The Debating Society Principle.

As a qualitative researcher, it’s essential that I be skilled in gathering and understanding all points of view on a research topic.To put this in context, I was a member of the debating club in high school. Despite not being a very good debater – no killer instinct, they told me – the experience was a formative one. The club had three rules:
  1. All arguments must be grounded in verifiable facts – no making stuff up
  2. No personal attacks
  3. Whatever side of the issue you’re assigned, you must debate to win – regardless of your own opinion on the topic
I’ve never forgotten that third rule. We debated a lot of fraught issues: welfare, school prayer and creationism, to name a few. The experience of arguing an opinion that I didn’t hold was uncomfortable, but also exhilarating.
I’ve come to understand that if you can’t argue every side of an issue – regardless of where you personally stand – you don’t really understand the issue. The philosopher John Stuart Mill put it well:
“He who knows only his side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, but if he is unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.”
I continue to follow this principle. I feel a responsibility to be able to state coherently the arguments of people who disagree with me.
I’ve written in the past that – while we must respect others and their right to their opinion – we don’t have to respect opinions themselves. Here’s a build on that; you can respect an opinion without agreeing with it. But to do that you must understand it. Furthermore, if you aren’t willing to try to understand a conflicting opinion, how much respect do you have for the people who hold it?
Being able to argue the other side of an issue takes resolve – maybe even courage. Looking for information that contradicts your worldview and then constructing an argument in conflict with your own opinion can be nerve-racking. There’s a reason we have the term ‘cognitive dissonance.’ However, it is essential to respectful discourse.
So, pick a controversial, emotionally-loaded topic about which you feel strongly: voting rights, abortion, religious freedom, eating meat, whatever, and ask yourself this: if you were a member of my high school debating club, could you convincingly argue the other side? If not, what does that say about your command of the issue? And what might you do about that?

Outrage In The Face Of The Outrageous.

Conversation in focus groups often comes around to current events, regardless of the topic at hand. Occasionally I want it to do that, mostly I don’t, but it usually happens anyway. And, when people are discussing the news of the day, you’re almost definitely going to find anger, and you’re probably also going to encounter outrage. That just seems to be the way of the world these days. To live in our current social and political environment is to immerse yourself in outrage.
But, as a qualitative researcher, if I can’t deal with outrage in research participants, I won’t be able to have productive conversations or obtain reliable information.
Before we go any further, some definitions:
Anger is simply a strong feeling of annoyance or displeasure.
Outrage is what happens when anger gets out of control, particularly when combined with feelings of stress, fear, isolation, and helplessness, often exacerbated by poor problem-solving skills.
Anger is a normal, potentially productive human emotion – it spurs us to do things that need doing. Outrage can be toxic and destructive. It prevents civil discourse, prompts bad decisions and irrational behavior, walls you off from compassion, and can lead you to dehumanize the people you see as the source of your outrage.
But, the dirty little secret is that outrage is also highly engaging. It provides emotional release; physiologically, it triggers your body’s fight-or-flight response, causing the secretion of numerous powerful hormones, most notably adrenaline and cortisol. So outrage is exciting – maybe even fun.
The political essayist and cartoonist, Tim Kreider, has described outrage as something that feels good, but that “devours us from the inside out.” He points out that, “it’s even more insidious than most vices, because we don’t consciously acknowledge that it’s a pleasure.” He’s right about it being a vice – it’s number five on the Catholic list of Seven Deadly Sins.
In fact, you could argue that outrage is addictive. This depends on how you define addiction, but it’s no secret that there’s a close relationship between anger and addictive behaviors. That’s why so many addiction recovery programs stress the development of anger-management skills.
Your newsletter continues here …
Outrage is also seductive. Not just due to that hormone-fueled emotional response, but also because it feels productive. Outrage is so energy intensive that it can give the sense that you’re accomplishing something – the illusion that you’re powerful and in control. This allows you to avoid such pesky responsibilities as productive action and empathy.
Outrage is a challenge, and not just if you’re a qualitative researcher. Actually, it presents two challenges: understanding it and managing it. I’m not going to get into the question of managing your own anger and outrage – there’s lots of literature out there on that already. But understanding it in others is key to civil and productive conversations. And, if you’re a qualitative researcher, you need to do more than understand outrage, you need tools to manage it.
As a researcher, when I encounter outrage, I’ve learned to respond with questions. Specifically, questions that separate outrage into its individual components: annoyance, displeasure, fear, stress, helplessness, isolation and so forth. Some good questions for understanding outrage – in no particular order:
  • “Why do you think people get so angry about this?”
  • “How do your feelings about this relate to your sense of right and wrong?”
  • “How does this issue make you feel?”
  • “How have you come to care about this so deeply?”
  • “What, specifically, is annoying to you about this topic?”
  • “Is there anything you find scary about this?“
  • “What do you think is at stake here?”
  • “What do you think you, personally, can do about this?”
  • “Do you feel in control here?”
  • “Do you feel helpless?“
  • “Do you feel like you’re the only person who sees this issue clearly?”
These questions can serve you well in any situation in which you encounter outrage. And don’t think that they’re only questions for others – you can ask yourself the same questions when you feel outrage. You never know, you might actually learn something.

You, I Respect. Your Opinion, Maybe Not.

Whenever I start a focus group, I point out that the participants don’t have to agree on everything. “We’re not the Continental Congress ratifying the Declaration of Independence in 1776there’s no need for unanimity,” I’ll say. “We can disagree and still get along.” I’ll often go on to point out that if they argue with each other for the entirety of the group, that’s fine with me, as long as they keep it friendly.
A key principle in qualitative research is this:  you’re more likely to learn interesting, surprising stuff when people disagree than when everybody’s on the same page. As George Patton said, “if everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.”
This is important wisdom for all aspects of our lives. How boring things would be if everybody we encountered shared all our opinions. However, interacting with people can be challenging when they have opinions that are diametrically opposed to yours.
Frequently, I hear it said that we must respect all opinions. I disagree. We must respect people, and we absolutely must respect their right to their opinions, but we most certainly do not have to respect the opinions themselves.
One factor that makes this difficult is the tendency to confuse opinions with people. So, here’s a fundamental principle: you are more than just your opinions. People are defined by their actions – the things they actually do – not the thoughts in their heads. All people have a fundamental right to be treated with respect. But ideas and opinions aren’t people, and so they don’t have that essential entitlement. They must earn respect.
I have friends who differ profoundly with me on important issues. These are good, honest people whom I am fortunate to call friends. But maintaining that friendship in the face of such disagreement requires a crucial social skill: the ability to agree to disagree. This can be harder than it sounds, particularly in the case of emotionally charged beliefs – such as religious ones  – or those that are linked to a moral principle. The key lies in separating the opinion from the person. Respect for you doesn’t require respect for your opinions, and disrespect for your opinion doesn’t imply disrespect toward you.
Your newsletter continues here…
Disagreeing respectfully – even lovingly – is tricky. Here are a few things that can make it a bit easier:
  1. Before you decide what think about an opinion, determine what kind of opinion it is. Opinions can be divided into two categories:
Aesthetic judgements – these are entirely subjective beliefs. E.g., ‘my dog is really cute.’ Beauty being in the eye of the beholder, it really doesn’t matter if others respect this opinion or not.
Truth claims – these are representations of fact, such as, ‘George Washington had wooden teeth’. As Aristotle pointed out, something is either true or it isn’t. If an opinion is a truth claim, and the facts support it, then it’s worthy of respect.
One thing that can muddy the waters: aesthetic judgments sometimes get stated as truth claims, and truth claims sometimes get stated as aesthetic judgments. And things get even more confusing if there’s a truth claim on one side of the conversation and an aesthetic judgment on the other. So be careful.
  1. Express disrespect for an opinion in a way that clearly shows respect for the person who holds it. Rather than saying something like “you’re an idiot for thinking that” or “that makes no sense,” ask questions such as …“what’s the basis for your point of view?” Or, Tell me about how you came to hold this opinion and the journey that led you to it.” This gives you an opportunity to share your own journey.
  2. Remember that opinions—even your own— must be subject to examination. Nobody should expect their opinions to be accepted without question. It is never OK to say that an opinion is ‘off the table’ for scrutiny. If opinions can’t be challenged, then there’s no mechanism for preventing the acceptance of bad information or the rejection of valid information. If you’ve read my previous post you’ll know why this is important.
The right to hold whatever opinion you like – no matter how outrageous  – is fundamental to a democratic society, but it presents challenges to civil discourse. A few key social skills can help smooth the waters.

What’s Worse – A Bad Answer Or No Answer?

I was conducting focus groups with doctors, and without giving too much away, at one point we were talking about the effects of certain nutrients on a chronic disease. Two participants got into a heated disagreement about what is known about this topic. Here’s a somewhat edited version of their exchange:
Doctor 1: The data we have says …“blah, blah, blah.”
Doctor 2: Yes, but that data is from retrospective, observational studies and is of very poor quality, so you can’t draw conclusions from it.
Doctor 1: Retrospective data is 90% of what we have. If we throw that out, we’re left with almost nothing.
Doctor 2: If that’s the case, we should be honest about what we actually know. If we don’t know much for sure, patients should realize that.
Doctor 1: That’s not realistic. Patients and doctors need definitive answers.
Doctor 2: I’d rather tell a patient I don’t know then make a recommendation based on nothing.
What these doctors were really arguing about was this – what’s worse, a bad answer or no answer?
When no answers are available, bad answers are seductive. Not having an answer is uncomfortable. When I worked in CPG marketing, it was genuinely unacceptable. Admitting not having an answer to a question about your brand could damage how you were perceived by management. As a result, I saw some disastrous decisions regarding new product launches and brand communication made based on bad answers.
When you acknowledge not knowing, you give yourself a gift: the opportunity to keep learning. When you settle for a bad answer, you’re cheating yourself of the opportunity to discover new knowledge. That’s one reason qualitative researchers ask open-ended questions. Closed ended questions are built around assumed knowledge – things we believe we know; open ends assume little or nothing, which requires admitting you don’t know.
So, to give ourselves the opportunity to discover new insights, we need to get comfortable with being uncomfortable. We must be willing to say we don’t know yet. That word – ‘yet’ – is important. It communicates that the process of inquiry is ongoing, and that acknowledging not knowing now eventually leads to better understanding.
This principle goes beyond market research. I wish public officials would be more willing to admit ignorance, rather than feigning knowledge. Perhaps, someday, that will become politically feasible. So, don’t settle for a bad answer just because you don’t have a good one. Admit that you don’t know  – yet – and continue to strive for understanding.

On Being Unreasonable.

I recently watched “The Dropout,” a dramatization of the Theranos story. Theranos was the brainchild of entrepreneur Elizabeth Holmes. Her dream: develop a machine that would conduct 200 medical tests using a single drop of blood. However, the goal proved unreachable, and the company collapsed in 2018 amidst a storm of finger-pointing and recrimination. Among the lessons to be learned from this story: the difficulty of knowing when to be reasonable and when to be unreasonable.
Personally, this is something with which I struggle. As a qualitative researcher, I’m often faced with the question of how tightly to recruit for a study. The perfectionist in me wants respondents who are EXACTLY what is needed to meet the research objectives. However, the pragmatist in me will point out that perfect participants are likely to be as rare as whooping cranes – making the recruit nearly impossible, and that participants who are ‘close enough’ will almost certainly provide the insights we need.
We all understand the value of being reasonable; often it’s the only way to get something done. However, I also subscribe to the sentiment expressed by George Bernard Shaw: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” There’s no getting around it. If you want to do something that’s never been done before, being reasonable is not going to get you there. Extraordinary goals are the key to extraordinary achievements.
However, remember that being unreasonable is a strategic decision. Know why you’re doing it and what objective it serves. If this decision is overly driven by emotion, and you’re unable to adjust when faced with immoveable obstacles, a situation can easily turn into your own personal Stalingrad. Just ask the Theranos alumni – they know all about the catastrophe that can result from inflexible, unreasonable goals.
Your email continues here –
Finding the right balance between reasonableness and unreasonableness might be THE primary determinant for success in business and life. And finding that balance is no small task. It takes, experience, intuition, and a willingness to adjust. You might start out setting outrageously ambitious goals, and might even stick with those goals through multiple setbacks. Eventually however, you may need to acknowledge that your endeavor is doomed to certain failure if you don’t recalibrate.
Some tips for when you’re setting unreasonable goals:
  • Make sure you have a sounding board—people whom you trust, and who understand and support your decision to be unreasonable, but who can advise you when you’ve reached a point at which this is no longer serving your interests. They’ll give you the luxury of being obsessive in pursuing your dream, because they’ll tell you if you’re pursuing a white whale.
  • Being that unreasonableness is a strategic tool, you must have a clearly defined overall strategy for your endeavor. That strategy that will guide you as to when to be reasonable and unreasonable. Clearly define and prioritize your goals – what you need to accomplish. Then decide for which goals you can be reasonable, and where you must be unreasonable.
  • Communication is key. Make sure people understand the rationale and the ultimate goal, as well as the payoff.
  • It’s helpful to view unreasonableness as a finite resource – you can only go to that well so many times before you burn yourself and your colleagues out, lose credibility, or fail spectacularly.
So, to mash together a couple of adages, success lies in finding a way to reach for the stars without letting the perfect be the mortal enemy of the good.