Suppose you meet someone
for the first time. A way to impress them might be to talk intelligently at
them for a while, reeling off a litany of impressive knowledge and reasoning.
But while you might impress, you wouldn't learn much from the other person. On
the other hand, you could meet that person and spend your time listening and
learning, forgoing opportunities to impress them with your own conversational
gifts.
Ideal conversations are
probably about half and half - with both agents having roughly equal listening
and talking time. While on my day I could make an impact on an interlocutor
with some impressive knowledge and reasoning, I find what generally happens when
I converse with a stranger is that I tend to allow the conversational output to
be largely about the other person, because I want to 'soak up' as much new
knowledge within that brief window as possible.
Here's why. Suppose you
get chatting with a stranger and the chances are you won't get to do it again
any time soon. Yes you could impress them by talking intelligently at them for
a while, but equally you could use the opportunity to learn something from
someone who knows more about a subject than you. Any stranger is going to have
areas of knowledge that surpass yours, be it knowledge related to their job,
their hobby, or simply a keen interest of study.
Consequently, then, if you
and I meet as strangers, there's a good chance that I'll be highly interested
in something you know about that I can add to my knowledge stock - be it
plumbing a bathroom, working as a solicitor, your superior sporting talent, your
experiences in a foreign country, an author you've read that I haven't, or
numerous other areas of knowledge you have in which mine is less prodigious.
Being willing to soak up
other people's expertise is a rewarding pursuit, and well worth resisting the
temptation to predominate a conversation. And don't worry about not getting
your chance to express intelligence - taking an interest in others and asking sharp
and incisive questions will give exhibition to an intelligent mind at work.
For further consideration,
there's another element to this. Being better informed isn't a panacea against
being wrong. Given that even well informed people have faulty reasoning, it is
not a good assumption to say "You are well informed therefore you're
probably right". A better question to pursue would be "If I knew as
much as you do on the subject, would I agree with your conclusions?". If
your interlocutor says 'yes' it may show confidence that they think they can back
up their position. If on the other hand they say 'no' it may well be an
indication that they hold that view for different and possibly fragile reasons.
Suppose Jack and Jill
disagree on five things. In four of the five cases Jack says that if Jill knew
as much as he did on those subjects she would agree with him. But in the other
case Jack admits that if Jill knew as much as he did on that subject she'd
still disagree with him. On which of these scenarios do you trust Jack the
most: on the four cases in which if Jill said 'show your work' there would be
enough to convince her Jack was right; or in the one case where if Jill said
'show your work' there would not be enough to convince her Jack was right? In
all probability it would be the former.
It has to be said though,
there is a difference between evidence showing someone to be wrong and that
person actually changing their mind. For example, it would very easy to provide
the scientific evidence to show that evolution is a fact, but that doesn't mean
a young earth creationist would change their mind when presented with it. It
would also be very easy to provide the economic evidence that import tariffs
are bad for the economy, but that doesn't mean a politician will suddenly stop supporting
them. Bias and self-interest are powerful tools of motivation even in the face
of contra evidence.
It's very likely is that
if a person believes something that is not true, and doesn't appear very
bothered about the evidence connected to showing the falsity of the belief,
their reasons for believing it are motivated by very strong and influential
non-empirical factors, like being part of a cult or wishing to deceive large
swathes of the population. This is why in any consideration of truths and
facts, open, honest, rigorous dialogue that presents evidence and the weight of
arguments from both sides is always going to be the best course of action.
That is why, if anyone disagrees
with me about anything, I am always enthusiastically
wishing to debate openly about it, and have all the arguments from both sides
laid out like a buffet on a dining table. My experience tells me that the
'buffet' standard is a pretty reliable standard for separating the genuine
truth seekers from those who believe what they want to believe irrespective of
truths and facts.
