In Search of Objectivity: Objecting to Unfair Conversion

In my ongoing quest to understand the true purpose of conversation—which officially began in 1988, when I was 28—I’ve arrived at a paradoxical insight: to become more objective, I should object when someone tries to convert me rather than converge with me.

I think it’s so ironic that many of us, when faced with dogmatic delivery, choose to be obsequious—nodding along without true agreement. Later, we find ourselves indirectly complaining about these attempts at conversion instead of addressing the issue directly with them and in real-time.

Example of Obsequious Acquiescence in a Conversation
Imagine a team meeting where Aaliyah is presenting her proposal for a new project. She delivers her ideas in a forceful and dogmatic manner, leaving little room for input. Malik, who has reservations about the feasibility of the proposal, finds himself nodding along and saying, “Yes, that makes sense,” despite his doubts.
Aaliyah continues with her persuasive rhetoric, not noticing Malik’s lack of genuine enthusiasm. Malik chooses to be agreeable to avoid potential conflict, suppressing his own insights and concerns. Later, he expresses his frustrations to a colleague, complaining about Aaliyah‘s unwillingness to consider alternative viewpoints.
In this scenario, Malik is being obsequious by falsely agreeing and not objecting to the method and forceful tone of Aaliyah‘s delivery. Instead of addressing his concerns directly and in real-time, he withholds his perspective. By not objecting to her dogmatic approach, he misses the opportunity to engage in a more objective and collaborative conversation, which could have led to a better outcome for the project.

By not objecting to the method or context of someone’s conversation—rather than the content—, teams run the risk of passively accepting flawed proposals rather than actively engaging in constructive dialogue. This objection isn’t about confrontation but about highlighting that the way the discussion is unfolding isn’t conducive to mutual understanding. It’s a crucial distinction that allows us to identify and effectively address unfair, dogmatic approaches.

These thoughts, I believe represent an imperative differentiation in how we handle conversations. Recognizing the difference between disagreeing with someone’s ideas and objecting to how they’re presented is empowering. It enables us to create more meaningful dialogues and move away from one-sided attempts at persuasion toward genuine convergence of ideas and perspectives.

After investing over 1.5 million words in journaling and blogging, I’ve finally reached this objective in my understanding of how to be more objective (it was hidden in the word all along). By choosing to object thoughtfully to the methods or context others use when they aim to convert us, we open the door to more authentic and collaborative conversations.

I hope this realization resonates with others seeking to enhance the quality of their interactions, which is the foundation SpatzAI is built upon. ie. The desire to converge or converse with each other during difficult conversations rather than trying to convert them, and a way to address the situation when we feel that we are being converted, unfairly.