Dialogue versus Debate
9 comments Latest by tenson Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:40:13 GMT
How many times have you participated in a conversation with someone and realized that you really didn’t understand what they had said. Or… perhaps you’ve been talking and even though the other person is nodding, you’re not confident that they’ve really heard what you’ve been saying. Yet, you might find yourself nodding in agreement when they speak… and walk away… totally clueless about what you just talked about.
Were you really listening? Were they speaking over your head? Were you speaking over their head? Perhaps you were distracted? Whatever the reason… it’s probably worth thinking about. We all do it from time to time.
Even worse, you were only thinking about how they were wrong and you had the right answer already in your head…
In Dialogue, there are rules for participation, which we’ll explore in future writings.
One might wonder if we’ve been trained to work this way. In school, we had classes that taught us to debate one another… further cultivating a society focused on you versus I. But, what about the community? What about the team? What about us? Sadly, most of the teamwork that we saw encouraged was in the form of sports. To be fair… we did have debate teams… but the purpose was to argue for one side of an argument… not to find a way for both sides to work together. One might wonder our society would be like if we encouraged Dialogue in the same way.
Perhaps we need Dialogue teams. ;-)
Dialogue allows teams of people to work together. It’s a process that cultivates learning and discovery. Dialogue is not a process that encourages the passing of judgement or pushing for specific outcomes… the aim is to share understanding. Through empathetic listening and questioning, the seeds of trust are planted.
Dialogue-Driven Development is about building trust.
I came across this great table, which contrasts Dialogue and Debate. It’s worth taking a few moments to review.
Here are a few that caught my attention…
| Dialogue | Debate |
| Dialogue is collaborative: the sides work together. | Debate is a type of fight: two sides oppose each other to prove each other wrong. |
| In a dialogue the goals are finding common ideas and new ideas. | In a debate the goals is winning with your own ideas. |
| In a dialogue you contribute your best ideas to be improved upon. | In a debate you contribute your ideas and defend them against challenges. |
| In a dialogue you listen to each other to understand and build agreement. | In a debate you listen to each other to find flaws and disagree. |
| In a dialogue you may consider new ideas and even change your mind completely. | In a debate you do not admit you are considering new ideas and you must not change your mind, or you lose. |
| Dialogue encourages you to evaluate yourself. | Debate encourages you to criticize others. |
| Dialogue promotes open-mindedness, including an openness to being wrong. | Debate creates a close-minded attitude, a determination to be right. |
There is something to be said about the art of Dialogue, which is why we’re so excited about the d3 project.
Enjoying the content? Be sure to subscribe to my RSS feed.
I need to show this list to my development team.
Hey Robby,
There are 2 types of debate… and this chart totally ignores the most important and most common type of debate. The chart describes competetive debate found most in politics, debate teams, and sometimes with a loved one.
In these examples the individuals only impetus is to appear to be a winner (although this never matters if its with a loved one).
The other type of debate, constructive debate, is used every day to reach agreement between differing viewpoints. The purpose of this type of debate is to illuminate each party’s logic, constraints, and position to the other party, so in that sense it is a type of dialogue.
Oftentimes an unforseen 3rd solution can come into play that will satisfy both parties sufficiently.
This is really about trying to whip Alpha Geeks into submission. No matter where, no matter when, there is an Alpha Geek trying to ramrod their preconceived ideas down everyone else’s throats, and they consider it their mission in life to convince everyone they are right, and By God You’d Better Publicly & LOUDLY Acknowledge their Rightness, or they’ll never shut up.
Trying to play referee between some Alpha Geeks & The Barely Coherent Customer Who Just Figured Out How To Configure A 2 Computer Windows Network And Thinks They Can Now Run NASA, and you have a recipe for trouble. Or maybe it’s the Utterly Clueless customer who literally DOES NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND what you’re talking about (my wife is here). Or it’s The Vast Middle between these two.
The problem is the domain language used to create some sort of mind-meld between these two groups… one side wants to prove their intellectual superiority above all & get a blood oath extracted from all involved that they will Kneel Before Zhod (this is your Alpha Geek), the other (your customer) sometimes wants to do this themselves (Alpha Geek Customer-Poser), OR maybe the customer is sometimes utterly confused, but nevertheless PISSED that they’re ignorance is being run up the flagpole, OR the customer is somewhere in the vast middle.
I’ve worked with the Alpha Geek. I’ve befriended the Alpha Geek. I’ve tried to rationalize with the Alpha Geek. I’ve given the Alpha Geek a carrot. I’ve whipped the Alpha Geek with a stick. The Alpha Geek cannot be changed. Put the Alpha Geek in front of a customer, and they will pee on the customers shoes. The Alpha Geek is genetically programmed to be insecure about their own self-worth, and hence must extract Acknowledgements Of Greatness from everyone within a 48 block radius.
Enter Sandman. Sandman has been to the Dark Side, and somehow returned & survived in a human form. Sandman can talk to Grama about Broken Internet. Sandman can talk to Customer Poser about netmask and how he reminded of Einstein when customer talk about configuring his own dialup. Sandman can hold Alpha Geek at bay with leash, stick & sometimes feed entire turkey to Alpha Geek so he does not morph into slobbering Death Hound From Hell.
Sandman want to know why Slobbering Death Hound cannot be around Grama with eating her? Why can Alpha Geek not pee on Poser Customer shoes? Sandman want solution. Enter Dialouge Driven Development. Ohhhh Sandman feel good. 47 syllables equal new acronym to satisfy his slumbering yet subdued Alpha Geekiness, talking satisfy his urge not to kill himself cuz Grama has pushed him over the edge.
Sandmans needs are simple: He want to get paid without putting a prong collar on Alpha Geek, keep smiling without Choking Grama, acknowledge ethernet genius of Poser, keep server alive, make payroll without borrowing at 24% on personal credit card, keep Alpha Geek from dry humping hot office manager leg, etc…. DDD will get Sandman by for little while. But Alpha Geek will pee on shoes. Grama will give him stroke. This is Sandman life. He just don’t know it yet.
intrestting article, and I really like your site design!
Thanks for you post!
寵物火化 寵物火化 中港運輸 中港運輸 回收公司 回收公司 搬運公司 搬運公司 姻緣配對 姻緣配對 中港物流 中港物流 美國產子 美國產子 健康食品 健康食品 攝影公司 攝影公司 garment wholesale garment wholesale physical access control physical access control
泰拳 搬屋 搜尋引擎最佳化 物理治療 坐骨神經痛 物理治療師 飲水機 新娘化妝服務 廣告禮品 物理治療| 坐骨神經痛 物理治療師 Water Filter|
timer software
撿角九號| 潘麗麗| 蜜雪| 劉心悠 NG內衣 臺灣新聞
28KC, GOLD, FOREIGN EXCHANGE, FUND, FUTURES, INSURANCE, OIL, STOCK, ECONOMICS, SITEMAP