It's not a debate

This is a chapter from The Amplio Consultant Educators Toolkit. The book covers the content aspects of Amplio University - a new type of live, affordable training.

This chapter is modified from the corresponding chapter in Al Shalloway and Paula Stewart's book Being an Effective Value Coach: Leading by Creating Value.

“I once believed, as most do, that if arguments are to be won, the opponent must be pummeled into submission and silenced. You can imagine how that idea played at home. If, in accordance with such a definition, I won an argument, I began to lose the relationship.” — Gerry Spence

Listen to an audio summary of this chapter here.

Not much learning occurs when people are attached to their positions. Although it feels good to win points, you don’t learn much while doing so. It is important to have discussions that relate to learning, not winning. While there is often no objective truth, taking a position to defend rarely leads to learning.

When people know a useful concept, trying to convince others of it is normal. Even if this is done with good intentions, people feel uncomfortable. It reactivates times they have been talked down to by arrogant people.  Trying to convince people of something is not an effective way of creating new possibilities for people.

Instead of debating, we need to focus on  discovery. The reality is that none of us are right all the time. As a coach, you may

1)  be wrong,

2)  say something incorrectly, or

3)  be misunderstood

It is much more effective to have a conversation with someone to discover what is more effective. Even when you’ve been down the road before, acting as if you are on a road of discovery with whomever you are talking to will make you more effective.  The intention is to have a dialog of discovery with the attitude that you and the people you are talking to will learn. Very often, you will learn more than they will. This is a good thing. This is the heart of the Socratic method.

[1] Socrates taught by asking questions and drawing out answers from his pupils to challenge the completeness and accuracy of their thinking. Here are the six types of questions Socrates posed:

Clarifying concepts. These questions get students to think more about what they are asking or thinking about, prove the concepts behind their argument, and get them to go deeper.

●      What exactly does this mean?

●      How does this relate to what we have been discussing?

●      Can you give me an example? 

Probing assumptions. These questions make students think about the presuppositions and unquestioned beliefs on which they are founding their argument.

●      What would happen if…?

●      What are we assuming?

Probing rationale, reasons, and evidence. When students give a rationale for their arguments, dig into that reasoning rather than assuming it is a given.

●      Why is that happening?

●      What evidence is there to support what you are saying?

●      Can we test that this key assumption is correct?

Questioning viewpoints and perspectives. Most arguments come from a particular position. So attack the position. Show that there are other, equally valid viewpoints.

●      Who benefits from this?

●      Why is it better than or different from…?

Probing implications and consequences. The argument a student gives may have logical implications that can be seen.

●      Does this data make sense?

●      Are they desirable?

●      How do [these assertions] fit with…?

●      What are the consequences of that assumption?

Questioning the question. You can also reflect on the whole thing, turning the question on itself. Bounce the ball back into their court.

●      Why do you think I asked this question?

●      What does that mean?

In an argument, the winner doesn’t learn anything.

The interesting thing about winning in an argument is that you don’t learn anything.

When you have an inquiry and realize you were wrong, you are the real winner because you learned something.

Guiding With Questions

It is possible to get people to conclude what you know is true by asking questions so that they get insights that lead them to the insight you want them to have.

A personal story

This is not something everyone does naturally. Years ago, when I was coaching FORTRAN programmers in object orientation, I knew how to do it and would talk with people about it. I asked some questions as guidance, but I was leading them in a direction I knew to be right. Then, I sat in on a University of Kansas professor visiting and teaching some basic object orientation. He was gracious enough to let me sit in on his classes. I just listened and observed.

What struck me was that he asked questions based on where they were. He didn’t seem to be trying to lead them anywhere; he just went with the students’ knowledge. I was amazed at his patience. After a couple of hours, one of the students had a shift in her thinking and said something to the effect, “If that’s true, objects would have to be responsible for themselves.” This was the key insight needed. And after she said it, you could discern that every other student got it. It was almost comical, the jaws dropping around the circle.

I was impressed and amazed. When things like this happen, I like to ask what did happen.

In thinking about it, I realized the professor had confidence in his work. He had faith that his line of questioning would lead to what he believed. If it didn’t, he would learn something.

The key is knowing the answer but disposing of it as the answer and just engaging with the people you’re talking to.

#Amplio #AmplioUniversity