Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

The Secular Spectrum

Home
Nonreligious
Collaborative Truth-Seeking

Collaborative Truth-Seeking

Last updated on: February 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm by Gleb Tsipursky

Collaborative Truth-Seeking 2017-02-18T18:17:24-05:00 Gleb Tsipursky

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Caption: Arguing people (Kick-ads, used with permission)

Written by Dr. Gleb Tsipursky, Intentional Insights Co-Founder and President.

________________________________________________________________

We frequently use debates to resolve different opinions about the truth. However, debates are not always the best course for figuring out the truth. In more emotionally charged situations, the technique of collaborative truth-seeking is often better.

The Problem with Debates

The usual method of hashing out disagreements in order to discover the truth about reality is through debates, in person or online. Yet more often than not, people on opposing sides of a debate end up seeking to persuade rather than prioritizing truth discovery. Indeed, research suggests that debates have a specific evolutionary function – not for discovering the truth but to ensure that our perspective prevails within a tribal social context. No wonder debates are often compared to wars. This is especially so in emotionally charged topics, such as politics, as our autopilot system takes over and inhibits our ability to be rational in our engagement with others.

We may hope that we would strive to discover the truth during debates. Yet given that we are not always fully rational and strategic in our social engagements, it is easy to slip up within debate mode and orient toward winning instead of uncovering the truth. Heck, I know that I sometimes forget in the midst of a heated debate that I may be the one who is wrong – I’d be surprised if this didn’t happen with you. So while we should certainly continue to engage in debates, we should also use additional strategies – less natural and intuitive ones. These strategies could put us in a better mindset for updating our beliefs and improving our perspective on the truth. One such solution is a mode of engagement called collaborative truth-seeking.

Collaborative Truth-Seeking

Collaborative truth-seeking is one way of describing a more intentional approach in which two or more people with different opinions engage in a process that focuses on finding out the truth. Collaborative truth-seeking is a modality that should be used among people with shared goals and a shared sense of trust.

Caption: People in a calm discussion (U.S. News, used with permission)

Some important features of collaborative truth-seeking, which are often not present in debates, are: focusing on a desire to change one’s own mind toward the truth; a curious attitude; being sensitive to others’ emotions; striving to avoid arousing emotions that will hinder updating beliefs and truth discovery; and a trust that all other participants are doing the same. These can contribute to increased social sensitivity, which, together with other attributes, correlate with accomplishing higher group performance on a variety of activities.

Share weaknesses and uncertainties in your own position
Share your biases about your position
Share your social context and background as relevant to the discussion
- for instance, I grew up poor once my family immigrated to the US when I was 10, and this naturally influences me to care about poverty more than some other issues, thus biasing me in this area
Vocalize curiosity and the desire to learn
Ask the other person to call you out if they think you’re getting emotional or engaging in emotive debate instead of collaborative truth-seeking, and consider using a safe word

Here are additional techniques that can help you stay in collaborative truth-seeking mode after establishing trust:

Self-signal: signal to yourself that you want to engage in collaborative truth-seeking, instead of debating
Empathize: try to empathize with the other perspective that you do not hold by considering where their viewpoint came from, why they think what they do, and recognizing that they feel that their viewpoint is correct
Keep calm: be prepared with emotional management to calm your emotions and those of the people you engage with when a desire for debate arises
- watch out for defensiveness and aggressiveness in particular
Go slow: take the time to listen fully and think fully
Consider pausing: have an escape route for complex thoughts and emotions if you can’t deal with them in the moment by pausing and picking up the discussion later
- say “I will take some time to think about this,” and/or write things down
Echo: paraphrase the other person’s position to indicate and check whether you’ve fully understood their thoughts
Be open: orient toward improving the other person’s points to argue against their strongest form
Stay the course: be passionate about wanting to update your beliefs, maintain the most truthful perspective, and adopt the best evidence and arguments, no matter if they are yours of those of others
Be diplomatic: when you think the other person is wrong, strive to avoid saying “you’re wrong because of X” but instead to use questions, such as “what do you think X implies about your argument?”
Be specific and concrete: go down levels of abstraction
Be clear: make sure the semantics are clear to all by defining terms
- consider tabooing terms if some are emotionally arousing, and make sure you are describing the same territory of reality
Be probabilistic: use probabilistic thinking and probabilistic language, to help get at the extent of disagreement and be as specific and concrete as possible
- For instance, avoid saying that X is absolutely true, but say that you think there’s an 80% chance it’s the true position
- Consider adding what evidence and reasoning led you to believe so, for both you and the other participants to examine this chain of thought
When people whose perspective you respect fail to update their beliefs in response to your clear chain of reasoning and evidence, update a little somewhat toward their position, since that presents evidence that your position is not very convincing
Confirm your sources: look up information when it’s possible to do so (Google is your friend)
Charity mode: trive to be more charitable to others and their expertise than seems intuitive to you
Use the reversal test to check for status quo bias
- If you are discussing whether to change some specific numeric parameter – say increase by 50% the money donated to charity X – state the reverse of your positions, for example decreasing the amount of money donated to charity X by 50%, and see how that impacts your perspective
Use CFAR’s double crux technique
- In this technique, two parties who hold different positions on an argument each writes the the fundamental reason for their position (the crux of their position). This reason has to be the key one, so if it was proven incorrect, then each would change their perspective. Then, look for experiments that can test the crux. Repeat as needed. If a person identifies more than one reason as crucial, you can go through each as needed. More details are here.

Of course, not all of these techniques are necessary for high-quality collaborative truth-seeking. Some are easier than others, and different techniques apply better to different kinds of truth-seeking discussions. You can apply some of these techniques during debates as well, such as double crux and the reversal test. Try some out and see how they work for you.

Conclusion

Engaging in collaborative truth-seeking goes against our natural impulses to win in a debate, and is thus more cognitively costly. It also tends to take more time and effort than just debating. It is also easy to slip into debate mode even when using collaborative truth-seeking, because of the intuitive nature of debate mode.

Moreover, collaborative truth-seeking need not replace debates at all times. This non-intuitive mode of engagement can be chosen when discussing issues that relate to deeply-held beliefs and/or ones that risk emotional triggering for the people involved. Because of my own background, I would prefer to discuss poverty in collaborative truth-seeking mode rather than debate mode, for example. On such issues, collaborative truth-seeking can provide a shortcut to resolution, in comparison to protracted, tiring, and emotionally challenging debates.

Likewise, using collaborative truth-seeking to resolve differing opinions on all issues holds the danger of creating a community oriented excessively toward sensitivity to the perspectives of others, which might result in important issues not being discussed candidly. After all, research shows the importance of having disagreement in order to make wise decisions and to figure out the truth. Of course, collaborative truth-seeking is well suited to expressing disagreements in a sensitive way, so if used appropriately, it might permit even people with triggers around certain topics to express their opinions.

Taking these caveats into consideration, collaborative truth-seeking is a great tool to use to discover the truth and to update our beliefs, as it can get past the high emotional barriers to altering our perspectives that have been put up by evolution.

Questions to Consider:

In the past, when do you wish you could have applied collaborative truth-seeking techniques?
In what contexts would collaborative truth-seeking serve you well in the future?
What might be challenges to your use of collaborative truth-seeking?

Activism

Anti-intellectualism

communication

compassionate humanism

collaborative truth-seeking

communication

critical thinking

debate

emotional intelligence

Previous Post

February 16, 2017

Not What Things Seem to Be

Next Post

February 23, 2017 Trump Rescinds Trans Youth Rights: Helped by Christians and Atheists

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Ableism Activism Addiction and Recovery Agnosticism Anti-intellectualism Arts Atheism Beauty Catholicism Charles Darwin Children China Christianity Church/State separation churchgoing communication compassionate humanism Creationism critical thinking Culture death disaster response doubt education Egypt Entertainment Environment ethics evolution Existence of God Exploration fear Foundation Beyond Belief Free speech God Health History Human rights humanism identity India Interfaith Islam labels Language LGBT Love Meaning Media Medicine Middle East misconceptions mixed belief marriage Moral argument Morality Myths Near-Death Experience Nonreligious parenting Parody Persecution complex Philosophy Poetry Politics prayer Psychology Rationality Religion religious atheists Religious privilege Republican Party Satire Schools science secular parenting Spirituality The Unpigeonholeables Uncategorized United Kingdom Wonder

Select a Month March 2021 August 2020 March 2020 January 2020 September 2019 July 2019 June 2019 April 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 June 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What did God use to lead the Israelites by day?

Select your answer to see how you score.

An angel A pillar of fire A trumpet A pillar of cloud