Intentional Speech: Thinking it Through to Avoid Conflict

This is the time of the year when I often have the opportunity to get in front of groups to facilitate discussions or share information. Over the past several weeks, that audience has varied, including NFL players, NCAA student-athletes, men’s conference attendees, and Sunday worshipers. Throughout these conversations, I’ve become increasingly aware of how so many of our discussions these days might start politely but quickly become polarized. One only has to turn on the television or pick up a newspaper to recognize the divisive nature of our current culture, much of which is driven by our automatic assumptions and misinformation. 

It seems like so many discussions are designed to force us to “pick a side”—from topics as simple as Apple vs Android to more complex issues. Dare we even make mention of something that has to do with politics or religion. This “us vs. them” mentality is a trap that all of us can easily fall into. I certainly know that I’ve been guilty on more than one occasion of entering into a dialogue that quickly becomes a debate, where we both seem more focused on proving the other person wrong and thus ourselves right. 

While we are often invested in proving our point, we also have biases and mental blind spots.  For example, have you ever had a moment of realization that something you believed is actually incorrect and maybe even the exact opposite of what you first believed? It’s not uncommon to find ourselves making assumptions or forming conclusions about people and places that, upon reflection, we realize we might have an incomplete picture.

More recently, when I receive information about someone or something that may be different from what I believe, I remind myself that facts without history and context often lead to misinterpretations and inaccurate conclusions, because distance can create distortion. And the more distance we place between “us” and “them”, the more distorted our perspective can become.

The further removed from something we are, the harder it becomes to properly assess the situation—and the more likely we are to misjudge and maybe even reject that something. What would happen if before reaching a conclusion we chose to gather more data, question our assumptions, or at a minimum, offer the benefit of the doubt? What makes us so quick to form opinions with little to no information? 

Psychology suggests that we make use of heuristics—mental shortcuts—rather than engage in the cognitive rigor that would allow us to thoroughly investigate a situation before making assumptions, judgments, or coming to conclusions.  While heuristics are useful..and unavoidable, they can lead to cognitive laziness. This laziness may cause us to rely too heavily on our perceived intelligence and assume we know something, even when we don’t. Unfortunately, what has become an automatic practice for most of us will result in greater misinformation, polarization, distance, and distortion. 

Ask yourself: how often do you question your assumptions or suspend judgment during an interaction when your initial reaction is negative? What would it take for you to ask more questions rather than offer your opinions the next time you’re involved in a discussion that feels like a debate? How much time are you willing to spend analyzing your thoughts and opinions before coming to a conclusion that could be influenced by bias or misinformation? 

One framework that may allow us to make different choices in our current divisive climate focuses on increased awareness, acknowledgment, acceptance, and action.  Perhaps by applying more cognitive rigor in our daily lives, we can reduce the distance that creates distortion and work to understand rather than working to be “right”.