Excerpt from Conversations for tiny minds

2. The castration of conversation

The total demise of conversation dates back to the 1980s, in which polarities and other circus routines were used to prove intellectual superiority. This was a pecking order mechanism which real chickens for some reason didn’t evolve.

The technique was simple:

Method A

1. Statement
2. Response as an assertion, requiring denial or clarification
3. Original speaker gets tangled in own statement
4. Proof of superiority for respondent

Pretty simple, and utterly pointless. A great way of wasting time, too.

Method B

1. Assertion
2. Response in negative
3. Browbeating exercise
4. At best, disagreement, at worst, a sheeplike acceptance of assertion.

That’s conversation? It’s more like Peer Mechanics For Apes.

Method C

1. Talk across speaker, defusing content
2. Use selective listening to dilute content into minor points
3. Create issues about minor points
4. Conversation neutered

So a few thousand years of “civilization” has done wonders for the ability to actually process information in any form. Imagine Socrates trying to get a word in, in these environments. It’d be impossible.

The evolved response to these Stone Age verbal tactics was equally simple:

1. Cite reference to source before opening mouth on any subject to avoid Method A process and embarrassment
2. Hide behind reference and don’t express any new ideas
3. General agreement

From conversation to parroting information, in 3 steps. It’s not even information, let alone a productive exchange of views.

In effect, the modern environment for conversation is basically hostile and self-serving. The peer mechanics environment can reduce any simple statement like “Your house is on fire” to an argument about interpretations based on peer group status.

The likely development of a conversation like that is quite interesting:

“Your house is on fire”

“Are you saying I don’t know what’s going on in my own home?”

“No, I’m saying there’s smoke and flames and the roof has fallen in.”

“Mind your own business. You don’t have any right to tell me how to run my life.”

“The fire brigade is here.”

“Well, I didn’t call them. How dare these civil servants get paid to interfere in people’s lives. I can manage my own affairs”

“The police have arrested an arsonist.”

“After the event, as usual. This is what I pay taxes for?”

This works in politics, economics and civil administration with a sort of ruthlessly obsessive stupidity. Any implication of an issue which reflects on the recipient of information turns into a self-positioning exercise, purely for the benefit of that person.

As you can see, the practical logic isn’t too strong, either. Should the arsonist have been arrested before starting the fire?

The book is available on Lulu.com.