Dissension: Good or Bad? Can You Handle It? What Drives A Great Conversation?

I often offer a personal point of view, which might not be held by a majority of my readers. I don't do so to provoke but I recognize I am being provocative. I am also being true to myself. I believe this is a communications style that can lead to better understanding through learning. Provocation can also teach us that our ideas and thinking on any subject are not universally accepted.

However, motivating dissent can create bad feelings if done crudely, in too raw and insensitive manner. Provocation is best used when built on a foundation of respect and dignity. Let me offer some real-life examples to demonstrate the different styles.

Group 1: In Your Face

These people come at us with both guns blazing. Doing so creates large followings of lemmings, meaning listeners and readers are made up of the "church of agreement." They can be found on talk radio, 24-hour cable news and in ideological publications. Often their followers are cut from the same cloth and are very much ideologues in their own beliefs, offering much provocation but not much learning. The In your Face provocateurs offer little opportunity for quiet dissension built on respect and dignity that can lead to new learning because conversations quickly devolve into shouting matches and personal attacks. Some might argue that the recent Obama cover on this issue of The New Yorker falls into this category.

Group 2: The Whisperers

These are the folks who speak so softly and with such gentleness that we may miss their point all together. They host talk shows that often are gender specific or write for religious or family publications. Often they seem apologetic when expressing a point of view. They do influence people to think about ideas but seldom change the way we think because we aren't confident that The Whisperers know what they are talking about or whether or not they are committed to their beliefs.

Group 3: The Authentics

This is the group made up of both deep thinkers and great communicators (e.g., Tim Russert, William Buckley, JFK, Ronald Reagan). Because they speak truth to their own power as well as that of others, they compel us to listen. Even when we disagree, we want to hear more of what they have to say. They are respectful and confident in their own skin. They welcome dissenting points of view and love a good discussion, even an argument, as long as respect is part of the dissension.

Group 4: The Conversationalists

This group has been around since the beginning of time. They perhaps are best represented by the Greek philosophers of Socrates's and Aristotle's time. Today's age of conversational has made access to The Conversationalists readily available to anyone with a computer. On the blogging scene, some of my favorite Conversationalists are Seth Godin, Valeria Maltoni, Joe Jaffe, Toby Bloomberg, Cam Beck, Geoff Livingston, Stephen Denny, CK and David Armano. Their are times when each of these bloggers uses the art of provocation, some more subtly than others. Dissension is normally, but not always, expressed in gentle disagreement or as an extension to their original idea. Nevertheless, each creates dissension in his or her own way by expressing novel and creative thinking or by addressing their view on what they see as wrong thinking.

There may be other categories, but we can fit most of us into one of those four groups. Groups 1 and 3 are never fearful of dissension and likely would have large blogging followers. However, group 1 aggravates and angers dissenters and aren't much fun for those readers who disagree. Group 3 represents the philosopher teachers and gather around them learners. Group 2, The Whisperers, are popular because they never challenge others. But do they make great conversation starters? For those who cannot handle dissension, perhaps they do.

Finally, with the growth of Social Media and Social Networking, Group 4 is fast becoming more prominent. The best of this group uses every style to create conversation, including satire, straight talk, simple and concise expression (some better at this than others), irony, pedagogy and provocation. They look at big ideas and ask you to do the same. They discuss ways to make small ideas big ones and seek your opinions. And they speak out on what they see as wrongs to right. At the end of the day, they want us to think about the future of things and where we are headed.

Which category of writer, podcaster, social networker, conversationalist, politician, commenter, reader or change agent do you fall into? Do you believe provocation is an acceptable conversation starter? Why or why not? Can dissension lead to better products and services and enhanced marketing and sales by helping us understand our customers better (by making us aware of who the consumers are who don't agree we make their lives better, in other words dissenters)? Can dissension and disagreement lead to a better society, a better life and better politics? Does provocation keep conversation alive and well or does it serve only to alienate?