Keep The Conversation

I'm not sure if this just a phenomenon that I encounter (or if it is one that solely annoys me) but I have found myself within earshot, or on the receiving end, of quite a few conversations that go something like this:

"Honestly, there's something different about the people growing up in today's generation. They don't play outside [usually here is made a reference to video games], they're privileged and spoiled, and they don't know the value of hard work." [etc etc etc]

It absolutely infuriates me. I want to drag them by their hair into some of my friend's lives and make them watch a slideshow of the bullshit they have to put up with on a day-to-day basis. The world has kept turning under these aged miscreant's feet, and I do believe that a great deal more respect is due to those who they slander.

I realize all of my "convincing evidence" is anecdotal and a few sample points do not a proof make, but I think the situation and culture people my age (and younger) find themselves in is just as difficult, although in different ways. I don't experience all of them myself, but I'm at least aware of them.

One of the primary things I would argue is that there are whole legions more of really intelligent people coming out of high school, college, and etc - and the number of opportunities available to them may have remained rather static compared to their parent's generation. That'd be okay, if they didn't have orders of magnitude more competition. The people I see throw themselves against the wall trying to juggle and excel in fifty things still don't get those opportunities, because there are now just so many people like that. Driven. Maybe by parents or by themselves or by something else, but there certainly are hordes of perfectionists about.

And what to excel in? There is, in fact, quite a bit more to know as a responsible citizen of the globe than there was 50 years ago. Being a Da Vinci-style Renaissance man is impossible - you could sit in your apartment reading Nature and Science and the New York Times along with Phenomenology and Noumena 52 weeks a year and still have a few dozen fields in which you are woefully ignorant. If you pick the job that pays, you understand that it is very unlikely to be the job that provides any sort of benefit to the countless number of poor and dying. And it is very difficult to remain ignorant of the woes that assault the peoples of the globe anymore - so where do you draw the line? How much of you do you devote to them? How much can you, and still lead the life you want?

In a great many ways, the problems of the early 20th century were physical and mechanical (cars! atom bombs! federal highways!) - whereas it seems the problems of the generations in the 21st century will be more cultural, societal, and dealing with the fallout of some of those clumsier and less beneficial 20th century solutions (solar power! when to engage foreign dictatorships! the best appropriation of funds to bolster the poor of the united states!).

To the untrained eye, I think it seems like all the hard problems are solved. You can make a fair bit of money if you work pretty hard, and you can live a life of relative ease. But now we are cursed with the knowledge that it is not what is truly important - and we cannot be content in our own happiness whilst others suffer so greatly. The 20th century was knocking down walls - the 21st is maneuvering minefields.

Anyhow, that long-winded muttering was actually a precursor to what I aim to talk about  - how the sort of conversation that I speak about is so ineffectual and pointless that it probably shouldn't have taken place at all. Not even necessarily because of the content - but because of the delivery.

Think about it for a second. Someone you don't know walks up to you and says, "Look. You're lazy and irresponsible and I don't think you've ever worked hard a single day of your life. Here's what you should do instead..."

Would anyone seriously listen to this joker? I'd fling the slightly-stale dinner roll in my hand at him and go back to my cubicle. No, that is not a dig at Aramark's dinner rolls. I just have a steady supply of over-aired pastries at my command.

The purpose of that guy's conversation with you, such as it was, was to convince you to do something different. He failed utterly - because he is an asshole. (I swear, my argument is a little stronger than that)

You can't actually be guaranteed that anyone is going to be convinced by an argument you're making, or understand the thing that you want to communicate to them. You can, however, ensure that you do the best possible job of delivering what you want to say to them so that they actually listen. The way to doing so is frighteningly simple in premise and a good deal more complicated in execution.

Just say what you have to say respectfully.

I can't tell you how many times people have said, through implication or through direct insult, that I was an atrocious person for holding a particular position or for doing something that they found repellent. Not to say that I make it a habit of doing things that people find distasteful - but people are just really bad at communicating! I usually get frustrated and angry at the sort of comments they make - and completely unnecessarily so. What advantage did their dig at me afford their argument? None - it's a weaker one for being full of veiled (or not) insults, as well as needlessly being hurtful.

It's not to say that arguments or things that need to be heard should be couched so much that they are ineffective. There is a way to phrase things such that the point is still powerful but delivered respectfully. It does take time to do so, though - and it is sometimes extremely hard to take a step back from someone verbally swinging at you and not retaliate. It feels excellent to lash back and watch someone just recoil under the barrage of all you aim at them - but it's not helping.

Without a respectful conversation, very little can be accomplished - little can be learned. Both parties walk away feeling more righteous in their own positions, and more aggrieved than before - knowing nothing more about the other person. I see it in politics, I see it in relationships and marriages, and I see it between friends.

Why would you cause someone pain when you don't have to? When it serves no need - when it does not advance your own purpose?