IX.26.2019 - Argument, Discussion & Understanding
Do you remember when you argued with your siblings over toys, treats or who Mommy loves best? When the verbal exchange reached the screaming, name calling, hitting or crying threshold, a parental intervention ensued, and you were summoned to present your case at the kitchen table. In an effort to resolve the conflict, your Mom put on a Solomon-like appearance of neutrality as she tried to establish the facts around what just happened. This was an effort (often futile) to get her kids to shut the f*#k up. Her penetrating, all-knowing questions may have resulted in more shouting about who started the fight and, of course, who was right. Welcome to Argument 101.
“Discussions are always better than arguments. An argument is to find out who is right; a discussion is to find out what is right.” – Buddha
As a Level IV Master Facilitator, I have encouraged and led both discussions and arguments. But I can’t say that I have always communicated the difference to the participants. Getting to a mutual understanding about the facts of a contentious situation or a shared view of reality is better accomplished through discussion. A lively or even “heated” discussion is much different than an argument because an argument may begin with statements of facts from the participants but the intent — on both sides — is to protect their personal understanding about the situation or reality. An argument does not have a direct path to consensus although the process can be highly entertaining to those without a vested interest in the outcome.
The difference between an argument and a discussion is about who is right versus what is right. I would go a step further and suggest that it’s also the difference between truth and facts. Truth is simply what you believe and does not necessarily need to be based on facts. A fact is something that cannot be combated with reasoning because it is logic itself. But truth is psychological and is something that depends on a person's perspective and experience. Therefore, an argument does not further a better understanding about the facts among people, but it goes a long way to entrench perceptions about the facts from each person’s perspective. Why is this differentiation important?
Facts can help people establish the when, what and how of any situation. Truth gets to the “why” of the situation. For instance, facts can change if new evidence is discovered to displace the facts about a situation that were previously accepted. People once accepted that the Earth was flat, but a few courageous explorers discovered that there was new evidence that produced a more accurate view of reality. Are we really engaged in an argument about climate change based upon facts? In an argument or debate, the displacement of facts is often attempted through rhetorical devices or tactics such as emotional indignation or feigned outrage with the other person’s perspective. Once again, the outcome is not a better or new understanding about the facts. There is ample evidence that happiness is more attainable when our facts and truth are the same.
The Stoics are back in vogue. That is understandable because we are all dealing with too much information and, at times, too few facts. Stoicism is a philosophy of personal ethics informed by a system of logic related to the natural world. The Stoics held that certain destructive emotions resulted from errors of judgment (lack of facts), and they believed people should aim to maintain a will — 
prohairesis — that is "in accord with nature.”
For me, writing has always been a means to clarify my own thoughts that I admit can be muddled at times. My takeaway from this blog is that as a facilitator and consultant, I will frame discussions better by describing the purpose, process and product of a successful engagement. I will no longer allow discussions to devolve into arguments and, if that happens, I may even invoke the parental edict: shut the f*#k up.