Discussion and Debate — Not Conversation

The deliberative mind is a problem-solving mind, which is a species of thought that must be cultivated through experience and training. It should flourish in the rich soil of democracy. In fact, any definition of democracy should and must turn on the definition of group discussion, which is the heart and soul of “democracy”. It is the one and only civilized precedure that will eventuate in a democratic society. Look for its markers everywhere, and if you see them, you will also see a peaceful society. This process solves conflict by peaceful means, person to person, person to society, and society to society.

The grand vision would be to found a society composed entirely of deliberative minds which have mastered th art and science of group problem-solving, discussion, the ultimate peaceful society.
It has a nomenclature, and that is the first order of business, to answer this question: what are the component parts of problem-solving that would yield the best solutions to our problems? Discussion has a process. If you haven’t had the course, then let me give something here that, perhaps, for the wise, will be sufficient.

1. Identify the problem by brainstorming. Make a list, and from that formulate a succinct statement of the problem.

2. Brainstorm all the solutions to the problem. Make a list. Do not begin the evaluation at this time. All suggestions should be dignified by withholding evaluation until the next step. A good leader can keep the group on the track. And anyone is welcome to take a leadership role. Leaders should arise from the on-going process. Leadership is emergent.

3. Evaluate each solution for advantages and disadvantages. List each advantage and disadvantage. Once the list is made, begin the evaluation.

4. Evaluation should produce the one best solution. which still may not be perfect, but the best on which the group can achieve consensus. CONSENSUS is general agreement. CONSENSUS should be the goal.

5. All along the way, great sensitivity for social-emotional needs should be exercised to keep the group working together. There is a kind of leadership for this one aspect that might be discovered in the course of the discussion. There are process, or task leaders and social-emotional leaders who can assist in the achievement of consensus on the one best solution.

PROBLEM-SOLVING is not accomplished by a “conversation”. Everyone is talking about a conversation these days. The worst offenders are the political candidates. That process described above is a dynamic group process of hard work and a concerted effort which, if failing, can fall into conversation (idle chit-chat with personal goals superseding the group goals).

How do you handle the recalcitrants? The social-emotional leader, if you are lucky to have one, might notice the individual’s inability to cooperate and step in. Can that person be saved and learn how to work in groups?

If you have the awareness of all those things, from training and experience–or maybe you are a group genius who may have intuited all that– you’d be surprised at how well you will be perceived in your work, political, or other groups. Most university communication faculties offer courses in group processes. I would think that anyone training for law, diplomacy, education–well, the list is endless for the uses of training in group processes.

Journalists as “Debate” Moderators

I wish I could find the right words for the opprobrious behavior of the journalistic habits that deleteriously affected the progress of the “debate”. Poor Wolf! Out of his element! He insisted on coming between the interactions of the two candidates, interposing new questions before each candidate had a chance to respond to the previous speaker’s remarks, which is called a clash of views that constitutes “a debate”. GET THE DAMN JOURNALISTS OUT OF THE DEBATE BUSINESS!!! That is not their province. Am I the only one who hates to hear the journalist sputtering in the background attempting to gain control of the interchange. Wolf announced there’d be no rules. I guess that means time rules, also. I have seen only two attempts by candidates to put the moderator in his place. They should have asserted more leadership about the procedures, and responsibility and self-control for such elements as the time.

Nearly everybody does not know the distinctions among the forms, debate, conversation, discussion. Only one candidate used the word “discussion”: Hillary. A very brief glimmer, but then lost again in “conversation”. A conversation is aimless; a discussion is not. A discussion has a formal sequence of functions, as does debate. And though those functions are formally identifiable by research observers, they are functions that people in a discussion, without awareness, may go through, in order to solve a problem. If the people in a discussion have an awareness of the functions in advance, as part of their education (which currently is grieveiously missing), the solving of problems can be very efficient, less conversational and aimless and harmful to human relations. Tch! Tch!

More important, if they know the functions involved in a discussion or debate, then they are able to pick up on those functions not operating, being ignored, or slopped through, for every one of the functions is absolutely necessary for group problem solving.

Personally, when I find myself in any group discussion, I have work very hard to keep myself under control, and self-control is one of the functions. I see people operating with no awareness of what they are doing to destroy any opportunity for a meaningful, useful, practical, and democratic  outcome for all the time they are investing.  Education is missing, and needed. For everyone in a democratic society.  The totalitarians are everywhere wreaking havoc on group processes.

You who wish to be top operators in public discussion can inform yourself by reviewing or studying (Googling) the topic of “group dynamics”. Actually, and ideally, every “citizen” should be so desirous.

Journalists, do your thing, but do not step out of your most valuabe role as conduits for the news. And those who ask you to step out of your basic role to moderate a forum, are fools. And you, journalists, are fools to accept.

You are the copper wire, not the electricity.