Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Mania and Mixed Metaphors

Margaret Wheatley, an authority on organizational development, writes that an “important element of conversation is a willingness to be disturbed, to allow our beliefs and ideas to be challenged by what others think [. . .] We have to be willing to let go of our certainty and be confused for a time." 
Okay, minor digression:  When I first started collecting friends on Facebook, it was like walking through the diary of my life.  I had friends from all these various times and places, and no group was connected with the other.  It was fun, but really a little weird.  One of these ghosts from the past is a man who was as a child considered a musical prodigy.  He was very talented, but one of the few active memories I have when our lives intersected was his criticism that the notes I was playing in one of my songs didn’t go together.  Since it was what I heard in my head and felt in my soul, I ignored his advice; and besides, if the dissonance bothers you, just call it jazz.  I got the recording contract!    He was the kind of person who saw things a certain way, and those who disagreed were just wrong.  There was no middle ground, no compromise, no acquiescence.
Fast forward to Facebook mania:  A YouTube wedding video was circulating for a time.  It showed the wedding party and the bride and groom bee-bopping down the aisle of the church, cleavage bouncing, all somersaulting and gyrating to the altar.  I thought it would have been acceptable at the reception or even kind of fun done as a parody, but as an actual entrance to what in my world is a sacred ceremony seemed inappropriate and only a way to get fifteen minutes of fame.  I commented to that effect—not blasting, but rather a “Does anybody but me think this might be a bit inappropriate for a sacred ceremony?” kind of comment.  My “friend” flamed with vitriol.  He very much disagreed and went on to pontificate about all the weddings he had played in and the shallowness and the boredom, etc.  We had a few exchanges, and I tried off-page to reach a point of agreeing to disagree.  “Can’t we all just get along?”  The magma descended reluctantly into the crater.
Next exchange of fire (to mix metaphors):  Later on, I made a comment on a mutual friend’s post concerning the intelligent design / evolution debate.  Since this person is now a professor of science and an adamant evolutionist, I once again was blessed with a volley of blasts across my bow!  He could not just discuss issues, but felt the need to make personal attacks about my intelligence, as well as my belief system, and my right to inhabit this evolving planet.  After a few exchanges that were heated on his side and wincing on mine, I decided this was not near as much fun as Scrabble; so with a sigh of relief, I clicked the powerful X and unfriended him.  He melted into the delete file of my life.
Back to Wheatley to connect the dots:  I do not think most people enter a conversation with a “willingness to be disturbed.”  Is it a great open-minded thing to do?  Yes.  But I think that even when an individual is willing to be taught, the ship moves a bit slowly, especially in areas of strongly held and deeply ingrained belief.  Most people don’t invite challenge that can be unsettling and so gravitate toward people that share, at least to some extent, their core beliefs.  Being challenged is uncomfortable.  Even those with a more pleasant personality can become prickly when ideas collide.  There are, of course, more appropriate ways to converse than those of my old molten friend, but I think we have so many factions in communities, politics, churches, and even families because the tendency is to congregate with those who share our belief system.  There is power in numbers, and rather than feel alienated and adrift, people attach themselves to individuals and groups that will indeed not challenge them. 
Postscript:  I have a strong desire to learn and grow:  I consider myself a lifelong learner.  I love a conversation where two people are sharing equally, and  I like to think that I am open and available to new ideas.  But I still see the same tendency in me to lean in toward those that will not challenge my thinking to the point of discomfort.  I like the old comfortable slippers and the worn pathways that my brainy thoughts walk in (more metaphors).  I want to stretch and grow, but I also want to live a life free of stress and the tension that comes with confrontation. 
Would I have done something different in the Facebook conversations with my friend?  I did not flame in return, and I did think about the real points he was making, the points poking through the fire and smoke.  But be it weakness or no, I want to learn and stretch on my own terms and not be hurled into new ideas by force. 

5 comments:

  1. too bad it came to that :( i hate when conversations end badly...there is this great book called "Why the Bible Matters" by Mike Erre. You should check it out and maybe tell your un-friended friend about it. It's very insightful and while it's a book written for christians, I think he may be able to learn a few things from it.The book explains how you cant take everything at face value in the bible. Some things need to be studied through a cultural or perhaps literary lens. Also, it talks about the bibles authority as well as its authenticity. Anyway just a tip on a great book we just finished :)
    -January

    ReplyDelete
  2. This certainly sounded like an unpleasant and unnecessary experience. There are some people who think their way of thinking is the only correct way and if you disagree with them, watch out! That is really a sad, pathetic way to live if you stop and think about it. If a person is not open-minded enough to learn new things, to listen to how others feel about a topic, and possibly change their mind once they’ve been enlightened, then they are stuck in a rut. We should strive for learning new things and more about the things we think we already are educated about.

    I do think that people like this suffer from insecurity. Apparently this individual felt like he needed to publicly humiliate you to try and show other people that he is right and superior…how sad and untrue. It is hard for a lot of people to say “I don’t know” or “I was wrong”. They view it as a sign of weakness but I view it as a sign of strength and security. I admire a person who is honest about their knowledge and humble enough to admit when they are wrong.

    It sounds like you handled it well. You tried to discuss the issue outside of a public forum and it sounds like you got nowhere with that so I think you were right in “Xing” him from your friends…he didn’t sound like much of a friend to me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The word friend is a funny word anyway. I always say I have uppercase Friends and lowercase friends, and then there are the acquaintances who you call friends, but . . . Not sure what case that is! Now we have FB and MySpace friends or sometimes fiends. :-) I think we ought to have totally different words that designate the kind of relationship, similar to what the Greek language does with "love."

    But what is interesting about FB is that some folks that reappear after so many years really do become a friend of sorts--really a new friend--because what attracted you early on is still there, even if your lives have taken totally different turns. Then there are those where you realize all that brought you together before was circumstance, and there is not enough life-glue to make the friendship stick or be renewed after so long a time. Then a third group has made life choices that have changed them so much, there is nothing at all in common anymore. But discovering that is really an intersting thing. Brought to us by the wonders of technology! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your Facebook anecdote was unfortunate. The longer you stay away from someone, the more you drift apart. It is interesting how some people never really change – like your music prodigy friend. It seems he grew more stubborn! Heh
    The evolutionist professor story bothered me. I take it he has a Ph.D. since that is the requirement to teach at the university level (assuming he teaches at a university and not a two-year; which only requires credentials as high as a Master’s Degree). For someone in his position and his training, he should not have personally attacked you. Evolution versus religion is always a heated topic that should be kept to evolution and religion. He should be well aware that science is never trying to disprove something…just supply the evidence to back it up. The same goes for religion because in the end…no one really knows life’s big question. Unfortunately, not too many people have formed enough brain cells to realize this. Your friend should have said “I respect your opinion but my opinion is…” Rarely does that happen, aye?
    I am studying up to organ engineering and space medicine and happen to believe in evolution. I don’t go to church and I don’t follow the world’s concept of religion, but when my 11-yr-old tutee, who goes to the Catholic school Scared Heart, told me she was going to have a Bible quiz on the historical books of the Bible yesterday, I helped her and made sure she had the necessary information to do well. That is why it is boggling to me that your well-educated friend couldn’t level with you when presented with an opposing opinion. There is a good amount of people who would respect your stance, like Prof. Rainbow at AVC.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You sound like a pleasant person to have a conversation with. I think those who are the most defensive operate out of fear and / or arrogance. I have seen that attitude on both sides of the fence and it never is constructive! Thanks for your input. I saw a debate once between Rainbow and a creationist. Though I sided more with the creationist's views and on technical debate points the creationist won the debate; at the same time, I was ashamed of how he conducted himself. His arrogance and condescension was not appropriate in representing a supposed godly stance.

    ReplyDelete