[This is the fourth in a series of posts labeled "You talkin' to me?" dealing with interpersonal communication. All the posts in this series, except for the first, will be found at the current URL for this blog, all identically labeled. Only the first post in this series is archived at the original URL for this blog, but also identically labeled.]
Having received some feedback on my first post in this series, I realized that I had unnecessarily restricted my mathematical analysis for debating. The analogy with unit vectors supports a continuum of opposing objectives delimited by the two extremes (orthogonal and parallel) I discussed initially.
Recall that if the debaters' objectives are parallel, either both victory or both resolution, then the cross product and dot (or inner) product of their representative unit vectors indicate a win-win debate is in the offing, because the cross product vanishes (i.e., objectives are harmonious) and, correspondingly, the dot product is unity (i.e., maximum efficiency for the debate). Orthogonality of objectives, however, has vanishing harmony as well as vanishing efficiency. But, the potential debate opponents could very well have non-monolithic objectives.
Suppose that you have been invited to debate a subject that is dear to your heart by a Mr. Shithead. Mr. Shithead's glove has appeared in your inbox, and rumor has it that his primary objective is to exchange his glove for your goat. Since the proposed subject of debate is one you wish to shield from an attack designed to acquire said goat, you are disinclined to retrieve said glove. There is, however, extenuating circumstance that warrants reconsideration. You notice that the confluence of Mr. Shithead's objective and his less than stellar debating skills present an opportunity to not only keep his glove, but win his own goat as well. Now your unit vectors are aligned at an acute angle, greater than 0 degrees (parallelism) but less than 90 degrees (orthogonality).
In the above described situation, one of an infinite number comprising the continuum lying between the monolithic extrema, the decision whether to engage your potential opponent becomes less clear cut. It comes down to the standard risk/reward analysis: is winning Shithead's goat worth risking your own? I guess it boils down to the angle. If it feels like the acute angle is well within the 45 degrees midpoint of the possibilities continuum, my inclination would be, "F*ck 'im if he can't take a joke."
[Thanx, Norm]
No comments:
Post a Comment