Hello. I'm Bob, and I'm Abrasive.
What do carpenters, diamond cutters and writers have in common?
The other day Denham Grey over at Knowledge-at-Work brought up the phrase creative abrasion, and it’s been stuck in my head for a few days.
In case you didn’t notice (and WHY haven’t you been paying attention?), I’ve been having a spirited discussion with Dustin Walper in the comments on yesterday’s post about fast versus slow leadership. We’ve each presented good, well-reasoned rationales for our respective positions. It’s been fun – and sparking such discussions is one of the reasons I started blogging in the first place (thanks, D.W., you fell into my well-laid trap. Bwa-ha-ha-hah!)
The point is, by engaging in creative abrasion, we’ve both learned something, and both been tempered, at least a bit, by the opposing view. In other words, we’ve grown. And that’s the desired outcome – in the activity of presenting point and counterpoint, both sides have the opportunity to learn something, and be enriched by the exchange of ideas. (Note the italics – learning is always a choice.)
I love this quote from Beth Agnew’s article:
“In its quietest form, creative abrasion is the catalyst for producing a pearl. The oyster is so bothered by the unpleasant abrasive effect of the sand inside its smooth shell, that it works on the sand to smooth its rough edges and coat it with essence of pearl. The result? A beautiful, valuable gem.
In its most energetic form, creative abrasion brings two teams, people, or ideas together like flint on steel. It creates sparks that ignite a wildfire of ideas or innovation.”
Thus the purpose of creative abrasion is to find new ideas or prompt innovation.
A few years ago, when out of work for a while, I organized a company called Mars Hill Group composed of nineteen fellow job seekers, all of whom held PhDs (alas, “The Society of Extraordinary Gentlemen” was already taken. As was “The Society of the Large-Brained”). The plan (no wait – let me add sneer marks: the ‘plan’) was to pool our collective knowledge, experience and capabilities and come up with something that would earn us a living.
We even developed and submitted a proposal to the Dept. of Homeland Security, and developed another that would help with Iraq’s post-war recovery. Sadly, nothing came of it. But the idea that bringing together folks with different outlooks, experiences and even cultures to spark new ideas was and is still sound.
Think of creative abrasion as a continuum, with polishing compound and fine sandpaper on the left (the “quietest form”) and fireworks and dynamite on the right (the “energetic form”). Where do you fit in this spectrum? Someone like Seth Godin, who describes himself as “the guy who likes to set off fireworks in a propane farm” would obviously be on the far right of the scale. (It’s easy to spot the energetic ones – they’re the ones who get all the “press”.) Others manage quite well being abrasive in a more subtle, quiet way (Mars Hill Group is an example of the latter).
Now back to my original question. What these professions have in common is that all of them use sharp and/or abrasive instruments in their work. (The pen is mightier than the sword, remember?) Each one uses these instruments (a saw, a grinding wheel or a pen) to change or modify rough objects (wood, carbon crystals or words) into “a thing of grace and beauty and a joy to the eye of the beholder” (a phrase I picked up somewhere.)
For me, at least, that’s what blogging is all about – creating (or synthesizing, if you prefer) something new out of existing thought.
It got me to thinking (in case you were wondering what that grinding noise was): what if we established a small, select group of bloggers (maybe 3-6?), choose a few topics – change management, relationships, or bird watching – it doesn’t really matter as long as controversy is likely – and start blogging with the goal of deliberately sparking spirited discussions. Publicize it widely.
Speaking for myself, of course, I would have a few rules: stay away from politics (mainly because it’s being done to death already), keep the language “G-rated”, and positively NO flames. Otherwise, let the dogfights begin. Now wouldn’t that be fun!
Pretty soon others will find the discussion, start following along, and eventually join in via comments. (To help speed the engagement process, it would help if at least some of the bloggers had a large following already.) Then, as its popularity grows, our Technorati rankings go up… soon we’re in the top 100… the top 10… we take over the blogging world… overthrow governments… become kings of the world… masters of the universe – oh, sorry, was I thinking that out loud? (By the way, that’s not my goal. Really.)
Actually, it reminds me of something I used to see on PBS; a group of 4 or 5 actors portraying actual historical figures sitting a table, discussing various ideas as if they were the actual persons they played. I think one show had Attila the Hun, Abraham Lincoln, Marie Antoinette, and one other I can’t remember. Remarkably engaging discussions!
So what about it? Like the idea? Who would you pick for this “dream team” of bloggers?
No responses yet
Middle Zone Musings is a comfortable place to stop, have a cup of coffee, swap a few stories and share practical ideas for the real world. I don't ask for much, just a bit of your brain every now and then. Have a seat, take a load off, and relax...
Thanks, Tom, I’ll give you an “E” for effort on this one. (By the way, I sorta figured out the devil’s advocate angle – but thanks for contributing, it doesn’t minimize the value of it.)
Sorry to beat a dead horse (well, actually, I’m NOT sorry – it’s my blog and I’ll do what I want:-) but I think you made my point anyway, several times over.
You’re right (eek! looks like that dreaded middle ground again!) in your example above that debate didn’t WIN the argument, but you have to admit, side B would never have had a chance unless the debate happened.
OK, yesterday was a busy day and I couldn’t think of a decent reply – but here’s my last stab at this. Last, because in all truth I’ve been playing devil’s advocate (plus you wanted a debate, so I provided one.)
It’s been fun, but I don’t think I’ll ever make a lawyer.
It’s not simply that I don’t think the “true believers” will be swayed, it’s more that I don’t believe that anyone who weighs in on the debate will be swayed (I don’t think I have been, and I didn’t really have an opinion until I started arguing.)
To clear something up on the argument about scientific theories first I’d like to point you at the marvellous book “What is this thing called science?” Which shows far more clearly than I could how a new theory comes about. However the process is roughly along the lines of:
Theory A isn’t perfect
Scientists who like theory A (I’ll call them side A) make up some really dodgy rules to account for the imperfection. The mini-cycles inserted into the circular orbits of planets to account for their behaviour is a good example.
More observations are made
More problems are shown in theory A
Side A papers the cracks more.
Eventually Side B proposes a new theory (which solves all the problems for which the dodgy rules have been introduced)
Sides A and B argue (and research)
Eventually Side A will have so much evidence against them they’ll collapse (or they’ll all die of old age.)
It’s not really the debate which wins Side A over – either Side A realise that there’s a whole stack of evidence opposing them (not clever arguments) or everyone else realises Side A are wrong, and they all stop listening to Side A.
I still maintain the debating process doesn’t help there.
I can see we’re coming dangerously into a middle ground – which would actually mean I’ve lost the debate (damn!) In which we agree (to a varying extent) that the arguers won’t be disuaded, but the argument will inform the public. I can agree that if the public are intelligent enough, and the arguments are rational enough then this will happen (which really means I’ve lost the debate – darn.) but I will only agree that with the proviso that if – as often happens – the argument is made in emotive terms, and the public aren’t educated about the arguments, then you’ll more likely get more extreme opinions forming from the previously dis-interested crowd.
Think about rational politicians making arguments against racial groups, based on their own reasons – but using arguments like “they’re stealing all our jobs!”, or “they’re a bunch of criminal gypsies.” the end result is a public where some people believe those statements (which are most likely lies) and you’ve served to create tensions where tensions didn’t exist.
But I digress, that’s not what we’re talking about. I will have to concede – that intelligent debate often does lead to a better informed public and more rounded debaters. But only when the arguments are made based on reasoning – and not emotion.
Although you could argue that the opinions never really changed, but that the debate simply highlights that two opinions which sounded different were actually quite similar. But that’s a debate for another day – with that I shall bow out, and stick to putting silly links on my blog.
Tom, before proceeding I want you to know I really appreciate your input here! Thanks for taking the time to express yourself.
OK, gloves back on…
It’s obvious we have somewhat different world-views here. What I hear you saying is that debate between two opposing views is pointless because neither is likely to change their mind. Point taken. That’s probably true, IF each side clings to their beliefs with a religious fervor. For instance, how many “true believer” Republicans or Democrats are actually swayed by Presidential debates, anyway? Probably none.
Having said that, however, does not preclude the value of the debate because it’s the opportunity for someone from each side, who believes passionately in what he or she says, to present as much information as possible – to expose the issues, if you will. The value is that those of us “out here” can learn something from each side so we can (if necessary) make our own minds up.
Although neither side’s “true believers” will likely be converted to the others’ – I say, “So what?” I still believe value has been created by the exchange of ideas, and as a side benefit, it’s possible “more people now know more stuff”.
I also agree that many issues will end up in the “it depends” category. And it’s not likely that a good debate can actually be “won” in the sense that a mathematical proof can prove a theorem. But that doesn’t invalidate the worth of a good debate to air the issues so more people can gain information from it. At least, not to me.
Let’s see, what else?
“any side you care to propose will have weaknesses.” True, but what are they? How do you find out? Research, experiment, discuss, debate!
I’ll also agree with you: I bet the introduction of those new scientific theories sparked genuine dogfights! But I think your argument is a bit circular. How could they have been won by crushing evidence if people hold on to their beliefs even after being proved wrong? The fact is, intelligent debate probably contributed greatly to eventual acceptance.
Tom, don’t get me wrong here. I happen to agree with most of your points. Human beings ARE the most fascinating creations! But it’s your conclusion I don’t agree with. If debates (and debaters) were entirely objective I suspect we’d all die of boredom listening. I WANT passion in debate! That’s what makes it interesting.
This very string is a good example of what I am saying. Neither one of us is likely to come out of this convinced the other person has “won”. There’s no win or lose here. That’s not even the point. The point is that others who read it will have the chance to see BOTH sides and hopefully gain a bit from the exchange.
Perhaps I didn’t make the point about polarising opinion well – I mean it’ll drive people to the extremes of their opinions, rather than getting them to meet in the middle, shake hands and agree that we’re all thinking roughly along the same lines.
But if you think people are able to intelligently debate anything – especially in public – then you’re at least partially deluding yourself. Once people have expressed an opinion they have an emotional attachment to that opinion, and a vested interest in not being proven wrong.
Ok, so the programming language question isn’t a valid one – but the there’s a plethora of issues which fall into the “it depends” category. There are other more scientific results which have raged for years “Nature vs. Nuture” in phsycology (spelling?) is a good example – it seems to be settling down to “it depends, but it’s a bit of both”. I wouldn’t be surprised if the majority of such debates result in “it depends”.
My problem stems from something you’ve expressed quite well. “I for one would truly enjoy hearing all sides of a debate, if it’s a subject I care about.” once you start caring about a subject you lose a lot of your objectivity, and as I said before, any debate worth having will have good reasons on both sides. Furthermore any side you care to propose will have weaknesses. Newton’s theory of gravity had been disproven in Newton’s lifetime (or around that time, check out the Perihelion of Mercury). Debate didn’t win the day for Newton, nor Max Planck nor any scientific discovery – sheer crushing weight of evidence did.
Even in science – where you can apply evidence to proving and disproving theories debate still takes an incredible amount of time, and controvesial new theories will either be adopted as “cool” immediately or won’t be adopted until the weigth of evidence is utterly irrefutable. People are emotional beings, and if you’re disagreeing with someone’s idea they’ll fight you to the bitter last, often after they’ve realised they’re wrong. They’ve invested a certain amount in their ideas and they’ll take criticism personally.
But in the real world – in political, philosophical, religious or any other kind of debate, evidence isn’t nearly so clear-cut and you end up with extremely long standing debates which never reach a conclusion. Both sides can make intelligent well reasoned points, but as they weigh the values of those points against their beliefs and emotions neither side will concede the other side has won. (Think of the debates concerning punishment vs. rehabilitation, have the two sides moved together over the years? In some places they have, but in some places they are even more polarised than they were before.)
In short I believe that in order for intelligent debate to work, it would have to be entirely objective – and given that we’re all human, that ain’t happening any time soon.
So Tom, let me get this straight – you disagree with the idea of debating issues because it might polarize opinion? What’s wrong with that? How else will you have an opportunity to evaluate information you don’t currently have regarding that particular issue? Are you saying you already have all you need to know to make an informed opinion on any subject?
Your example of programming languages is not valid in this case. The question of “which programming language is best?” is highly dependent on what you want to accomplish. However, there are plenty of debates that may turn out to actually HAVE a resolution that can be resolved (to most people’s satisfaction) by debate.
Oh, I know there are always holdouts, no matter what the facts (Elvis is REALLY dead, folks!), but that’s not intelligent debate, which is what I’m proposing.
I for one would truly enjoy hearing all sides of a debate, if it’s a subject I care about.
p.s. Great quote from Max Planck, by the way. But… surely you recognize the sarcasm inherent in the statement? He successfuly debated, and won over, the scientific establishment of his day (which took quite some time though, which may account for the tone of his quote), but eventually was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1918.
Found it!
“A new scientific idea does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” -Max Planck
I disagree entirely – this kind of thing will just serve to polarise opinion one way or the other. Intelligent debate has never been a successful way of winning a point, any argument where all sides have a good point becomes unresolvable.
For witness I’d call on the fact that the “which programming language is best” debate – although pointless (discuss) – has raged ever since there was more than one language, and will continue to do so.
I can’t remember the exact quote, or even who said it – but I believe it was summed up quite well by someone when talking about debate in scientific circles. “You don’t win an argument, old opponents just die.” In many fields of science, and you’d have thought scientists would be swayed by rational argument, the “old school” never give up on their opinion, they simply fail to persuade newcomers that they’re right – causing their argument to eventually (literally) die.
I’m afraid I’ll have to disagree on this point altogether – sorry.
Good one, Bob! Especially the bit about moving up the Technorati rankings and taking over the universe. .. heck, I’d say I’m not doing too badly.
Technorati is said to index 50 million blogs and, after a little under two weeks of passionate blogging on my new domain, I’m under 400,000! Makes me wonder what the hell everyone else is doing.
As for this blogging group, I believe it’s called a network and I’m all for starting one