Prerequisites of Discussion

In order to have a constructive discussion with someone, you need to make sure that there are at least three prerequisites in place. I'm saying this particularly to brothers, especially young brothers, because you don't need to waste your time and energy. And if you get into a discussion with someone where these three prerequisites are not in place, you will most certainly waste both. The first prerequisite is mutual humility, meaning both sides in a discussion are willing to consider the possibility that they might be wrong and are open to processing new information that might change their perspective. If you have this humility and the other party does not, then it is a futile exercise.

And if the other party has that humility and you do not, not, then you're being disingenuous really by engaging in discussion at all. Now I think one of the ways that you can maintain this sense of humility is to never be too invested in your own opinion. Don't attach your ego to it. Rather, always place more value on your right to the truth than on proving yourself right. The second prerequisite is good faith on both sides.

Obviously, is kind of connected to the first prerequisite, and it just means that both sides in a discussion are sincerely interested in ascertaining what is true and factual, not in scoring points, not in deflecting, not in playing word games, and not in intellectual sophistry. No one's ego should be at stake in an honest discussion except in so far as a man should treat the truth as his birthright, and he should take pride in discovering it. Another prerequisite is that there should be some degree of intellectual parity between both sides. That's not to say parity of information because certainly in discussion where one party knows more on a subject than another party, if the other two prerequisites are in place, then the party with less information can certainly benefit from talking to someone who knows more. But if there is an imbalance in their respective intellects, then they may as well be talking to each other in different languages.

One version of this type of futile discussion is when you talk to someone who is deeply indoctrinated into an ideology. They're not talking to you from their own mind. They are reciting canon, and it would literally be the same as you speaking directly into the pages of a book or talking to the YouTube screen. They cannot hear you, and what you hear from them is not their own thoughts. I've actually been that guy at various times in my life.

Though I have a good intellect, when you subscribe to an ideology, it kind of makes you suspend your own intelligence. And when you talk to someone, you're reading from a script, and that script becomes a barrier between you and them. Your own mind is stifled, and you are blocked from absorbing what's coming to you from their mind. So I'm telling you that to some extent, you have to be an intellectual snob because you simply cannot engage productively with someone who is not equipped to understand you, and it's fine to decide that someone is not worth your time. On social media, we are exposed to the opinions and often the abuse of people with whom we would never actually interact in real life.

So my advice is don't do that. If you are someone who thinks for himself, has his own thoughts and ideas, then it is your right and you should be discriminating about who you engage with. And make sure that these three prerequisites are present before you decide to start talking to somebody. And if in the course of discussion you discover that these prerequisites are missing, don't hesitate to shut it down.