A Facebook Exchange

Below is a Facebook exchange I started with an opinion followed by an open-ended question.  The first statement is mine.  Analysis of interaction to follow later this week: 

 

The worth of an opinion I think can only be measured by the quality of exchange it generates with others... what do you think of that?

 

Jack:  That sounds way too deep to ponder for a Sunday night. Does that answer your question?

Terrance:  i think 'quality of exchange' is unique to the individual. some would avoid provocative or polarizing or challenging or opposing views because they do not generate warm fuzzy moments. others rush into contentious debates unarmed like a moth to the flame because they like a fight. any idea that springs from one mind, heart, or experience must begin as unpopular. if by quality you mean generating a civil exchange then that is best conducted in camps of like-minded folk and nothing much is gained. if you mean intellectually challenging exchanges, then there's bound to be some occasional bumps and scrapes. in short, quality is in the eye of the beer-holder, like beauty.

 

Scott:  My idea of a quality exchange is the exploration of similarities and differences, resulting in integration.

 

Yuric: U, I mean both of you, need to visit me in Vietnam....

 

Randy:  But most folk's objective is to slam opposing thought as stupid, regardless of validity. i.e., we value strength more than knowledge which rarely gets us anywhere...

 

Scott:  Randy, that's why I think the response of others is important to a stated opinion. Opinion is neutral information. In and of itself, an opinion neither drives nor restrains a conversation. It's the response to an opinion that 'colors the canvas'.

 

Scott- Yes, we need to come to Vietnam...keep bugging us!!

 

Scott:  Jack- it's now Tuesday night. Anything to offer?

 

Yuric:  But also learning from each other. I realize now that everyone has something to offer, and I am constant surprise when I approach a topic with humility, and respect i often walk away more enlighten.

 

Scott:  Yuric - I agree! I like 'approach a topic with humility'. Great!

 

Terrance:  when i read 'integration,' i thought, what if you're right and assimilation leaves you further from the truth...? but then again, you are talking about opinions, not necessarily a topic that can be empirically described.

 

Jack:  Scott, what did you start? (It's now Wednesday morning). Actually, I'm quite impressed that no one's called anyone an a--hole - yet, that is. . .

 

Terrance:  nazi!

 

Jack:  @Scott- You probably already know this, but the Olean/Dal Tile closed on last Wednesday. Operation moved to Gettysburg. Not a good thing for Olean. . .

 

Scott:  Jack - apologies; no intent to offend; thanks for the input

 

Scott:  Terry- the differentiation of 'fact' and 'opion' is key - nice catch!

 

Scott:  An interesting thread from the above interaction is the idea that people bring some sort of intrinsic motivation to the table when addressing an opinion - flight from the situation ("some would avoid provocative or polarizing or challenging"; "camps of like-minded folk and nothing much is gained") or fight ("others rush into contentious debates"; "most folk's objective is to slam opposing thought"). To really listen to an opinion and respond in a way other than flight or fight - there's some very hard work indeed!