Ultimately when all is said and done, do you think angered, unclear thinking is the fault of the provoked or the provoker?
A conversation – which was the original context of this conversation (“How ought we talk to one another?”) – depends on the actions of two people, each who ideally (and hopefully) are interested in achieving a productive discussion. My aim in raising this topic is to investigate “how can we do this more successfully?” It’s not really about assessing “fault,” it’s about living better, and achieving our ends with greater success. As a member of a community which proposes to house conversations, I think it’s a worthwhile pursuit to try to discover/learn how best to have those conversations. As a moderator in such a community, I’d almost frame it as a “job description.”
But in the interest of answering your question directly (which is one of the key ways I try to communicate respect in a conversation), if a person enters into a conversation with the aim of “being provocative” – and if he successfully provokes – then I think that’s worth at least a share of the blame, if not the whole kit-n-kaboodle.
Should the person being provoked accept responsibility (or “fault”) for feeling anger? Potentially a deep question.
I suppose our answer to that question initially depends on how we view anger, or emotions more generally. I don’t typically *choose* to feel in one particular manner or another – rather, I feel.
That said, I am certainly responsible for being the kind of person who would feel anger in some given situation – for having those values and beliefs such that this would be my emotional response (along with whatever physiological and psychological architecture I have, which might not be in my strict control).
With this in mind, we might ask whether it is necessarily always a “fault” to feel anger? Or is that sometimes an appropriate response, given a reasonable set of values and beliefs?
Given a context where two people are involved in a conversation, and one participant is intent on “provoking” the other, I don’t know how much moral blame I’d be apt to place on the person who responds with some degree of upset or anger. I think (though someone can correct me if I’m wrong) that sometimes Ayn Rand was upset in conversation. I’d expect that there were times she was right to be.
Then again, there may be strategies or techniques for people who feel anger, even in reasonable circumstances, to try to mitigate that anger. I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to pursue such, for the benefit of one’s life, though this line of conversation could conceivably extend into complicated questions of psychology beyond the context I’d rather examine at present, which is, again, “how ought we talk to one another?”
But, I think it’s my job to think clearly for myself no matter how some other schmuck decides to behave.
I’m not well-equipped to discuss “anger” apart from my experience of it, but when I experience anger, one of the characteristics of that experience is that it seems to affect the quality/clarity of my thinking.
Now, maybe I’m overstating the case to liken this to being drunk? But when a person is drunk, I think that the clarity of their thinking is apt to be affected. Maybe we would still hold them responsible for thinking clearly? (And say that if they wanted to be able to think clearly, therefore, they ought not have gotten drunk.) Maybe. But when drunk, they will experience it in some particular fashion regardless of intentions to the contrary. And, when angry, my ability to process information clearly is affected.
Maybe others experience anger differently? Maybe they are very clear-minded and reasonable in their anger? I’ll allow that as possible. But it is neither my experience internally, nor what I believe I’ve observed of others thus far in my life. What I believe I have experienced is that when people get upset, it works against their thinking clearly and reasonably.
When I want to convince another person of a point, or engage them in a productive discussion, I’d rather that they were thinking clearly, and to the best of their ability. I do not want them to be angry or upset – that works against my ends. Generally speaking, I do not wish to “provoke.” I wish to persuade.
I believe that provoking a person to anger works against my ability to persuade them in reason.
I think the longterm aim should be to just dismiss provokers who have disrespectful intent, rather than waste one moment of your life in an unnecessary negative state because of what someone else said to you.
Right. When a person is upset, I think it’s a good question to ask “how best to respond”? For after all, even when people do not aim to provoke – even when they are doing their best to be sincere and respectful – it may happen unintentionally or through misunderstanding.
I think that there are several strategies available, including taking time away to cool down before responding, and redoubling one’s own efforts to respond with tact (so that, if the first injury was unintentional, one does not potentially exacerbate the situation by responding with a purposeful slight). One strategy that I’ve tried to employ recently is to identify my own experience of feeling upset and to communicate it directly, along with an explanation as to why I’m having that reaction, insofar as I can identify it. The response I get to that can be illuminating, and in the context of a conversation, it can help me to determine whether to continue or not.
You’re certainly correct that if I’ve identified a person who does not conduct conversation to productive ends, and who is not interested in exchanges characterized by respect and sincerity, but who instead routinely seeks to “provoke,” it can help me to avoid getting in situations which would otherwise upset me (by not taking them seriously, and not wasting my time engaging them in discussion).
But there are potentially other actions a person can take, as well, especially insofar as a person is (again) a member of a community, and interested in that community taking a particular shape: fostering productive discussions. This thread is itself one such measure, to help us to discuss and identify the ways and means by which productive discussions may better be held. For if we’d like to make a better world for ourselves, and especially through conversation and persuasion, it might be worthwhile to try to illuminate the best methods for doing so.
Other behaviors which detract (such as, I would argue, intentional provocation) may be identified along the way, as well as specific persons who partake in them, defend them, argue for them – and those identifications can also be beneficial for those who strive to be both sincere and respectful in their conversations; if one wishes to drive from Los Angeles to New York, it helps to recognize and avoid the potholes and the dead ends along the way.
