Toronto, March 24, 2024
Talk to me!
“Let me finish!” My wife often says this to me when we’re having a conversation. The riposte “But I know what you’re going to say” doesn’t placate her. A friend once held up a sign saying “Interruption!” when, in the course of a chat, I cut her off to express my point of view. She’d prepared the sign in advance. She knew who she was dealing with.
Conversation is how we exchange and develop ideas and opinions. It’s at the heart of civilization (particularly democratic civilization). It’s the engine of progress. This seems axiomatic, beyond debate. Yet, many of us are poor at conversation. We are uneasy talking about difficult subjects. We too easily become combative in the face of disagreement. We may be disrespectful. We may get angry. Often we think the point of a conversation is to convince somebody of our point of view. We confuse conversation and argument.
We also confuse conversation and speechifying. Sometimes “conversation” is only rhetoric. There’s no genuine and respectful exchange of ideas and opinions. There’s not even an argument. There’s no joinder. There’s only the swapping of packaged talking points, the resentful exchange of statements, the giving of speeches. “Ships that pass in the night, and speak each other in passing, / Only a signal shown and a distant voice in the darkness; / So on the ocean of life we pass and speak one another, / Only a look and a voice, then darkness again and a silence.” (Longfellow, Tales of a Wayside Inn)
Always trust the poet to get it right. "Only a look and a voice, then darkness again and a silence.” This is how opposing politicians talk to each other in public. (It may be different in private, where genuine argument may replace rhetoric, at least some of the time—not that this implies agreement will be reached.) Sometimes speechifying is wrapped in anger, perhaps theatrical faux anger, designed to assuage the punters. Watch Canadian parliamentary debates or Prime Minister’s Questions at Westminster to see what I mean. A similar analysis applies, I think, to diplomacy—bluster in public, maybe deal-making in private. Consider speeches given at the United Nations General Assembly.
Social media is sometimes described as an electronic town square where everyone freely expresses and debates their ideas and opinions. Those who were once silent may now speak. What better way to advance civilization? Except we know that social media is not like that at all. Social media is a conversation killer. It is a gathering place for megalomaniacs, conspiracy theorists, troublemakers, cyber-bullies, trolls, and fraudsters. It has displaced more effective ways of expressing opinion, notably face-to-face discussion. A 2016 study found “clear evidence that the use of an SNS [ Social Networking Service, e.g., Facebook and X] can have a direct, negative impact on deliberation in many offline settings: the home, the workplace, social gatherings with friends, and community meetings.” And social media discourse is impaired by the veil between the person sending the message and the recipient and by lack of paraverbal elements like tone of voice. Participants feel strangely detached and think they can say anything.
If you’re trapped on the Internet, take a look at the advice it offers on how to have a conversation. I asked Perplexity AI, my favourite chatbot, about this. It offered ten rather anodyne tips. My favourite is #4: “Listen: Actively listen to what the other person is saying, as it is crucial for a successful conversation.”
Interruption!
Note to readers: I’m travelling next week. There won’t be a newsletter next Sunday.
Some comments from readers on #59
The mercurial David Wolinsky wrote in his own newsletter (“Intermittent random thoughts from my shelter in place shelter”): “In his most recent Endgame column, your brilliant fellow reader Philip Slayton struck a crushing blow at the plethora of opinions on social media inundating everyone no matter where you turn, each with the absolute conviction that they alone know about that of which they speak. Fortunately, none of that applied to me since (a), I’m not on any social media, and (b), I am confident that not only do I know of which I speak, but also my opinion is the right one. If it wasn’t, why would I possibly express it, am I right or am I right?” You should buy David’s new book, The Day the Rains Came.
A discerning reader commented: “There are so many things to be outraged about these days. Often the outrage motivating a statement or post is more telling than the opinion itself. Recently, friends went on at length about demonstrations at Mt Sinai hospital. Don’t they know the staff there had nothing to do with the war in Gaza? Isn’t that just antisemitism? Yes. It is antisemitism and we should be outraged. But how does the damage done by that crowd’s misplaced choice of venue stack up against the death and destruction in Gaza? What’s your opinion on that?”
And the day #59 was published, freedom of expression champion Richard Franklin Carter warned: “Get ready for a load of opinions about Bill C-63 later tonight.” (The controversial Bill C-63 is entitled “An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.”)
There is an exception to Rule # 4 … when liberally offered , unsolicited , poorly informed advice is dressed up as conversation … then not listening is always the best alternative .
Let me finish.
You cut me off.
Common replys for the active riposter. Oh to be an active listener.