Having been inspired by the comments here, I’m now thinking that there are two communication dimensions at play here within the Cultures. The correlation between these dimensions and the Cultures is incomplete which has been causing confusion.
1) The adversarial-collaborative dimension. Adversarial communication is each side attacking the other’s views while defending their own. Collaborative communication is openness and curiosity to each other’s ideas. As Ben Pace describes it:
I’ll say a thing, and you’ll add to it. Lots of ‘yes-and’. If you disagree, then we’ll step back a bit, and continue building where we can both see the truth. If I disagree, I won’t attack your idea, but I’ll simply notice I’m confused about a piece of the structure we’re building, and ask you to add something else instead, or wonder why you’d want to build it that way.
2) The “emotional concern and effort” dimension. Communication can be conducted with little attention or effort placed on ensuring the emotional comfort of the participants, often resulting in a directness or bluntness (because it’s assumed people are fine and don’t need things softened). Alternatively, communication can be conducted with each participant putting in effort to ensure the other feels okay (feels validated/respected/safe/etc.) At this end of the spectrum, words, tone, and expression are carefully selected as overall a model of the other is used to ensure the other is taken care of.
It was easy for me to notice “adversarial, low effort towards emotional comfort” as one cluster of communication behaviors and “collaborative, high concern” as another. Those two clusters are what I identified as Combat Culture and Nurture Culture.
Commenters here, including at least Raemon, Said, and Ben Pace, have rightly made comments to the effect that you can have communication where participants are being direct, blunt, and not proactively concerned for the feelings of the other while nonetheless still being open, being curious, and working collaboratively to find the truth with a spirit of, “being on the same team”. This maybe falls under Combat Culture too, but it’s a less central example.
On the other side, I think it’s entirely possible to be acting combatively, i.e. with an external appearance of aggression and hostility, while nonetheless being very attentive to the feelings and experience of the other. Imagine two fencers sparring in the practice ring: during a bout, each is attacking and trying to win, however, they’re also taking create care as to not actually injure the other. They would stop the moment they suspected they had and switch to an overtly nurturing mode.
A 2x2 grid?
One could create a 2x2 grid with the two dimensions described in this comment. Combat and Nurture cultures most directly fit in two of the quadrants, but I think the other two quadrants are populated by many instances of real-world communication. In fact, these other two quadrants might contain some very healthy communication.
I think this is 2-dimension schema is pretty good. The original dichotomy bothered me a bit (like it was overwriting important detail) but this one doesn’t.
One more correlated but distinct dimension I’d propose is whether the participants are trying to maximize (and therefore learn a lot) or minimize (and therefore avoid conflict) the scope of the argument.
US courts tend to take an (adversarial, low emotional concern, minimize) point of view, while scientific experiments are supposed to maximize the implications of disagreement.
I’d propose is whether the participants are trying to maximize (and therefore learn a lot) or minimize (and therefore avoid conflict) the scope of the argument.
Interesting, though I’m not sure I fully understand your meaning. Do you mind elaborating your examples a touch?
American judges like to decide cases in ways that clarify undetermined areas of law as little as possible. This is oriented towards preserving the stability of the system. If a case can be decided on a technicality that allows a court to avoid opining on some broader issue, the court will often take that way out. Consider the US Supreme Court’s decision on the gay wedding cake—the court put off a decision on the core issue by instead finding a narrower procedural reason to doubt the integrity of the decisionmaking body that sanctioned the baker. Both sides in a case have an incentive to avoid asking courts to overturn precedents, since that reduces their chance of victory.
Plea bargains are another example where the thing the court is mainly trying to do is resolve conflicting interests with minimal work, not learn what happened.
In general, if you see the interesting thing about arguments as the social conflict, finding creative ways to avoid the need for the argument helps you defuse fights faster and more reliably, at the expense of learning.
By contrast, in science, the best experiments and ones scientists are rewarded for seeking out are ones that overturn existing models with high confidence. Surprising and new results are promoted rather than suppressed.
This is of course a bit of a stereotyped picture. Actual scientific fields resemble this to varying degrees, and of course there’s also non-disagreement-oriented data-gathering and initial model formation. But the ideal of falsification does matter. Activist lawyers will sometimes deliberately try to force a court to decide a large issue instead of a small one. And on the other hand, actual scientific research also includes non-disagreement-oriented data-gathering and initial model formation. But the ideal of falsification does matter in science and affects the discourse.
That is such a respectable social norm, to try and make as conservative a statement about norms as possible whenever you’re given the opportunity (as opposed to many people’s natural instincts which is to try to paint a big picture that seems important and true to them).
Could you clarify your references a bit? None of my guesses as to the connection between my comment and your reply are such a good fit as to make me confident that I’ve understood what you’re saying.
Two dimensions independent of the two cultures
Having been inspired by the comments here, I’m now thinking that there are two communication dimensions at play here within the Cultures. The correlation between these dimensions and the Cultures is incomplete which has been causing confusion.
1) The adversarial-collaborative dimension. Adversarial communication is each side attacking the other’s views while defending their own. Collaborative communication is openness and curiosity to each other’s ideas. As Ben Pace describes it:
2) The “emotional concern and effort” dimension. Communication can be conducted with little attention or effort placed on ensuring the emotional comfort of the participants, often resulting in a directness or bluntness (because it’s assumed people are fine and don’t need things softened). Alternatively, communication can be conducted with each participant putting in effort to ensure the other feels okay (feels validated/respected/safe/etc.) At this end of the spectrum, words, tone, and expression are carefully selected as overall a model of the other is used to ensure the other is taken care of.
My possible bucket error
It was easy for me to notice “adversarial, low effort towards emotional comfort” as one cluster of communication behaviors and “collaborative, high concern” as another. Those two clusters are what I identified as Combat Culture and Nurture Culture.
Commenters here, including at least Raemon, Said, and Ben Pace, have rightly made comments to the effect that you can have communication where participants are being direct, blunt, and not proactively concerned for the feelings of the other while nonetheless still being open, being curious, and working collaboratively to find the truth with a spirit of, “being on the same team”. This maybe falls under Combat Culture too, but it’s a less central example.
On the other side, I think it’s entirely possible to be acting combatively, i.e. with an external appearance of aggression and hostility, while nonetheless being very attentive to the feelings and experience of the other. Imagine two fencers sparring in the practice ring: during a bout, each is attacking and trying to win, however, they’re also taking create care as to not actually injure the other. They would stop the moment they suspected they had and switch to an overtly nurturing mode.
A 2x2 grid?
One could create a 2x2 grid with the two dimensions described in this comment. Combat and Nurture cultures most directly fit in two of the quadrants, but I think the other two quadrants are populated by many instances of real-world communication. In fact, these other two quadrants might contain some very healthy communication.
I think this is 2-dimension schema is pretty good. The original dichotomy bothered me a bit (like it was overwriting important detail) but this one doesn’t.
One more correlated but distinct dimension I’d propose is whether the participants are trying to maximize (and therefore learn a lot) or minimize (and therefore avoid conflict) the scope of the argument.
US courts tend to take an (adversarial, low emotional concern, minimize) point of view, while scientific experiments are supposed to maximize the implications of disagreement.
Interesting, though I’m not sure I fully understand your meaning. Do you mind elaborating your examples a touch?
American judges like to decide cases in ways that clarify undetermined areas of law as little as possible. This is oriented towards preserving the stability of the system. If a case can be decided on a technicality that allows a court to avoid opining on some broader issue, the court will often take that way out. Consider the US Supreme Court’s decision on the gay wedding cake—the court put off a decision on the core issue by instead finding a narrower procedural reason to doubt the integrity of the decisionmaking body that sanctioned the baker. Both sides in a case have an incentive to avoid asking courts to overturn precedents, since that reduces their chance of victory.
Plea bargains are another example where the thing the court is mainly trying to do is resolve conflicting interests with minimal work, not learn what happened.
In general, if you see the interesting thing about arguments as the social conflict, finding creative ways to avoid the need for the argument helps you defuse fights faster and more reliably, at the expense of learning.
By contrast, in science, the best experiments and ones scientists are rewarded for seeking out are ones that overturn existing models with high confidence. Surprising and new results are promoted rather than suppressed.
This is of course a bit of a stereotyped picture. Actual scientific fields resemble this to varying degrees, and of course there’s also non-disagreement-oriented data-gathering and initial model formation. But the ideal of falsification does matter. Activist lawyers will sometimes deliberately try to force a court to decide a large issue instead of a small one. And on the other hand, actual scientific research also includes non-disagreement-oriented data-gathering and initial model formation. But the ideal of falsification does matter in science and affects the discourse.
That is such a respectable social norm, to try and make as conservative a statement about norms as possible whenever you’re given the opportunity (as opposed to many people’s natural instincts which is to try to paint a big picture that seems important and true to them).
Could you clarify your references a bit? None of my guesses as to the connection between my comment and your reply are such a good fit as to make me confident that I’ve understood what you’re saying.
Thanks, that was clarifying and helpful.