Bad communication hygiene

I want to be right. I certainly don’t want to think about being wrong. Maybe that’s why I’m drawn so easily into spaces that back up my rightness with one-liners and flashy graphics. But lately, those environments are losing their shine — in fact, they look downright grimy.

Let me preface by saying I’m not an expert in debate. I just see patterns, and there’s significant overlap in how “us” talks about “them” while “them” discusses “us.” Discourse has become less about learning, empathy and solutions, and more about playing in the dirt.

So, here’s my incomplete list of bad communication hygiene:

• Black and white thinking. Presenting one crowd as superior blinds its members. Everything we believe is good, everything they believe isn’t, and that’s it. This justifies denigrating people we don’t like. The worst part is, it’s fun. This leads into...

• Bully tactics. Punching down, taking things out of context, heavy sarcasm, etc. When these come out, the goal of the conversation is no longer to even have a conversation, but to produce schadenfreude.

• Equating opinion with identity. When I do this, I lose the elasticity to change my mind in the face of new perspectives and facts. When I apply it to others, I see them as walking taglines — not people.

• Misusing the debate. Good faith questions and critiques are healthy because both the one asking and the one answering can learn. But if only one person is sincere, they’re left earnestly answering the other party’s abuse, while that person leaves the conversation looking like a winner.

• Shifting the burden of proof. We’ve all heard someone say, “Well, you can’t prove I’m wrong!” This isn’t proof positive. If anything, it’s an admission that the speaker has nowhere to go and wants the listener to quit making them think.

• Emotional punches. Anger, fear and disgust demand attention and erode patience. Instead of following a train of thought, listeners end up down a rabbit hole of emotion. It’s so common that it’s often hard to recognize in the moment.

Why does this even matter? I’m convinced that no one who communicates like this is worth listening to, no matter how much I agree with their position. I’m not hearing facts, only ego, and I slowly become a person who’s okay with stepping on others just to feel right.

This isn’t to say humor isn’t allowed in discourse or that anyone should be a doormat. By all means: take no guff, leave a conversation, call out bad motives. But respect their personhood, and maybe be less sure of your own correctness. For me, that reevaluation has led to my greatest growth.

I like being right. But I’ll be healthier if I accept I’m a little wrong, and find influences who are aware of their own fallibility too. My goal is to cultivate a more reliable, respectful understanding of the world. I think that’s better than feeling right all the time.

Samantha Tucker is the assistant editor of the Daily American Republic.