Fight Fair
Politics, religion, and money are the three taboo subjects to discuss at a party. Reason being? No one thinks critically or fairly about any of those subjects because the passion for their view often replaces all reason. Elder says, “Fairness implies the treating of all relevant viewpoints alike without reference to one’s own feelings or interest.” There is something about these three topics that can hijack the best parties because people seem to throw out all critical thinking skills and lose the fairness of considering another’s perspective.
As I write this, the presidential debate is airing and I am reminded of the lack of fairness being displayed by either candidate as they use persuasive tactics to solicit votes from their audience. It’s as if they have lost all critical thinking skills and the fairness to consider each other’s perspective is of no concern. I wonder what the debates would be like if each candidate drew on the principles Elder promotes for critical thinking? It’s as if character assassinations are the goal of the debates along with confusing the opposing candidate with a flurry of responses, antics, and interruptions that do not create the coveted clarity needed for a fair debate to take place. When clarity is replaced with confusion…accuracy, precision, depth, relevance, logic and fairness cannot take root. Clarity is the fertile soil in which a rich conversation can grow and bloom into something we can all relate and connect with as we enjoy developing our understanding. Our energies can go into building and developing instead of attacking and defending, as we allow critical thinking to guide our interactions with one another.
For critical thinking to take place, I was reminded of how important it is to have intellectual development and restraint. Elder gained my admiration and respect when he introduced the two word combinations that captivated my attention and peaked my interest: intellectual humility, intellectual courage, intellectual empathy, intellectual autonomy, intellectual integrity, and intellectual perseverance. Strong words individually but when combined, presented such a powerful way of thinking and interacting. Again, I cannot help but reference the debates. I would watch in fascination and admiration if Trump reflected intellectual humility, or if Hillary embodied intellectual integrity. They would inspire me to participate and use my critical thinking skills instead of watching in horror as I cringe at the immature interactions lacking of intellectual substance. I am confused and bothered by the interactions, and I find myself psychoanalyzing them more than participating in their debate.
Although it is ill-advised to discuss those three taboo party subjects, I find myself secretly longing to participate in a constructive, critical discussion to see if all participants can stay respectful, objective and fair in presenting our perspectives. Passion can easily dismiss critical thinking skills thus soliciting chaotic, biased communication. Similar to the three party taboo subjects, it reminds me of the three main subjects couples fight about, providing job security for therapists: money, sex, and in-laws. Usually one or all of these subjects can bring the fire and passion out in each person that makes a constructive conversation full of critical thinking usually impossible without a mediator. Maybe applying Elder’s techniques will cause couples to get out of egocentric thinking. But what can be done for our candidates? I nominate Elder to be the next debate moderator.
About the Author
Jennifer Dean-Hill
20 responses to “Fight Fair”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Jennifer,
Great post – I loved that you tied this into our current political situation. I hinted at it, but mostly stayed away, as I knew that I would likely get too far in the ‘weeds’ if I went down that road.
I completely agree that we need a lot more critical thinking from our candidates and, I think especially, from the electorate (us).
Having said that – I think one of the main areas we need more critical thinking is around the idea of balance…. We find it hard to say ‘X lied about a,b,c’ without saying so did ‘Y’….. because it feels like that is what is fair….. But By one count (wash post writer) Trump said 27 things that were verifiably false, while Clinton had 1 …… I think that is high but Politifact found more than 10 fully ‘false’ statements from Trump (they have a sliding scale) and found that Clinton had 4 half-true statements (her lowest rating)…..
So, without getting too far into the political waters and offending anyone (probably too late, sorry :)) How do we critically think about and talk about a situation like that, without sounding ‘biased’?
How encouraging to hear that about Hilary! Thanks for sharing Chip. That did my heart good to hear about Hilary sharing more truths than Trump. In answer to your question, that’s a great place to start in having a critical discussion about the candidates. Regardless of biased opinion, stick to the facts. Numbers don’t lie. Who is telling the truth most? This would suggest by the numbers who would be the most trustworthy leader. Whenever I find myself feeling biased or passionate about something, I ask myself, “What are the facts?” or “What is the objective to be accomplished?” With the debates, the objective for me is to find the most accomplished leader to lead our country vs. picking someone who is a candidate for my party. A trustworthy leader is always a plus….
“Numbers don’t lie,” but we can use them to say what we want. We choose statistics that give answers we want (gun control, anyone?). Numbers and facts can be twisted in the political realm, just as scripture is twisted and taken out of context to justify my own position.
Fair point but they do have the ability to create clarity when emotions can be subjective, albeit valuable to the process. Confusion is used to get control in a situation and numbers, facts and remembering the objective can help to bring clarity. Unfair fighters use anything to create confusion thus making fair fighting impossible.
How do you suggest a fair fight to create impartiality? (I’ll use it with my couples:)
Yes, the whole presidential debate thing is a good case in point. The problem with public political dialogue, it seems, is that we trade in headlines, one-liners, etc. There doesn’t seem to be much room for nuanced discussion, caveats, details etc. Everyone is trying to score the knock-out punch.
Agree!
Hear, hear….
Jennifer, I vote for you for president!
When I was a little girl, back in the dark ages, we just did NOT discuss politics or religion. I think money was ok, but not economics.
Now you young folks talk about everything and I think it’s a good thing, but I also long for the day when people can put their emotions aside and discuss things honestly, rationally, humbly, and critically in the best sense of the word.
Then how about you be Vice-Prez with me? I think we would make a fair and dynamite team! Thanks for the vote Mary.
Like you, I also long for the day when we can have more productive conversations about things that really matter in changing this world. But that may be a biased opinion…
Yes Jen Elder could possibly be a great moderator if only either candidate respected the moderators role enough to not talk over each other or go over their allotted time. So sad 🙁
The intellectual virtues really stood out to me as well. I think most people would not associate virtue to critical thinking. Virtues do invoke some emotional connection. However, when the emphasis is placed more critical thinking and reason our passion is channeled into motivation that fuels our ability to learn and we no longer hinder our ability to come to a deeper understanding.
“intellectual humility, intellectual courage, intellectual empathy, intellectual autonomy, intellectual integrity, and intellectual perseverance”
These attributes do indeed seem to be missing from today’s political landscape.
We live in a day when a candidate is judged to be better when they tell only half of the lies of another candidate.
Your reference to Elder saying we should speak to “fairness” is true but is barely used consistently by us all due to our personal feelings (EGOcentric thinking).
It is amazing how a conversation with someone is going well until you touch on a different view from that individual.
Can we be fair in our thinking when we don’t agree with what is being said?
Great question Lynda. We are trained as therapists to do this all the time, but there does come a time when we just can’t be fair in our thinking and our biases interrupt the therapy process. This is when we “tap out” and refer out. I wonder if our conversations would be more “fair” if we were honest and insightful about our own limitations to be fair and we “tapped out” before things get done or said that were unfair and unproductive communication?
Jennifer, what a great post! You are brave to bring up the subject at just a few weeks away from the election! This is something we tend not to talk about and it’s the very thing we need to talk about. Not from a red or blue side but from the side of clear/cool heads and yes critical thinking and a lot of prayer. Thanks for tackling this important subject.
Thanks Jim! I dare not tackle the subject of which candidate to select as much as the process in which we are selecting the candidates.
I think she would make a great moderator, Jennifer!
What if our CHURCHES were a safe place to have those taboo conversations? What if we could talk about politics, money, religion, sex, in-laws, and jobs in a trustworthy place? It seems that trust is a key element to allow us to begin the process of critical thinking; this type of thinking is only complete when it is communicated with others. However, if that communication happens in a context where we are not listened to or valued (be it a marriage, a church, or a presidential debate), our goals of “effective communication and problem solving” are not realized. A trustworthy environment should foster critical thinking; what better place, ideally, than the church?
PREACH! Couldn’t agree more…wouldn’t it be great if churches were leading safe discussions in taboo subjects and creating social reform? If only….wanna start this?? 🙂
Yes! Though the few times I’ve suggested “safe spaces for taboo conversations”, it hasn’t been welcomed. Sometimes that opportunity may need to take place in a smaller group. Still, let’s not give up hope.
I really struggled with this topic as it related to the debates too, Jennifer. I had an interesting conversation with friends last night as we talked about friendships that have been destroyed by the divisions in this election. That quote, “Fairness implies the treating of all relevant viewpoints alike without reference to one’s own feelings or interest,” leaves me feeling a little hopeless. No matter how hard I try to treat all viewpoints alike, I find myself falling down the rabbit hole of letting my own feelings get in the way. There are some things I simply can’t be fair about. Does that mean I can’t think critically about them, or is part of critical thinking realizing that I can’t be fair?
I hear you. Sounds like a double-bind: think critically but don’t be critical. I think intellectual autonomy demands you have your own opinion on who you want to follow or select as a leader. Can we do this while showing respect for others’ opinions and beliefs? That’s the challenge.