The cadence when discussing and how the written debate can be more fruitful

Conversations with our peers have a kind of cadence or universal compass, which forces us, on the other hand, to think quickly what we mean (That is why discussions in adversarial format are usually essentially sterile).

Speakers of many languages ​​and cultures, as psycholinguists have observed, pause an average of two milliseconds before the "right" to speak passes from one interlocutor to the other.

Universal pauses

Linguists have detected that these ideal breaks they are given in Italian, Dutch, Japanese, Korean and even minority languages ​​such as haillom (from Namibia), yeli-dnye (from Papua New Guinea) and tzeltal (a Mayan language from Mexico).

At the speed of the conversation and the universal breaks in any oral interaction is added that in a debate of any kind, especially if it occurs in an unexpected way (in a cafe, a car trip, in a company dinner) , there is no time or means to verify data or demonstrate.

People speak in short and quick interventions and say what they think, without knowing exactly where that knowledge comes from (it has generally been invented, someone else has said it or has read it in an article, mostly of opinion).

Discussions, unlike written essays, take place in real time. Every second that passes we pronounce a word. While we can keep silent for a few seconds to reflect on our next intervention, or we can even take a note on the fly while our interlocutor develops his argument, the truth is that time is pressing when we exchange opinions with others. Abound in it Derek Thompson in his book Hits creators:

Written communication is not like fencing. It looks more like a scheduled long range missile. You have time to choose a destination and refine the trajectory, and if you are going astray, there is always a key to delete. The time difference leads to a difference in focus.

A debate is an exchange of emotions in a soup of social cultivation, not a rational analysis. Debating is like a dance. It serves many things, and one of the least important is to exchange knowledge or learn real things. The philosopher Schopenhauer, in his characteristic misanthrope style, he described the barrenness of talking with most people in About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason:

Sometimes I talk to men like the boy with his dolls; even knowing that the dolls cannot understand, through the pleasing methodical self-deception the joy of communication is achieved.

Video: The Future of Protestantism: A Conversation with Peter Leithart, Fred Sanders, and Carl Trueman (November 2019).