|
In her book The Argument Culture, Deborah Tannen presents a powerful case that many cultures approach problem solving as if they were going to war. Approaching situations like warriors in a battle leads to the assumption that intellectual inquiry and problem solving is a game of attack, counterattack, and self-defense. Critical thinking gets redefined as a weapon called criticizing. Problem solving gets framed as a battle or game in which winning or losing is the main concern. When we approach conflicted situations with this underlying attitude, internally it triggers our biological Red Zone physiology that then reinforces our Red Zone attitudes and strategies. Opposition may be appropriate from time to time, but the scale is off balance.
The danger is that we may then start approaching almost any issue, problem or public person in an adversarial way. The primary tool in most relationships for carrying out this adversarial attitude is the argument.
As Tannen explains, the goal of arguing "is not to listen and understand. Instead, you use every tactic you can think of-including distorting what your opponent just said-in order to win."
This programmed contentiousness, pre-patterned, unthinking use of fighting to accomplish goals is seldom useful to solving problems. Opposition seldom leads to truth. Argumentative attitudes sabotage real dialogue. Exploring, expanding, discussing, investigating, listening, and exchanging ideas can lead to real solutions.
As we move to implement collaborative problem-solving methods sincerely, it is useful to be aware of the biological and cultural forces that may stand in our way.
|
About the program 
