Implimenting Debating Omission

[Epiphany_Inspired]

Hey, Re: Leo's new video on big picture thinking. How does one go about the exact process of evolving beyond debating?

As a young child, debating was in our top favorite things to do...me, and my best friend...so it's pretty intricately wired in my brain after many decades of doing it! It's crazy how my brain can usually, quite instantly, think of an insane amount of information to support my perspective...and super creepy that it actually seems "fun" to occasionally "argue" a point, especially ones that I may only agree with as a joke.... 

I want to keep diversity intact. I hope to be able to: radically-open-mindedly consider the other person's perspective.... sometimes I'd like to respectfully offer my perspective too, (to spread potential open-mindedness to others with the best intentions).....but then I want to stop, before it turns into all of that stuff Leo mentioned with defending points etc. How does one accomplish this. I doubt Leo meant that we should never offer up our own unique views...So, at what point does a difference of opinion go wrong? What are the specific things to watch for and avoid?

[Lynnel]

@Epiphany_Inspired Why would you offer your perspective ? The way I see it the deal of aksing for someone's perspective is trying to extract crucial insights from it - why is this person thinking like that, what's her/his experience, etc and then matching it with yours so you can upgrade it.

I don't see a point in the debate frame - it's a pure information exchange.

E.g. You are currently asking a question - I am providing you a perspective which works for me and then you're free to use the information provided in it to fit your worldview etc. and once you answer and ask for instance but what would happen if x,y,z or x seems slightly off - I can understand you better and while going back and forth this way we can both maybe learn something to correct/upgrade your perspective without there even being a debate/winnner/etc.

[Epiphany_Inspired]

@Lynnel Thanks so much. What you say is totally true, especially when it comes to asking questions. Now, let's say I'm just having a regular conversation with a friend and I mention something about how our past experiences could be altering our current perspectives...the friend says that she doesn't "believe in that"....Do I:

a) Change the subject

b) Mention amazing research (neurobiology etc), that could empower her, that shows this is most likely true (this is what I'd normally do)

c) Remind her that we have a subconscious, and how it works, (this is difficult as others assume - I'm trying to sound condescending or superior)

d) Say that I respect our differences, and move on

e) other?

How many points can one bring up to illustrate a perspective before it becomes debating, trying to convince, etc?

How would we know if we are just wanting to share and empower, or subconsciously wanting to be "right"?

How do we go back and forth like you suggest, without emotions getting involved, intentionally or unconsciously? (even if I am able to *sometimes* keep my emotions out of it, others often aren't even aware of their emotions, and how quickly they are triggered and escalate when there are certain differences of opinion)

How do we avoid others assuming we are "preaching" when we simply have a bunch of cool perspectives to share? How do we know that we are not actually "preaching" but from our subconscious?

How do we avoid frustration with the often extreme closed-mindedness of others (that is the most likely culprit in inducing my "debate mechanism")?

[Lynnel]

16 hours ago, Epiphany_Inspired said:

How many points can one bring up to illustrate a perspective before it becomes debating, trying to convince, etc?

How would we know if we are just wanting to share and empower, or subconsciously wanting to be "right"?

it's not about the specific number of points. It's the attitude.

Let's get something straight first : you can empower someone only if he wants to. You can only share with someone if he is open to it.

One of the easiest way's to know that is whether the person is asking for it or not. Has the person asked for your perspective, advice, thoughts, ideas, etc ? 

I wasn't able to find at least one person in the whole world who like or would listen to advice if he doesn't want to or need it.

Then, it has to be "selfless" to some extent : if the person wants a perspective - for instance you who made this thread clearly asking for opinions/solutions about a given topic - those who answer have to "gift" their perspective /contribute without expecting anything in return (e.g. the person to change/change their opinion/evolve/etc.) in a sort of take it or leave it attitude. The goal is not to shove the help down someone's throat

16 hours ago, Epiphany_Inspired said:

How do we go back and forth like you suggest, without emotions getting involved, intentionally or unconsciously? (even if I am able to *sometimes* keep my emotions out of it, others often aren't even aware of their emotions, and how quickly they are triggered and escalate when there are certain differences of opinion)

I'd say if emotions are involved you are already in a debate - so the best way is to simply stop.

The core "problem" is that from one's perspective his view of the world/x/y/girls/man/random stuff is totaly valid, reasonable and true. If you forget entirly your own experience and view it from his life, aka imagine you lived from birth up to this point as HIM/HER without YOU ever existing, you would think exactly in the same way. Naturally, people are uncomfortable with something that fucks up their worldview and have a personnal investement in certain opinions. That's when I believe emotions come up.

E.g. I see a women feeding her cat with vegan food torturing the poor thing. She's not gonna change unless she wants to, she doesn't know anything better, and debating with her is only gonna make you immensely angry.

You can have a constructive information exchange only if both parties are open and willing to do so.

 

16 hours ago, Epiphany_Inspired said:

How do we avoid others assuming we are "preaching" when we simply have a bunch of cool perspectives to share? How do we know that we are not actually "preaching" but from our subconscious?

How do we avoid frustration with the often extreme closed-mindedness of others (that is the most likely culprit in inducing my "debate mechanism")?

 

You are preaching from their point of view when you don't want to hear those cool perspectives.

Even when from your point of view their development is primitive and you have no idea how they're even still alive and they should totaly meditate daily or they're gonna waste their life

You have to set a treshold of what you're wiling to tolerate, and simply KICK PEOPLE OUT OF YOUR LIFE. As with low consciousness, negative friends.

Or if you wanna take it easier :

For instance, my parents are very scientific orange PHD people, and so I simply do not talk about spiritual stuff with them. Aaaan that's it. As easy as that. And I don't have to/want to kick them out of my life.