On Friendship and the criticism of cherished ideas

I do not have a readership of thousands, hard as that is to believe (HA!). I do not have advertisements on this blog, nor does anyone advertise on my behalf. The extent of my promotion for my writing is to share it on my social media pages, and my only motivations is to discuss my thoughts. In a way, this is a good thing: I know that every person who is reading this is someone that I consider a friend. I am honored that so many of you care enough about my thoughts to spend your time reading them, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Danke schön, Darling, danke schön.

Because of this, for every single page you see on this blog there is a lump in my throat and a trembling hand on the mouse as I click "Publish". I am frequently going out on a limb against ideas that I disagree with, and I sometimes do it with prejudice. Yet I am loathe to hurt or offend people, least of all the people I care about.

In saying that, it wouldn't be fair to make the claim that when people are offended that the offense is wholly unintentional. My words are calculated to get a reaction to my oft contentious opinions. Since my readership has not yet grown to zero, it looks as if I have been correct in relying on  the patience of my readers. Even so, I know that many will have their beliefs challenged when they read my work, and I accept that some people may take these challenges personally.

"Of course you're hurt. But it was not my intent."

So even though injury may be an inevitability, I still think a lot about the most respectful way one should criticize perceptions or suppositions that may be misguided. Obviously, the easiest way is for a person to simply keep his of her mouth shut and bypass critical correction altogether. But that is neither interesting nor productive. So the question remains, how do we tell someone we care about that we disagree with something they strongly believe is true and/or good?

One would hope that the listener can keep in mind that criticism of an idea does not equate to criticism of the person who holds to the idea. To keep these things separate, we would be best served to never say anything that could be viewed as a personal attack. Yet as diligent as we may be in this practice, sometimes these slights can slip past our outgoing filters. In my case, I am both a writer and my own editor; so I'm sure you can see how (despite best intentions) such an error can work its way into a piece. The probability goes skyward when we are talking with someone face to face (although it's easier to get the feedback required to make corrections). It's best to make it clear that insults are never the intent, and always be willing to apologize or otherwise make up for instances when we misspeak.

"You do that, you go to the box, you know. Two minutes, by yourself, you know and you feel shame, you know."

On the other hand, sometimes it is next to impossible to not to be interpreted as insulting. There is a line of thought that goes like this: "My critic says idea x is foolish, but I believe idea x; therefore my critic is saying that I am a fool." To be honest, this is not an irrational line of thought, but it does overlook a couple of important details.

Firstly, it does not take a fool to believe foolish things. I know this, because I am pretty sure that I am not a fool, yet I learn new things all the time. If I am learning something new, this means that I was formerly ignorant and therefore my position was possibly way out of line. Every one of us holds opinions that are based on incorrect data, and each of us believes things that are simply not rational: and we are often simply not aware that this is the case. None of us are immune, but we should all be trying to keep an open mind so that we can be brought to the side of reason.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was no fool. But he honestly believed this this was a legitimate picture of fairies. 

Of course, that may be little comfort to someone who's opinions have been insulted. To quote Tyler Durden, "You wanna make an omelet, you gotta break some eggs." Toes get stepped on, egos get bruised. This can be unsettling for us sensitive types, because we always want to set things right. But no one wants to hear a faux apology, so we should not apologize for simply having a difference of opinion and the bravery to express it. It is unfortunate that people are sometimes wounded in this way, but it's not reasonable to change one's mind for the sake of hurt feelings.

I have to think that this should only happen when there are true irreconcilable viewpoints. The onus here needs to be on the person offering the criticism to be both informed on the subject, and open to changing his or her mind if presented with a reasonable rebuttal. I have noticed that I have a weak area in my writing in these instances: not that I fail to be informed, but that I attempt to "sell" my reader on my knowledge, as in "you should listen to me because I know what I am talking about, I've read a lot on this subject, yada yada." Reading these back, it seems I am trying to deflect reader refutations by offering up myself as an authority. Bad form, Joey! It is better if our knowledge in a subject area is evident in our communication; if not, maybe we shouldn't be speaking at all. Citing external sources is a acceptable method to improve an argument without having to pretend to know everything. I usually provide sources, but rather than trusting my readers to follow the links I have provided I frequently pull rank. For my part, I will try to improve on this, because I want to be a better writer.

Another thing I have to confess: at times I will actually overstate my objection to an idea intentionally. Call it a literary device if you will; it can be easier to make one's point stick by applying a "shock" to the reader. In my experience, a person may refuse to look closely at their precious viewpoint until they are actually told that it is garbage. Even if they do not come to reject their conclusion in the end, the practice of mentally defending it will help them understand why they have chosen to put their eggs in that particular basket in the first place.

In general, though, when using strong language to make a controversial point: the objection should not actually be as controversial as it may seem. In other words, I may have eaten your sacred cow; but in my defense, I found it for $4.99 a pound at the Sobeys, somewhere between the chicken breasts and the Italian sausage. We don't want to be the one responsibly for killing a sacred cow, but must not shy away from its carcass. This is not to be dismissive of deeply-held beliefs, but is simply to point out that the we often put things on a much higher pedestal than they deserve. When an objection is radical, the evidence for that objection should not be radical. Despite my use of this "shock therapy" to jumpstart critical thinking, overall the practice of inducing cognitive dissonance is not a great way to make oneself understood. It is essential to be confident that the data behind an assertion is accurate and accessible, even if disagreeable.

"D'ooooh, this sacred cow is missing the onions and mushrooms!"

It is a precarious and intriguing situation that I find myself in. Whereas most of us develop a set of ideas and values as we approach adulthood and maintain them for the rest of their lives, I re-examined a lot of my beliefs at a much later stage in my life. At the same time, I have had a lot of years to cultivate friends who believe the way I used to about things. With that kind of audience, it is hard not to rub a few people the wrong way. However, I see this as a huge opportunity for growth: both for those who get to be challenged by my new ideas, and for me to play out my thought experiments on live test subjects. Win-win, amirite?

I am usually hardest on thoughts and opinions that I used to find the most compelling. I want to reassure people that when they feel targeted by anything I say, I am also aiming at myself. If I say a thing is absurd, it pretty likely that I used to believe it was perfectly reasonable, and I am trying to come to grips with my new perspective. It's helpful for the reader to know this, since they will accept that I can see things from their point of view.

Of course, we can't add disclaimers to the end of every sentence we write or speak. There has to be a level of trust in the audience. I am certain that some people hear things that they dislike and they quietly slip away without a fuss. Yet I am delighted that many of my friends know me, and have the patience to bear exposure to my thoughts even when that may be uncomfortable for them. I am blessed that they keep coming back for more of this. As Plato records Socrates saying, "The unexamined life is not worth living"; it's a comfort to know that I have so many platonic friends.