Discussions vs. Educations
Aug. 17th, 2009 09:30 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
megwritesWe writers have the "show, don't tell" axiom driven into our skulls often and forcefully by any writing teacher, workshop, or book about writing that we turn to.
And while I think the showing/telling dichotomy in writing often is more delicate and complex, I do think it's often overlooked how useful being told to show instead of tell is in the interactions we have as human beings.
My mom, being a lifelong HR manager/director type person, is always picking up books and going to seminars and conferences that include such topics as "How to Communicate More Clearly" or "Better Communications" and the like. After one such conference she came back and in the course of some conversation she said, "It's the responsibility of the listener to make sure they heard correctly."
Immediately I rebelled at this. I thought, "Um, no. If I'm the listener and someone has come asking for my time and attention, isn't it their responsibility to make sure that they make themselves understood?"
Now I understand that the responsibilities born by speakers vs. listeners, or writers vs. readers is inherent in what's going on. Because the responsibilities shift if you're having a discussion versus an educating moment.
This is why showing is more powerful than telling. Because when you show something, you are deliberately trying to make sure everyone's understanding lines up by presenting the object itself and explaining it. And in an education, the onus belongs to the teacher.
In a discussion, it's the other way around. In a discussion, your obligation is to be a better listener than a speaker.
Which is why you need a balance of both in a book. If the onus is always on the writer to make sure the understanding of every reader lines up, you get a terribly tedious, over explained book. If the onus is always on the reader to make sure they've kept up, you end up with a rather baffling book that not a lot of people will feel like reading.
After all, you can't reintroduce every character when they come back "on stage" in a new chapter in case some reader didn't get them in the last few chapters. But nor can you just have a important character waltz right up and start doing things without so much as a "Hi my name is Bob" to the readers.
Sometimes you must educate your readers, sometimes you must discuss.
So how is this relevant to defining a discussion vs. an education - and why is that even important?
For writers, showing vs. telling is basically the difference between discussing something with your readers and teaching it to them. When you tell, you discuss. When you show, you teach.
A discussion is what happens when people who are all more or less on the same page start talking about something and bringing together their viewpoints and ideas about it. It's a swap meet, really. I have an idea, you have an idea, let's trade. But what is key is that there is not a significant imbalance in what the parties in the discussion know about the subject at hand. This is when people can tell each other things. They can shorthand, use lingo. They can delve deeper into a subject and do it faster.
An education is what happens when there is an imbalance in knowledge. When this happens, at least one party much pony up and start educating the others without expecting to get any knowledge in return. Sometimes this is good. Sometimes, however, it is bad. It means showing and showing means going over every single detail and bringing it up to light and defining it and making sure that the other party/ies are up to speed by the time it's over.
This is why it's very frustrating when you're trying to have a discussion and someone comes in asking for an education, and why the seeker of said education may get very, very rude responses.
If you're in a discussion, you're past the education phase. You've done the homework, gone to class, finished the reading, put in the independent research required. Someone who is not past the education phase hasn't. And it's not necessarily bad if someone hasn't learned about the topic yet. After all, nobody is born knowing everything. We all have to learn sometime.
The error is in wanting to by-pass the effort of obtaining that education in order that the people having discussions might hand feed them the information and, in doing so, pause their discussion. It's like coming to the swap meet empty handed and asking someone to give you one of their trade items so you can get out on the floor and start swapping yourself.
This is why it is very rude, hurtful, and derailing to come into a DISCUSSION and ask for an EDUCATION, especially when that discussion is on something very important and vital to people's lives. Like, say, racism or sexism or ablism or homophobia.
Let's put forth a scenario to explain:
Let us say that we are both students in the same class. I am in this class because it is important to me. Not only am I deeply invested in the topic, but it is required for the major I chose for myself. Thus, I need to put in a lot of effort because it is important to me.
But there are other people in this class who take it because they think it will be easy or entertaining, or because they have some passing interest in the topic but it's not a requirement for them. These people are the ones who show up ten minutes late, who's cellphones go off during lecture, and who generally disrespect this topic that is so important to me.
Let's say that after class one day you come to me and say, "I didn't understand some of the things from this week in class. Can we talk about it? Do you have notes?"
Now, my decision to say yes or no to this will not be dependent upon the words you just said, but on whether what you have SHOWN ME in this interaction and previous interactions indicates you want a discussion or an education.
If I see that you've come in late a lot, that you don't seem to be paying attention, that you've never spoken in class or seemed to participate, I'm going to be leaning towards no. Because I will think, based on WHAT I AM BEING SHOWN BY YOU, that you just want an education. As a fellow student who is working hard, has limited hours in the day, and is deeply tired of having an important topic disrespected because it seems "easy" to others? I'm going to be offended. And I will not be wrong to be offended. Because you are being disrespectful and lazy. Even if you don't think so. Even if you think you're very innocently asking for help.
But if I see you holding the textbook for the class and it's dog eared and highlighted and has those sticky note tabs on them and your notebook is well worn and full of your own notes, if I see that you raised your hand in class before and even went to the professor previously and that you come in early to ask questions then I'll be more than happy to find somewhere to sit with you and have a nice, long discussion.
Why? Because when I see evidence that you and I are on the same level of education instead of you asking me to pull you up (a more strenuous task for me than you) - I know we're going to be having an discussion and I'll be more than happy to hash things out with you. And even if there are some points you're unclear on, that's fine. Because we'll still be able to use lingo and terms together without me stopping every five seconds to define something new that you should have learned in class - ON YOUR OWN.
In both scenarios, you asked the same thing. Your words were identical. Your actions were not. And a listener does not just clue into words, but to actions and the context of those actions. If we paid attention only to words, the entire world would stop. A great majority of human communication is non-verbal, but rather given either by body language or context. Language developed in our species not as a replacement for all other kinds of communication, but rather an enhancement. To be so utterly obsessed with words and their power that you disregard the power of actions is to fail at communicating.
Even here, on the internet, contextual communication matters. In fact, it matters even more because a lot of the verbal inflection we use to get our point across is lost. So understanding the context in which you are speaking is vital to making sure you are understood.
This is why cluelessness on the internet gets such a bad reaction. Because not spending the time to understand context is a sign of disrespect, especially when explanations are so easily available via information sources that any idiot who can work a keyboard and a mouse can get to. Asking that a discussion stop for the sake of your education is disrespectful.
Understanding words in detail is not the same as communicating. Understanding how words are used is NOT the same as understanding the conversation or being able to respectfully participate in it.
Language is not the sum total of communication and words have power, but it is contextual power and can be easily canceled out with action. Speaking is an action. Speaking in a certain context is an action. Therefore, the words you say cannot automatically be more important than the context in which you say them.
This is also why you may find yourself, when asking for notes, getting a bad reaction from someone who is a friend. Because when you stop a friend's very important discussion which has consequences far beyond just that little discussion that she is having to ask for an education on the topic, the disrespect multiplies rather than lessens.
Because in doing so you are SHOWING me - regardless of what you've been telling me - that you believe that our friendship means that I am obligated to educate you in the manner you wish to be educated on a topic that is important, emotional, and difficult for me (and many, many others) because I dared to speak about it in your hearing and opened the floor for DISCUSSION.
More importantly you are showing me that you believe you are in no way obligated, as my friend, to consider whether it is appropriate or respectful to ask that the time I would devote to discussion be re-routed to educating you and that you need not show any good faith or sign that the topic means anything more to you than a passing fancy.
You are, when you do these things, showing me the path of decisions you have made and the formulas that you used to make those decisions. You are showing me, without having to say a word about it, what you value and do not value.
So it is with writing, communicating, and indeed, most human interactions. Your actions will always - and should always - be louder than your words.
And while I think the showing/telling dichotomy in writing often is more delicate and complex, I do think it's often overlooked how useful being told to show instead of tell is in the interactions we have as human beings.
My mom, being a lifelong HR manager/director type person, is always picking up books and going to seminars and conferences that include such topics as "How to Communicate More Clearly" or "Better Communications" and the like. After one such conference she came back and in the course of some conversation she said, "It's the responsibility of the listener to make sure they heard correctly."
Immediately I rebelled at this. I thought, "Um, no. If I'm the listener and someone has come asking for my time and attention, isn't it their responsibility to make sure that they make themselves understood?"
Now I understand that the responsibilities born by speakers vs. listeners, or writers vs. readers is inherent in what's going on. Because the responsibilities shift if you're having a discussion versus an educating moment.
This is why showing is more powerful than telling. Because when you show something, you are deliberately trying to make sure everyone's understanding lines up by presenting the object itself and explaining it. And in an education, the onus belongs to the teacher.
In a discussion, it's the other way around. In a discussion, your obligation is to be a better listener than a speaker.
Which is why you need a balance of both in a book. If the onus is always on the writer to make sure the understanding of every reader lines up, you get a terribly tedious, over explained book. If the onus is always on the reader to make sure they've kept up, you end up with a rather baffling book that not a lot of people will feel like reading.
After all, you can't reintroduce every character when they come back "on stage" in a new chapter in case some reader didn't get them in the last few chapters. But nor can you just have a important character waltz right up and start doing things without so much as a "Hi my name is Bob" to the readers.
Sometimes you must educate your readers, sometimes you must discuss.
So how is this relevant to defining a discussion vs. an education - and why is that even important?
For writers, showing vs. telling is basically the difference between discussing something with your readers and teaching it to them. When you tell, you discuss. When you show, you teach.
A discussion is what happens when people who are all more or less on the same page start talking about something and bringing together their viewpoints and ideas about it. It's a swap meet, really. I have an idea, you have an idea, let's trade. But what is key is that there is not a significant imbalance in what the parties in the discussion know about the subject at hand. This is when people can tell each other things. They can shorthand, use lingo. They can delve deeper into a subject and do it faster.
An education is what happens when there is an imbalance in knowledge. When this happens, at least one party much pony up and start educating the others without expecting to get any knowledge in return. Sometimes this is good. Sometimes, however, it is bad. It means showing and showing means going over every single detail and bringing it up to light and defining it and making sure that the other party/ies are up to speed by the time it's over.
This is why it's very frustrating when you're trying to have a discussion and someone comes in asking for an education, and why the seeker of said education may get very, very rude responses.
If you're in a discussion, you're past the education phase. You've done the homework, gone to class, finished the reading, put in the independent research required. Someone who is not past the education phase hasn't. And it's not necessarily bad if someone hasn't learned about the topic yet. After all, nobody is born knowing everything. We all have to learn sometime.
The error is in wanting to by-pass the effort of obtaining that education in order that the people having discussions might hand feed them the information and, in doing so, pause their discussion. It's like coming to the swap meet empty handed and asking someone to give you one of their trade items so you can get out on the floor and start swapping yourself.
This is why it is very rude, hurtful, and derailing to come into a DISCUSSION and ask for an EDUCATION, especially when that discussion is on something very important and vital to people's lives. Like, say, racism or sexism or ablism or homophobia.
Let's put forth a scenario to explain:
Let us say that we are both students in the same class. I am in this class because it is important to me. Not only am I deeply invested in the topic, but it is required for the major I chose for myself. Thus, I need to put in a lot of effort because it is important to me.
But there are other people in this class who take it because they think it will be easy or entertaining, or because they have some passing interest in the topic but it's not a requirement for them. These people are the ones who show up ten minutes late, who's cellphones go off during lecture, and who generally disrespect this topic that is so important to me.
Let's say that after class one day you come to me and say, "I didn't understand some of the things from this week in class. Can we talk about it? Do you have notes?"
Now, my decision to say yes or no to this will not be dependent upon the words you just said, but on whether what you have SHOWN ME in this interaction and previous interactions indicates you want a discussion or an education.
If I see that you've come in late a lot, that you don't seem to be paying attention, that you've never spoken in class or seemed to participate, I'm going to be leaning towards no. Because I will think, based on WHAT I AM BEING SHOWN BY YOU, that you just want an education. As a fellow student who is working hard, has limited hours in the day, and is deeply tired of having an important topic disrespected because it seems "easy" to others? I'm going to be offended. And I will not be wrong to be offended. Because you are being disrespectful and lazy. Even if you don't think so. Even if you think you're very innocently asking for help.
But if I see you holding the textbook for the class and it's dog eared and highlighted and has those sticky note tabs on them and your notebook is well worn and full of your own notes, if I see that you raised your hand in class before and even went to the professor previously and that you come in early to ask questions then I'll be more than happy to find somewhere to sit with you and have a nice, long discussion.
Why? Because when I see evidence that you and I are on the same level of education instead of you asking me to pull you up (a more strenuous task for me than you) - I know we're going to be having an discussion and I'll be more than happy to hash things out with you. And even if there are some points you're unclear on, that's fine. Because we'll still be able to use lingo and terms together without me stopping every five seconds to define something new that you should have learned in class - ON YOUR OWN.
In both scenarios, you asked the same thing. Your words were identical. Your actions were not. And a listener does not just clue into words, but to actions and the context of those actions. If we paid attention only to words, the entire world would stop. A great majority of human communication is non-verbal, but rather given either by body language or context. Language developed in our species not as a replacement for all other kinds of communication, but rather an enhancement. To be so utterly obsessed with words and their power that you disregard the power of actions is to fail at communicating.
Even here, on the internet, contextual communication matters. In fact, it matters even more because a lot of the verbal inflection we use to get our point across is lost. So understanding the context in which you are speaking is vital to making sure you are understood.
This is why cluelessness on the internet gets such a bad reaction. Because not spending the time to understand context is a sign of disrespect, especially when explanations are so easily available via information sources that any idiot who can work a keyboard and a mouse can get to. Asking that a discussion stop for the sake of your education is disrespectful.
Understanding words in detail is not the same as communicating. Understanding how words are used is NOT the same as understanding the conversation or being able to respectfully participate in it.
Language is not the sum total of communication and words have power, but it is contextual power and can be easily canceled out with action. Speaking is an action. Speaking in a certain context is an action. Therefore, the words you say cannot automatically be more important than the context in which you say them.
This is also why you may find yourself, when asking for notes, getting a bad reaction from someone who is a friend. Because when you stop a friend's very important discussion which has consequences far beyond just that little discussion that she is having to ask for an education on the topic, the disrespect multiplies rather than lessens.
Because in doing so you are SHOWING me - regardless of what you've been telling me - that you believe that our friendship means that I am obligated to educate you in the manner you wish to be educated on a topic that is important, emotional, and difficult for me (and many, many others) because I dared to speak about it in your hearing and opened the floor for DISCUSSION.
More importantly you are showing me that you believe you are in no way obligated, as my friend, to consider whether it is appropriate or respectful to ask that the time I would devote to discussion be re-routed to educating you and that you need not show any good faith or sign that the topic means anything more to you than a passing fancy.
You are, when you do these things, showing me the path of decisions you have made and the formulas that you used to make those decisions. You are showing me, without having to say a word about it, what you value and do not value.
So it is with writing, communicating, and indeed, most human interactions. Your actions will always - and should always - be louder than your words.
