Rough PS - Please Offer Some Feedback!
Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 6:35 pm
I just drafted this PS. I've gone through several completely different approaches, each one pretty unsatisfactory. This is pretty rough, I'd like to get some general feedback as to whether this is an appropriate direction to take before I spend hours refining it. Any constructive criticism will be greatly appreciated!
“Uh oh, Kyle’s got his arguing voice on,” I overheard my friend Kelly say to another person at the party. I was in the middle of deconstructing a half-baked conspiracy theory that someone had seriously posited, I normally have tunnel vision in this sort of circumstance, but this comment was enough to make me grin a little inside. I was in my element, testing another persons ideas against my own. I have loved the application of logic in discussion for as long as I can remember, sometimes to a fault. My greatest childhood joy did not come from getting into mischief, but from pointing out technical flaws in the disciplinary rulings my parents would hand down to me in the case of inappropriate behavior. A six year old me questioned my mom, “If I’m not allowed to play with friends until my homework is done, then I guess I shouldn't have to go to soccer practice, since my friends are going to be playing soccer there, right?” This approach rarely worked with my parents, but I could tell that they found some pride in my cleverness even if I was being a smart-aleck.
I fortunately found an outlet for my analytical appetite in studying philosophy, where being a Socratic “gadfly” was not only acceptable but encouraged by my professors. As I became equipped through education to more competently dismantle beliefs and their accompanying arguments, my capacity to annoy grew proportionately. Unsurprisingly, in retrospect, not everyone is receptive to having their core beliefs called into question, and my incessant probing occasionally caused friction in my friendships. This was somewhat frustrating to me because I wanted to share my passion for seeking out a more logically valid understanding of the world around us, but my approach was as often received as antagonistic as it was collaborative. If logic, the most fundamental underpinning of human thought, was not sufficiently convincing, then what was I missing? I started to explore that question as a community organizer for environmental lobbying group Clean Water Action.
As an organizer it was my job to convince members of the public that our campaigns were worth their time and money. Working in a region with deep ties to industry historically at odds with environmental regulation meant that I could not take for granted that people would agree with the idea that greater protections were in line with public interest. In the high pressure environment of my job, where daily quotas for fundraising needed to be met in order to hold on to the job and eventually advance, I had to quickly adapt my approach. I couldn't simply force an argument down someones throat and expect them to be receptive, I needed to foster mutual agreement. To do that, I had to start by thinking of the issues from different perspectives.
In one campaign, we were fighting as an organization to ban the use of “frack pits”, large holding ponds for the waste produced by the hydraulic fracturing process. I had to quickly learn how to form an argument that took fundamentally opposed premises and still arrived at the same conclusion, namely that banning frack pits was in the best interest of those I was speaking to. Many of the people with whom I discussed this issue fell into one of two general categories, those who believed that the fracking industry was a threat to the health of our communities, and those who believed that the influx of natural gas drilling in our state as a tremendous boon to the economy (and saw any effort to stand in the way of the industry as inherently damaging to the state’s prosperity). The first group was easily convinced of the necessity of our campaign, as the pits were considered to be an inherently dangerous aspect of fracking; by banning them, we would be eliminating a significant source of harm to our communities. The second group would take a bit more finesse to convince, as their beliefs did not align with the initial premise of fracking’s danger. I voiced my agreement with their premise that the economic benefits were paramount, and pointed out that bad practices (such as using the pits) generated much of the opposition to the industry. By banning the pits, we would remove a significant source of criticism, and allow the industry to proceed in a more universally agreeable fashion. Amazingly, this worked; I was able to raise support for this campaign across a population that included diametrically opposed stances on a controversial issue, all by catering the argument to their values. Empathy was the main ingredient I had been missing; increasing environmental protections was a no-brainer to me, but not everyone shares the same values.
My experiences at Clean Water Action have played a huge role in how I approach others in discussion and debate. I certainly remain competitive when it comes to the exchange of ideas, but proving a point is no longer my primary end in doing so. I now take much more pleasure in working alongside others such that our unique perspectives can be incorporated to build mutual consensus. The challenge of working constructively, of building an accord of ideas that can be taken onward for further exchange is infinitely more exciting to me than the self-satisfying demolition of others ideas in which I had previously taken such pride.
“Uh oh, Kyle’s got his arguing voice on,” I overheard my friend Kelly say to another person at the party. I was in the middle of deconstructing a half-baked conspiracy theory that someone had seriously posited, I normally have tunnel vision in this sort of circumstance, but this comment was enough to make me grin a little inside. I was in my element, testing another persons ideas against my own. I have loved the application of logic in discussion for as long as I can remember, sometimes to a fault. My greatest childhood joy did not come from getting into mischief, but from pointing out technical flaws in the disciplinary rulings my parents would hand down to me in the case of inappropriate behavior. A six year old me questioned my mom, “If I’m not allowed to play with friends until my homework is done, then I guess I shouldn't have to go to soccer practice, since my friends are going to be playing soccer there, right?” This approach rarely worked with my parents, but I could tell that they found some pride in my cleverness even if I was being a smart-aleck.
I fortunately found an outlet for my analytical appetite in studying philosophy, where being a Socratic “gadfly” was not only acceptable but encouraged by my professors. As I became equipped through education to more competently dismantle beliefs and their accompanying arguments, my capacity to annoy grew proportionately. Unsurprisingly, in retrospect, not everyone is receptive to having their core beliefs called into question, and my incessant probing occasionally caused friction in my friendships. This was somewhat frustrating to me because I wanted to share my passion for seeking out a more logically valid understanding of the world around us, but my approach was as often received as antagonistic as it was collaborative. If logic, the most fundamental underpinning of human thought, was not sufficiently convincing, then what was I missing? I started to explore that question as a community organizer for environmental lobbying group Clean Water Action.
As an organizer it was my job to convince members of the public that our campaigns were worth their time and money. Working in a region with deep ties to industry historically at odds with environmental regulation meant that I could not take for granted that people would agree with the idea that greater protections were in line with public interest. In the high pressure environment of my job, where daily quotas for fundraising needed to be met in order to hold on to the job and eventually advance, I had to quickly adapt my approach. I couldn't simply force an argument down someones throat and expect them to be receptive, I needed to foster mutual agreement. To do that, I had to start by thinking of the issues from different perspectives.
In one campaign, we were fighting as an organization to ban the use of “frack pits”, large holding ponds for the waste produced by the hydraulic fracturing process. I had to quickly learn how to form an argument that took fundamentally opposed premises and still arrived at the same conclusion, namely that banning frack pits was in the best interest of those I was speaking to. Many of the people with whom I discussed this issue fell into one of two general categories, those who believed that the fracking industry was a threat to the health of our communities, and those who believed that the influx of natural gas drilling in our state as a tremendous boon to the economy (and saw any effort to stand in the way of the industry as inherently damaging to the state’s prosperity). The first group was easily convinced of the necessity of our campaign, as the pits were considered to be an inherently dangerous aspect of fracking; by banning them, we would be eliminating a significant source of harm to our communities. The second group would take a bit more finesse to convince, as their beliefs did not align with the initial premise of fracking’s danger. I voiced my agreement with their premise that the economic benefits were paramount, and pointed out that bad practices (such as using the pits) generated much of the opposition to the industry. By banning the pits, we would remove a significant source of criticism, and allow the industry to proceed in a more universally agreeable fashion. Amazingly, this worked; I was able to raise support for this campaign across a population that included diametrically opposed stances on a controversial issue, all by catering the argument to their values. Empathy was the main ingredient I had been missing; increasing environmental protections was a no-brainer to me, but not everyone shares the same values.
My experiences at Clean Water Action have played a huge role in how I approach others in discussion and debate. I certainly remain competitive when it comes to the exchange of ideas, but proving a point is no longer my primary end in doing so. I now take much more pleasure in working alongside others such that our unique perspectives can be incorporated to build mutual consensus. The challenge of working constructively, of building an accord of ideas that can be taken onward for further exchange is infinitely more exciting to me than the self-satisfying demolition of others ideas in which I had previously taken such pride.