OTIS: A mental-framework for conversations and possibly for debates and criticism
How I see conversations now and navigate through them without having the need to rush them.
A few weeks ago, my mother-in-law started talking about the gospel of Judas. I had already been reading on church history for almost a year. She was very passionate about the possibility that the said gospel was true and that it should have been in the Bible if the church hadn't kept it a secret.
I responded that even if it did make it in the Bible, it would contradict a lot of other documents. It would just make it more challenging to cross-reference the verses and its messages. Her last response was to brush me off and refer me to her husband, who she claims to have more enthusiasm on the topic.
After that exchange, something just clicked.
In my recent conversations, I noticed four parameters in the dialogue: Origin of thought, Thesis, Insight(s), and Stability of opinion. Not in that particular order.
Here's a break of each parameter with questions to lead to that category.
Origin
Where is the idea (speaker) coming from?
It's rare for people to make things up on the spot. I believe that takes some talent (or time).
Some ideas are a form of public opinion. Passed down from person to person. Generation to generation. Some have similar discussions even from centuries ago.
Some, we hear for the first time. But that doesn't mean that it's new.
In conversations, it's unlikely that people have references to cite.
When I ask the question mentioned earlier, it sets the dialogue with a sense of "charity." Looking at it from the person's POV.
Knowing where someone (the idea) is coming from encourages me to listen to understand, rather than to listen to respond immediately.
Thesis
What's the main message of the idea?
If not explicitly expressed, it becomes a task to read between the lines. But it's simply a statement. More than the words, listen to the voice, the tone, and body language.
It helps build the argument. Although, it doesn't necessarily have to be a debate. It's just a conversation. No need to make a big deal out of it.
It just needs to be a simple exchange of ideas.
If one is struggling to make a point. You can make the point yourself, and ask to clarify: "... Correct me if I'm wrong, did you mean it that way?"
Insight
What do I actually think of it? Is it argumentative? Do I agree/disagree? Do I find it realistic? Does it trigger a manageable emotional response?
This is the subjective part of the conversation. Just as you've collected the necessary details to build an insight or opinion. Otherwise, you keep asking questions.
Jordan Peterson calls this the "prayerful pause," wherein you try to choose the words appropriate for the discussion while trying not to rush the conversation.
An insight is your response to the idea and its origins.
Stability of what I already know
How does this affect what I already know—my practices, principles, opinions, and perspective? Do I have to make necessary changes? What's common ground here?
One can entertain an idea without it affecting one's way of living. People are practical. They want to keep ideas that are useful to them; it doesn't matter if it's true. It just needs to make sense.
If the idea doesn't make sense, there is no need for it to be useful. And you can mentally tag the argument or your insights as entertainment.