In the recent past I have been party to some discussions and they turned out to be not-so-pleasant experiences. While this in itself is not new, because of the importance attached to the people involved in those discussions, I had been spending some time on
'Why some discussions turn out be fruitful and some others utterly bitter experiences?' - Here is my take:
Inherently some topics of discussion turn into arguments and often arguments leave not-so-pleasant experiences - Consider topics like politics, cinema etc. Everyone of us have our opinions on these and these opinions are often based on beliefs that we have. Beliefs, never are, correct or incorrect and thus opinions based on beliefs too are not correct or incorrect - It is just that different people have different beliefs on a particular aspect/subject. Also, beliefs do change - so guy who is vociferously advocating for a particular political party might turn against them in another discussion.
But, not all topics of discussions turn into arguments nor are the discussions based on beliefs - Topics like 'cooking', for instance, do not generate same amount of arguments as does topics like 'politics' - Why? To me, the answer lies in 'expertise' - one can not discuss cooking unless he/she has some expertise in cooking (pl. for god sake do not equate cooking with eating), while all of us can certainly discuss about politics without having any expertise in politics - So, the key is actually not 'Expertise' but it is 'Expertise threshold'!
Some topics have higher levels of expertise threshold (like Accountancy, C++) and some have very minimal or no levels (like cinema, politics, religion) etc!
Is it the end of the story - Not at all!
See this phenomenon - Aren't there areas with in politics/religion/cinema that require higher levels of expertise? Yes, definitely - areas like economic policy, taxation policy definitely require higher levels of expertise but we still see people having discussions that turn out to be either useless or not-so-pleasant experiences - Why?
I think the answer lies in 'Identity' - We identify ourselves to certain topics irrespective of the expertise needed to discuss that topic. It is our identity with those topics coupled with our beliefs that make us participate in the discussions. Largely, 'identity' is what makes a discussion not fruitful and makes us biased - One can never have an unbiased discussion about something which is part of (or at least which they consider part of) their 'identity'!
Some of the best examples that can explain the above phenomenon - Are your kids good lo0king? Have your parents raised you well? - How many of us can discuss these topics objectively.
Moving on, here is another interesting thought:
Unlike what most of us think, which topics evoke people's identity is actually dependent on People but not on Topic!
- 'War between India and Pakistan in the current circumstances', as a topic, will evoke people's identity across both countries and that too of all most all citizens of the country!
- 'War between India and Pakistan in 1970s', as a topic, will not evoke sames levels of identity and also doesn't evoke identity of all citizens as well!
- War as a topic in itself doesn't evoke identity though discussing this topic doesn't have high levels of expertise threshold - Hence, evoking identity is not topic dependent but it in fact is dependent on the people!
The point I was trying to drive home is as follows: