There seems to be a point where even the most open-minded person begins refusing to consider new possibilities, mimicking a rising bureaucrat in a totalitarian regime. I was trying to understand this unexpected observation - by definition, after all, an open-minded person is willing to consider new possibilities - and over time I worked out the crucial role of fact in the matter of dissent. Essentially, I think whenever some idea achieves a level of certainty that it can be stated as fact, then it means there is little remaining possibility of dissent against the idea.
This recently worked its way to the top of my mind over a few months of routine conversations with my new manager. My initial read on him was that he possessed an open mind, or at least had some qualities consistent with an open-minded person. This was supported by our work together on a hiring round, where he navigated new information throughout the process of helping me reach a decision on a candidate. But in the ensuing months the evidence accumulated in the other direction. At one point I was ready to conclude that he just didn't handle dissent very well, which makes us a perfect match - dissent is my standard mode of operation. It's a good thing I didn't completely overhaul my style at that point since I eventually realized I was wrong regarding his ability to handle dissent. I began to notice a certain pattern in our interactions - I would raise some point challenging the status quo, then he would either extend or shut down the conversation. What I understood after many such interactions was that the difference in his two reactions was rooted in whether he saw the initial situation as based on fact or opinion. My suggestions on matters related to process improvement or headcount changes, for example, went nowhere - he saw those as areas where we had an established way of doing things. But my comments on situations such as interpersonal dynamics always gained a foothold because he saw interaction among colleagues as an area appropriate for a fluid interpretation.
When I look back on other areas of my life, I can see a similar pattern in the way others have reacted to my dissent. If I dissented against an idea regarded as opinion, then the recipient was much more open to further discussion than they were had I dissented against an idea regarded as fact. To put it another way, it seems that opinions are easier to challenge because opinions could be right, whereas challenging facts is tougher because facts are right. Knowing whether someone else sees a situation as built on fact or opinion therefore is a critical part of the dissent process. My approach these days is first determining whether the other party's information on a topic is coming from the equivalent of the news or the editorials, then altering my approach as necessary. If the latter, then life is easy - I just have to express myself. In the case of the former, I actually have to step back and challenge the conviction about the facts, which forces me to keep my opinion out of sight during the initial skirmish.
Of course, I know that what I see in others is often just a reflection of myself. This is probably why I'm so convinced about this point - I know from experience that when others challenge what I see as a fact, then I'm unlikely to consider the new possibility. My tolerance for dissent seems to come down to how much ambiguity I feel can exist within the status quo, with the degree of ambiguity correlating to my openness for dissent. If I feel that something is a fact about the world, then hearing a new perspective comes off to me as a direct challenge and it leads to a negative reaction - either defensiveness or shutting down, by which I mean I refuse to take in the new information. But these things never happen when the point is made about an idea I regard as an opinion, where I have no difficulty considering a new angle or contemplating the possibility that I might benefit from revising my previous thinking.
The major consequence of this pattern is in the role played by the person who hears the initial dissent. This person plays a potentially crucial part in the lifecycle of a dissenting idea. Much like how an editor helps polish a piece of writing, the first person to hear the dissent has the power reshape the idea into a more palatable form. But if this first person sees the situation as one built on facts rather than opinions, then there is a strong possibility that the dissent will be rendered dead upon arrival, eliminating all possibility for iteration or feedback. The reality here is a discouraging one for us amateur dissenters - the likelihood our dissenting ideas being entertained is a function of how much the initial audience accepted the status quo prior to our dissent. Despite my quip earlier that I try my best to determine if the other is informed by "the news or the editorials", in practice there are certain situations where it will be impossible to make such a determination. The fact is that no matter how much someone claims to value good ideas based on strong thinking, it seems that no thinking is strong enough to sustain an intellectual challenge against someone who sees the situation as already settled by fact.
If the world is less interested in thinking than the thinkers would have us think, what is left to do? The solution that works for me bears some resemblance to an earlier point. I suggested earlier that the difference of fact and opinion is how fact is considered right whereas opinion could be right. There is a similar sort of difference that can help the dissenter's mentality - rather than worry about convincing others that you are right, focus instead on making them consider the possibility of having been wrong. I think this is the only way for a dissenter to productively initiate a conversation where the other party is firmly rooted in the comfort of the status quo. The silly analogy here is a hypothetical scenario where I determine the sky is purple. I suspect in my younger days I would have tried to convince others that the sky was purple, but now I see that the wiser approach is to get others to entertain the possibility that they might be wrong about the sky being blue. I think of this as like establishing the prerequisite condition - you can't convince anybody until they are open to being convinced.
