Perhaps this problem grows as one gets to be a respected authority, as one gains status? Trouble is, Dave, you are a respected authority! People will want to agree with you, because you are (fairly) well-known.

And certainly I have detected a conspiracy of being nice between very many people. Perhaps, very simply, this is because most people, most of the time, in our culture, feel insecure, and don't like being challenged, because it brings up their feelings of insecurity.

Is the most effective way of disabling a rebel to make them into an authority?

You might have seen the "strong opinions weakly held" quote here: http://www.anecdote.com.au/archives/2006/08/strong_opnions.html

Dave, I think you only see half the picture in many cases. When people send you emails in the back channel egging you my guess is that they wish to curry your favour. The ones that think you have gone too far just tell stories in the corridors about what they see as outrageuos behaviour. Personally I think you can have learning among people being nice. In fact people run a mile from those who sap their energy by insisting they are right and arguing until they are blue in the face to 'prove' it. I agree it's important to have opinions but the key to the phase "strong opinions weakly held", is that they are weakly held.

Hi Shawn. Yes I did see the quote on your web site but I have seen it elsewhere over the years hence the comment on its attribution. I also think you are misinterpreting the "weakly held", see my comments on debate.

As the to "currying favour", I find that strange. Iy may be your experience, but it is not mine. Most of the people who do so are serious players with no need to curry favour from anyone.

You seem to have disengaged from list serves by the way - any reason?

Dave,
those are great quotes - Google found them here: http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/sutton/2007/03/what_i_worry_about_and_why.html

Further, 'strong opinions weakly held' is explained well here:
'Perhaps the best description I’ve ever seen of how wise people act comes from the amazing folks at Palo Alto’s Institute for the Future. A couple years ago, I was talking the Institute’s Bob Johansen about wisdom, and he explained that – to deal with an uncertain future and still move forward – they advise people to have “strong opinions, which are weakly held.” They've been giving this advice for years, and I understand that it was first developed by Instituite Director Paul Saffo. Bob explained that weak opinions are problematic because people aren’t inspired to develop the best arguments possible for them, or to put forth the energy required to test them. Bob explained that it was just as important, however, to not be too attached to what you believe because, otherwise, it undermines your ability to “see” and “hear” evidence that clashes with your opinions. This is what psychologists sometimes call the problem of “confirmation bias.” '

From: http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/07/strong_opinions.html

Thanks Martin - I remember Shawn referncing Bob Sutton the first time he used it. I first heard it from a Professor of Rhetoric in 1972 so it has been around it bit, which is probably a tribute to its usefulness

I think contrast, confrontation, and debate is a good thing to get people to reflect, question, and evolve their thinking. However, it can be negative, if there is hostility in the conversation, even if perceived. Then it becomes personal and just an ego-clash. And we have different personalities out there, some who are ok with intense debate, and some who are not. If we want larger changes to take place, we must use different levels of passion and emotional intensity with different people. Some people will feed off if and some will want a more neutral and rational discussion. I know this is not easy online where your audience may not even be known. It is easier face to face, especially when you can read body language.

Further, the style should be refined based on the exposure level of the individual involved. If someone isn't an expert in cognitive psychology for example, we need to take a different pace with them and expect more newbie level of responses. I think we can learn a lot from people who are mentors, coaches, and facilitators. Yes, fence sitting maybe wasteful if done always as a personal style - it is useful to have a viewpoint in conversations.

Raj I think you are right about hostility, but not "if perceived". The issue is that some people find it impossible to take disagreement as other than personal, or as an ego-clash. This is a nonsense, but all to common. If you put your ideas into an open forum then you should be able to take rigorous criticism without (i) taking it personally or (ii) calling it an ego-clash as a defense.

I also think you are wrong to contrast passionate debate with reasoned neutrality. Its never that simple. Taking account of the level of the group is obvioulsy important, but it depends how someone puts their ideas forward. If they put forward a strong and controversial opinion (for example Blogs are pollution) then they need to be able to defend it and deserve little quarter if they make a foolish argument. On the other hand if a newbe to a subject asks an innocent question they should not be attacked.

Being open to new ideas is not the same as fence sitting. People who start of neutral in a debate - fine, the ones I find irritated are those who do not engage at all but enter at the end to be the "peace-maker". If you want an example of ego-mania, these guys exhibit it and for them I reference by earlier suggestion as to the proper use of sharpened sticks

Another argument for strong opinions weakly held: Strong opinions - stronger, more explicit claims - are more susceptible to falsification. First because they are more profiled, easier to counter (a "content" argument), and also because they may attract more criticism by being more provocative (a "social" argumetn). And despite some objections ( see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability ), this can promote dialogue and helps getting rid of nonsense - in particular, if "weakly held" means that participants in the dialogue/dispute are really open to criticism, and genuinely curious to other views.
As non-native speaker, I never got the negative meaning of the english use of the word "argument", by the way.
Regarding fence-sitters: I don't think that one has to have an opinion about anything. Or that there are only two sides (like the metaphor of the fence implies). There are topics and issues and debates and arguments where I really just don't care - does this mean that I'm a fence sitter, in the negative sense of the word? No! I don't even care to ignore that stuff. It's just not there, in my subjective world. Or it is there, but I don't give attention, time, energy.

Hi Dave --

I wouldn't say "the Values and Prediction Markets list serves in which I participate are unmoderated."

Rather, they are moderated by the group. IT is correct to say there is no overbearing, pastoral, paternalistic proctor that referees every discourse. There are quite a few people with the role of 'owner' and 'manager.' IMO, Google Groups is moving discussion groups forward by allowing many owners and managers.

Also, BTW, it is listserv NOT 'list serve.' You set off my pet-peeve alert with 'list serve.' See:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/listserv

Cheers,

-j

Dave, This is the first time I've read anything by you. I came this way via Dave Gurteen's latest newsletter. And I'm glad I took the trouble to click.

You haven't asked for my view but it'll help me to express it. I find your energy refreshing and intriguing. I love the subject matter because I've been looking for a cluster of blogs where I might find protracted discussion about issues. So often I find stuff that appears to be beginning (in other words, the writers pour out strong views and I feel the scene is being set for the meeting of minds... ) and then it stops, ends, without warning or promise. The next topic grabs attention and I end up coping with my disappointment.

You've been thinking, talking and writing about valuable ways to argue I suspect for a long time: I have to overcome the voice within that says to me 'he's heard it all before... no point in talking to him... he's moving too fast for me...'

But I guess I owe it to myself to set that voice aside and say to you that I love your point of view. One phrase jumped out: "deserve little quarter". It made me smile. I wondered what your writing would feel like if there were a few more 'in my opinion's thrown in to disrupt the seeming impression I have that there is an authority other than Dave Snowden speaking. I take the impression that you think you are saying more than your own view. But, as I write to you, I realise that I am the one picking up that impression. You have said no more than "I think... I consider... I believe... I feel..."

And I love the sound of your passion.

If the world lacked tough language from rough mouths, we would evolve less safely,
I think.

Nice to hear from you Paul (Omaniblog). All views are welcome so thanks for yours. Your comments reflect one of the reasons I like blogs more than listservs. You are allowed to show "less quarter".

In response to your question, the blog is my voice, but I don't think I am alone. The more yu are channlenged the better the thinking.

Yes yes yes

And I'll tune into you from now on. My first flick over the over posts in April fills me with dread. I feel you are going to be a dreadful consumer of my time.

Please don't add a comment here. I want to live in the present and haven't time to be scrolling back to see if there is a response.