Someone in a community of some kind brings up an idea, and you have a hard time processing it. Maybe it's controversial or unconventionally argued. Maybe it's based on a different mindset from yours, and you just don't see your way clear to bridging the gap.

What are some ConversationalLens''''''es that will spotlight the troublesome parts of the idea, pinpoint the outlines of the presuppositions that underlie the idea or stand in the way of its acceptance, bring out the emotional charges in such a way that it's OK to discuss those as well, and so on?

Sharp-focus lenses (loupe):

* '''Don't disagree with everything all at once.''' If someone is saying something and you find ten points of disagreement, try only to bring up a few of the most significant disagreements. Nobody likes having to defend their new (possibly not-so-concretely-formed) idea against a 20-point onslaught.
* '''Highlight points of agreement.''' If the two of you agree about anything interesting, make sure to point that out. This helps the other person feel that you are being reasonable, since you aren't arguing just for argument's sake. It also helps to focus the discussion on the interesting stuff: i.e., where you two see things differently.
* '''Drive out fear.''' As the contributor of the original idea, don't be afraid of finding it altered to something different, but still worthwhile. As a co-contributor, don't be afraid of finding yourself agreeing to something that still looks somewhat like the original idea.
* ...?

Broad-angled lenses:

* '''AssumeGoodFaith.''' Even when the opposite seems to be true, assume the other person is doing her best to bring something of value to the table.
* '''PrincipleOfAddition.''' Acknowledge the value of opposing ideas, and suggest ''adding'' different ideas as opposed to ''replacing'' one idea with an other. It is perfectly possible for a human mind to believe that two plus two equals four ''and'' that two plus two equals five; this is our Achille's Heel ''and'' our foremost strength.
* '''Explore.''' Take the idea to its extremes and see what happens. Mutate the idea and see what happens. Be sure to "float" points of agreement to the top of awareness (or to the top of the page, on a wiki) so that anything of value coming out of the dialogue is appreciated for such.
* '''Empathize.''' You may not agree with the other side, but try to understand what it is the other side believes and why. Try to imagine what underlying beliefs and experiences might lead ''you'' to think the same way.
 
Bifocal lenses ''(for cases where ideas are in competition)'':

* '''MakeTheWeakerArgumentTheStronger.''' Once this is achieved, switch sides in the debate. Done with conviction, this helps expose and question your own bias.
* When ideas are in competition and are not to be universally accepted as the "correct" or "only" idea, it is much better to have separate pages with cross-links indicating the competing idea page. To slug it out in an idea-war on a single page tends to create much more smoke, fire, noise and confusion than clear signal. It is much better to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of an idea, together with ways in which the idea can be corrected and validated by facts rather than opinions.
* Bifocal lenses are meant to clarify different ranges: as in looking either at the tree or the leaf. In this way a bifocal lens can switch between looking at the whole or a part.
----

How about the SixThinkingHats?

----
See ConversationalChaff

----
This page can be helpful in establishing a PositiveDialogue between those engaged in differences of opinion, particularly when involved in ValuingViaDescription. -- DonaldNoyes
----
CategoryCommunication