GRE Issue Topic 32

Sample 1:

Human nature is often contradictory, which is evidenced by a history fraught with conflict. It is uncommon for people to be at peace with their own mindsets, let alone with others whose world views differ vastly from their own. While discussion is a very useful tool for expanding horizons and progressing societies, it is not always the right solution to a problem – as with any rule, there are exceptions.

Take, for instance, situations where the discussion of sensitive topics degenerates into conflict. Such situations are encountered not infrequently by the average person and are often characterized by participants squabbling over their differences, with no headways made on the issue at hand. This is something that any participant in a forum discussion knows very well. It is not just adolescents that engage in this behavior over the internet, but full–grown adults as well, such as in the famous Linux versus Minix debate. This type of squabbling can often delay, if not prevent progress altogether. A prime example of this fact is the Peary – Cook dispute over the discovery of the North Pole. All attempted discussions between the two explorers degenerated into arguments that often spilled over in the public realm (newspapers) and only served to drive the two friends to enmity. To this day, even long after their deaths, the dispute continues, backed by their respective supporters.

Another potential impedance to progress is the fact that people with completely opposite views are unlikely to end up agreeing on their points of dissent. Moreover, they see any interaction with the other as damaging to themselves, a form of personal attack, because the other person offends their core values. Not to mention the fact that issues that touch upon a person’s core values incite a person’s passion, which in turn, has the propensity to move conversation away from the realm of reason. While emotional aspects should be considered during discussions when pertinent, purely emotional arguments often derail practical progress. A current example is that of a devout pro–life Christian and a freedom–of–choice atheist talking about abortion; both will see each other’s viewpoints as personal attacks against their lifestyle. Similarly, one or more parties can end up treating the conversation like an opportunity for conversion via personal attacks. In this case, the devout Christian can try to ‘shine the light’ so that the other can see the error of their ways, and repent. This type of behavior always ends up being perceived as combative, and as a result, at the end of the discussion, both parties will emerge even more fully convinced of the righteousness of their claims.

The previous examples do not take into account the fact that errors are pervasive in any form of communication. Messages are not perceived directly by their intended target – they have to pass through communication channels that can distort them (noise pollution, no visuals on the internet which means misunderstanding the tone of a statement etc.). Additional problems are created when then the messages need to be filtered through the person’s perception and understanding of the world and are integrated with their idea of who the communicator is and what they are trying to achieve. Continuing the example from above, if an atheist thinks that a Christian is trying to convert him, he is likely to interpret all statements through that filter, and disregard even arguments that in the proper context would be reasonable based on the assumption that the other person is only trying to promote their own agenda.

All in all, discussion should not be seen as a universal cure or an absolute guarantee of progress, especially in instances where it all comes down to on the spot decision making due to limited time, or cases where participants hold radically opposing points of view and are likely to never see eye to eye.

Sample 2:

It is always a good thing to have a healthy discussion wherein people have contrasting points of view. Such a discussion enables everyone participating in the discussion to address the issue from the perspective of the others. However, can you force someone else to agree to your viewpoint? On the contrary, how many times have you agreed with the viewpoint of the other person or have you ever agreed that you are wrong and that the other person is right? We as humans always try to stick to our viewpoint and rarely admit that we are wrong. Therefore, can a discussion among people with contrasting points of view proceed in the right direction? It is true that everyone will learn something new as he sees the issue from a different angle, but it would be wrong to assume that such a discussion can actually lead to progress and that this would be the best way to make progress. On the contrary, it is very rare to make progress in the right direction when the participants of a discussion do not see eye to eye with each other on the issue being discussed.

Consider the example of a committee that has been constituted to work out the modalities for the implementation of a publicity campaign. What do you expect will happen if the members of the committee have contrasting viewpoints on the method to be adopted for the publicity campaign? If the members of the committee do not agree to a common method for the launch of the publicity campaign, how can one expect the details of the campaign to be worked out? The members of the committee who are of the view that spending money on advertising in the print media is a total wastage of money will definitely oppose those who think that the print media is as important as the television media. Each member will try his best to criticize the viewpoint of the other members in a bid to defend his own viewpoint. The discussion can progress further only if all members agree on a common method and then only can the other details be worked out.

There can be no progress if the participants of the discussion stick to their viewpoints which are in stark contrast to those of the others. Such a discussion would lead to total chaos and wastage of time. The only solution lies in either forcing some of the participants to agree to the viewpoints of the others or finding a solution that both parties agree to. Isn’t this always the best method to steer a discussion in a direction that will lead to progress? We have always heard of cases wherein discussions were fruitful because the participants either agreed on an issue unanimously or found a common ground where everyone agreed.

Whenever a discussion goes out of hand, the person chairing the discussion opts for carrying out voting to arrive at the solution which is agreed to by a majority of the participants. This is done because it is certain that a discussion cannot progress in the right direction if the participants have contrasting points of view.