I thought i would answer, for the first time FB’s question, “What’s on your mind?” and Twitter’s “Whats Happening?” as I watch Fox 601.
Is there any merit to robust discussion? Just as an observation there seems to be a fair bit of it at the moment. Take your pick from Bronwyn Bishop and entitlements , Dermott Brereton/ Rebecca Wilson over Adam Goodes, Geoff Toovey and his treatment as Manly coach or coal mining in the Liverpool Plains.
I watch current affairs and sport on Fox 601 and there has been plenty of robust discussion which I see as people talking over each other in some cases and measured diplomatic point making in discussions in others.
How do you feel after a robust discussion – diplomatic or otherwise? I don’t know too many people who feel good after a robust discussion even if they made their point or not. How do other people in the same discussion feel after a robust discussion? Likewise, I don’t think they come out of it feeling good once again irrespective of how their viewpoint was received. I might be wrong.
Which method of robust discussion wins through? Take the scenario where there are equally valid well argued viewpoints. So I guess this is where the personality of the participants come into play. There is the person who quietly providers a valid argument only to be knocked back by the louder perhaps equally valid argument. There is the person who is dogmatic and takes no prisoners and others just back down. Then here are those who are collaborative, give and take and reach a compromise position.
So why bother? I guess there is a decision and action which comes from the discussion which impacts an organisation and other people. I am sure there was a robust discussion in the Labour Party when they argued not to stop the boats 5 years ago and recently similar discussions when they agreed to stopping the boats if they are in government in 2016. Likewise, I am sure there is robust discussion in the liberal/nationals party state and federal concerning the proposed mining of the Liverpool a plains. Time will tell who benefits and not from the decision.
So decisions made from robust discussion may or may not be the best decision for all concerned. I now have more questions than answers but in my mind it comes back to how you feel after the discussion.
Can you live with the manner in which you participated in a robust discussion? Either you come out feeling 100% personally and yet compromising on the viewpoint. Or you emerge not feeling 100% personally even though the outcome is of benefit to the majority?