leave your feelings or anecdotal experiences at the door. With this mode, it’s not that someone has the “right” opinion but rather that there is a right “opinion” to be had and these people are going to find it, by any means necessary. Maybe even bloodshed.
Seeking to understand (collaborative) - This mode of communication values feelings and anecdotal experiences en route to facts and logic, rather than in lieu of. There is no right or wrong answer, nor is there really an answer. There’s often redundancy and some talking in circles. This isn’t a free-for-all but it can feel like one, especially by the aforementioned seeking-to-be-right crew. These conversations can last hours and come to no real conclusions. When seeking to understand, there is as much beauty in the conclusion as there is on the path to it.
For my entire life and 2/3 of this conversation with Dan, I was confident that the collaborative method of communication was the right way. Before I touch on that, let’s entertain a side tangent we went on about gender roles.
Let’s bring gender into the mix cus why the fuck not.
Do most men fall into the confrontational bucket and most women fall into the collaborative bucket? Seemingly, yes.
Given our gendered approaches to communicating, what could or would society be like if we had skewed more heavily in the direction of understanding over confrontation?
At this point, Dan and I began to question the productivity of each mode of communication.
Does a preference for confrontational communication, primarily exhibited by men, enable people to produce more, faster?
Does the avoidance of confrontation, primarily exhibited by women, lead us down a path of apathy towards rapid progress and innovation?
There are a number of signs that point to the clear relationship between confrontation (mostly in the form of competition or spite) and rapid innovation.
Examples of confrontation-borne innovation (unsurprisingly, it’s all by men)
The Traitorous Eight leaving Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory to start Fairchild Semiconductor due to, gently put, management issues
John Nash may or may not have arguably discovered the Nash Equilibrium out of spite for people thinking he was an idiot
Steve Jobs (hate it or love it) and his maniacal persistence in building a touchscreen that functioned on a small screen because some Microsoft engineer boasted about their stylus screens
There are an unbelievable number of these stories that had me subsequently questioning, would any other way have produced as much in as little time? What would or could have happened in some parallel universe where mankind skewed in the direction of understanding rather than confrontation? Where would we be? What would we have accomplished?
I could write a novel, ideating about how the world could be different in a parallel universe where things worked out differently, but in the end, that’s not what this post is about.
Mental dexterity requires seeking alternative inputs
I came into that conversation with Dan assuming I was right. Even before then, for many years, I confidently thought my method of communication was better than his. Subsequently, I credited much of my happiness and success to my method, while crediting his shortfalls and failures to his. Leaving out my own failures and his successes entirely because that narrative didn’t support my cherished belief. However, leaving that conversation, which clearly consisted of quite a few challenging questions and quite a bit of mindful listening, mental dexterity kicked in. I then realized how misinformed my deeply-held personal belief was.
There is no better or worse method of communication. Confrontation and understanding are both key to progress, regardless of what parallel universe you exist in.
To challenge someone’s personal beliefs, as Dan did and continues to do with me, is as much a skill as creating a space for people to speak freely about their beliefs.
If you want to keep that mind of yours dextrous, I suggest you seek these alternative inputs.
As Adam Grant said, “…if you lack the motivation to change your mind, you’ll miss many occasions to think again.“ So, confront your opinions in an effort to understand them more deeply. Allow others do so too. You will find that confrontation and understanding walk side by side.
And that, my fellow internet crusader, was too much to text.