And, to complicate matters, I hope no one here assumes that I don't see the value of conflict nor of debate. And, yes, I see them both as methods of communication. All speaking/acting is. I don't automatically fear or avoid conflict because I am an INFP. Conflict is the first opportunity to recognize and hopefully solve a problem.
I didn't mean to imply that you personally believed a particular thing. I was making some general points. I know people who do avoid and detest debate (I used to be one of them).
In a way, I am making counter-points to the thoughts of a younger me that resonated with what you are saying. I hope I did not offend.
In the case of conflict the goal, I think, is to work through the existing conflict and come to some logical consensus so that problem can be solved with everyone who can, doing something to accomplish progress. "Winning" consensus on one's POV is not sufficient.
Whether one likes it or not, feelings play a part in conflict and if not addressed will muddy the opportunity to move forward.
I agree with this much.
In the case of debate, it needs to be made clear to all participants that debate, and not working on consensus, is what is occurring. I see debate as an exercise, rational in the sense of the word that some here are using it. That feelings are to remain unacknowledged, possibly to be squelched.
That is not the way I see debate at all. Feelings are involved.
Decisions about policies, standards and methodology affect the way people work on a day to day basis--people are going to feel strongly about these things.
Coming to some form of decision is often the goal.
Consensus may not be reached, but it is desired.
The importance of making a solid case for:
- Why a person is innocent or guilty of a crime.
- Why a theory does or does not require more attention from the larger community.
- Why our design should include a particular feature.
- Why we should adopt a particular methodology
are all quite heavily laden with emotion.
However, it important is who is right. The person is either innocent of guilty of the crime in question. The theory will reflect reality, and be usable, to varying degrees. A design feature will have varying amounts of utility, as will particular methodologies.
Most people don't want to sentence an innocent person, let a theory with no basis in reality become mainstream, include useless features in their designs, or adopt poor methodologies.
The usual disagreements are on what is true or false--the facts at hand. Unfortunately, truth comes in a singular form.
From what I've observed here a lot of what passes for debate is endless "I'm right!" "No, I'm right!" going on ad infinitum. Quite a few feelings behind that drive, I'd suspect. And not much else goes on. The threads self-destruct with everyone jockeying for position.
Forum debates have a funny dynamic since they tend to not have immediate consequences.
Nevertheless, they are part of larger national and global debates/conversations that do have consequences for a lot of people. Here again, it matters who is correct.
The main reason, I think, technical subjects enjoy reaching conclusions is because the consequences of being right or wrong are forced to become more quickly apparent through
clear empirical testing (the more complex the subject, the harder it is to make something clear).
I have direct experience on what happens when the consequences of decisions are distanced from those doing the debating. Even the technical discussions with degenerates into: "I'm right." "No. I'm right." Experience has shown me that if we can show a clear rational argument, backed by empirical results, these issues go away.
Presenting such an argument with data is difficult, and often only happens after people have exerted large amounts of effort. Data-alone becomes like bad data-mining and you will get people supporting whatever they want with their sources. Logic alone is based of subjective selection of models. Getting both needs people to be close to the truth, or out-right frauds. The more scrutiny and debate that happens (and it is quite emotionally laden), the harder it becomes to create a wrong model without resorting to out-right fraud.
So, what I'm saying, just make sure everyone's on the same page before the communication starts. What's the goal? "Who wins?" or "How do we come to a consensus about what's wrong and how do we fix it?
Things can go more smoothly with some early ground-rules. But overly rigid rules, make for a false sense of consensus.
Consensus is difficult. It rarely happens in large groups.
I see it as a matter of degree. Sometimes the whole point is to work through feelings, sometimes the whole point is to make a good (a.k.a. "correct") decision (and there can be many that are correct).
Usually, it is somewhere in between.