I enjoyed this, thank you. I did find myself thinking the topic is rather recursive. The idea that we should listen to each other has become a position on the field of battle. I'm seeing cracks in what I'd call the cultural status quo for the last 100 years based upon a notion of the primacy of 'builders' and what I mean by that is people that 'do', not say. The mono culture of the 20th century is ending in flames and from those flames will come highly activated pockets of individuals with devastating levels of power at their fingertips. People who believe that rational discourse and cooperation lead to better outcomes will compete for resources and primacy like all the other factions and really...we'll see how it ends up. :D I'm team rational discourse but I don't have faith that others can be brought to the cause.
Woah, again, you have echoed and brilliantly expressed (thank you) exactly where I have landed and what I have been thinking through, here on Substack and in practice in my job.
Binary thinking is the enemy of consensus.
In my school we have introduced Socratic dialogue circles as an ancient new strategy. Occasionally yes we still will do debates, but we are also working on the much harder job of listening, receiving & reflecting each other’s opinions in a circle. The end goal is NOT to win or lose a debate but to come to consensus.
Students LOVE it. Their entire mindset is challenged, less by the topic under discussion; but far more significantly by the process. It’s also minimal prep for teachers and 100% verbal assessment. (Details in my various posts)
Thank you so much for this. I was trying to pick which paragraph to share in one of those pull quote bubbles, but almost every single one is quoteworthy. I think there are a number of folks who are ready, willing, and able to approach these subjects with nuance and look at things from multiple angles. Fortunately, on platforms like this, we’re able to find each other more readily than on many others. It’s very true about people tying their identities to their ideologies. In a world where so many tangible things have been destabilized, we look for what will anchor us in our understanding of who and what we are and why we’re here. And as useful as ideologies can be, it’s ironic that we would latch onto them, because the world of thought is even more malleable and ephemeral than the towns that are being economically gutted by big box stores, and the vanishing visible reminders of the worlds we grew up in.
Well, it’s a journey, and we’re all learning. This will always be the best of times and the worst of times. Life seems to be abundantly generous that way. 🧐
This is a great reading. And yeah you’re right … the conversation about AI is also a conversation through AI. And maybe that’s the point. It’s not just a technological test. It’s an evolutionary one that also asks a deeper question of who we want to be in this new era.
I’d only add another point that maybe the current discourse is broken because it was never designed to hold this much complexity. Our existing platforms, incentives, even our language structures are relics of an old world. Now that AI is accelerating dysfunction, better behavior won’t be enough … we need to design for better architectures of thought and conversation.
Mead was one of the pioneers of the social construction of reality trend, and of ethnomethodology. There is a vast research archive on both of these topics. And, I agree, AI is now a new participant in the social construction of reality. Perhaps a pause to review what the main finds/perspectives this branch of sociology discovered about human communication would be helpful, lest we try to reinvent the theory wheel with no understanding of what came before.
Thank you! I love reading your perspectives. They are vital as we navigate the increasing complexities we are facing. I totally agree that discomfort is an essential part of our exploration. I'd also like to highlight something that often gets overlooked: the role of our embodied experiences in these dialogues. Your suggestions for navigating these situations better are excellent, AND they require a fully engaged prefrontal cortex to execute, as they demand critical thinking, empathy, and the ability to manage complex interactions.
Most of us don't want to admit that in conversations about survival, whether it's facing climate catastrophe or the question if whether AI will be the death of us, it can be quite challenging to stay in our rational thinking brain. Our nervous systems often take charge, making it difficult to engage in critical dialogue. We don't have a choice about this. Unfortunately, many people lack the tools to recognize when they are in this state, let alone how to do something about it.
Being online, without the ability to co-regulate with others, exacerbates this issue, as you alluded to. We need to cultivate spaces where we can handle ambiguity and tolerate dissonance long enough to create more resonance—a resonance that can come from understanding, not agreement. This is not only a cognitive challenge but also an embodied one. Creating spaces where discussing and honoring our embodied experiences are not considered taboo is essential. Ultra rationality is what got us to this place to begin with. Our next evolution depends on developing this embodied awareness, so that we can all participate fully in meaningful, constructive conversations.
I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about this topic for a long time.
I do think we can navigate the complexity and agree that the result will become unity of some sort.
I also think there is a certain amount of unwillingness to tackle these issues because people don’t like or want change.
Consequently we the human species are staring down the multiple barrels of multiple guns because we don’t want to change (we’re comfortable) yet we know we have to.
I enjoyed this, thank you. I did find myself thinking the topic is rather recursive. The idea that we should listen to each other has become a position on the field of battle. I'm seeing cracks in what I'd call the cultural status quo for the last 100 years based upon a notion of the primacy of 'builders' and what I mean by that is people that 'do', not say. The mono culture of the 20th century is ending in flames and from those flames will come highly activated pockets of individuals with devastating levels of power at their fingertips. People who believe that rational discourse and cooperation lead to better outcomes will compete for resources and primacy like all the other factions and really...we'll see how it ends up. :D I'm team rational discourse but I don't have faith that others can be brought to the cause.
Woah, again, you have echoed and brilliantly expressed (thank you) exactly where I have landed and what I have been thinking through, here on Substack and in practice in my job.
Binary thinking is the enemy of consensus.
In my school we have introduced Socratic dialogue circles as an ancient new strategy. Occasionally yes we still will do debates, but we are also working on the much harder job of listening, receiving & reflecting each other’s opinions in a circle. The end goal is NOT to win or lose a debate but to come to consensus.
Students LOVE it. Their entire mindset is challenged, less by the topic under discussion; but far more significantly by the process. It’s also minimal prep for teachers and 100% verbal assessment. (Details in my various posts)
Absolute game changer.
Thank you so much for this. I was trying to pick which paragraph to share in one of those pull quote bubbles, but almost every single one is quoteworthy. I think there are a number of folks who are ready, willing, and able to approach these subjects with nuance and look at things from multiple angles. Fortunately, on platforms like this, we’re able to find each other more readily than on many others. It’s very true about people tying their identities to their ideologies. In a world where so many tangible things have been destabilized, we look for what will anchor us in our understanding of who and what we are and why we’re here. And as useful as ideologies can be, it’s ironic that we would latch onto them, because the world of thought is even more malleable and ephemeral than the towns that are being economically gutted by big box stores, and the vanishing visible reminders of the worlds we grew up in.
Well, it’s a journey, and we’re all learning. This will always be the best of times and the worst of times. Life seems to be abundantly generous that way. 🧐
This is a great reading. And yeah you’re right … the conversation about AI is also a conversation through AI. And maybe that’s the point. It’s not just a technological test. It’s an evolutionary one that also asks a deeper question of who we want to be in this new era.
I’d only add another point that maybe the current discourse is broken because it was never designed to hold this much complexity. Our existing platforms, incentives, even our language structures are relics of an old world. Now that AI is accelerating dysfunction, better behavior won’t be enough … we need to design for better architectures of thought and conversation.
Mead was one of the pioneers of the social construction of reality trend, and of ethnomethodology. There is a vast research archive on both of these topics. And, I agree, AI is now a new participant in the social construction of reality. Perhaps a pause to review what the main finds/perspectives this branch of sociology discovered about human communication would be helpful, lest we try to reinvent the theory wheel with no understanding of what came before.
Thank you! I love reading your perspectives. They are vital as we navigate the increasing complexities we are facing. I totally agree that discomfort is an essential part of our exploration. I'd also like to highlight something that often gets overlooked: the role of our embodied experiences in these dialogues. Your suggestions for navigating these situations better are excellent, AND they require a fully engaged prefrontal cortex to execute, as they demand critical thinking, empathy, and the ability to manage complex interactions.
Most of us don't want to admit that in conversations about survival, whether it's facing climate catastrophe or the question if whether AI will be the death of us, it can be quite challenging to stay in our rational thinking brain. Our nervous systems often take charge, making it difficult to engage in critical dialogue. We don't have a choice about this. Unfortunately, many people lack the tools to recognize when they are in this state, let alone how to do something about it.
Being online, without the ability to co-regulate with others, exacerbates this issue, as you alluded to. We need to cultivate spaces where we can handle ambiguity and tolerate dissonance long enough to create more resonance—a resonance that can come from understanding, not agreement. This is not only a cognitive challenge but also an embodied one. Creating spaces where discussing and honoring our embodied experiences are not considered taboo is essential. Ultra rationality is what got us to this place to begin with. Our next evolution depends on developing this embodied awareness, so that we can all participate fully in meaningful, constructive conversations.
I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about this topic for a long time.
I do think we can navigate the complexity and agree that the result will become unity of some sort.
I also think there is a certain amount of unwillingness to tackle these issues because people don’t like or want change.
Consequently we the human species are staring down the multiple barrels of multiple guns because we don’t want to change (we’re comfortable) yet we know we have to.