Obliviate.
verb.
Definition: When one party (A) is trying to productively converse with a person (B) but the other (B) is oblivious of how their blathering effects the other party (A). As in, one's (A) focus is obliterated through (B's) lack of linear logic. Combine the two words, oblivious and obliterate and this is what you get... Obliviated.
Example: “He was going on and on to the point of obliviation.”
Inflections:
Obliviated
Obliviator
Obliviates
Obliviation
But seriously, how does one handle such a situation? I frequently run into this when having discussions with cult members or with those who condone such. The lack of linear logical structure to their monologuing makes it feel like there is nowhere else to go.
But there is something we can do. While it is difficult to get a word in sometimes, there are absolutely times where the obliviator needs to inhale. When these times come, although we could blurt out, “you are not making any sense”[1] it might only end up in further obliviation, which is beneficial to no one. On the other hand, we could train ourselves to respond with something that perhaps will slow down the derailed train and cause processing in the mind of the obliviator.
Usually at this point in the mainly one-sided conversation, I seek to put the train back on the tracks. It is a simple tactic, but sticking to the subject at hand is required for productive conversations. We put the train back on the tracks by persuading in the right direction. When the obliviator comes up for air, we don’t necessarily want to wait for this moment without hearing them and listening to what they have to say, but we also don’t want to be sleeping ourselves. (Who wants to be asleep on a derailing train!?) Persuade in the right direction by what I like to think of as the open-faced sandwich rule.[2] Compliment them first (the bread), such as “I really appreciate your insight on this!” This usually causes pause because of anticipated elaboration. Then introduce them back to the main subject (the meat) by asking a question directed toward the heart of the subject at hand. Put the train back on the tracks, and then let it go down the tracks. In other words, move the conversation in the right direction.
When I was speaking with a small group of Jehovah’s Witnesses recently, the obliviator was even derailing the other Jehovah’s Witnesses accompanying her. After we had a brief discussion on John 1:3 (“Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.”), they tried to bring up as per usual the idea that Colossians 1:15 explains that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. So then I asked them the question of who Psalm 89:27 is addressing:
“And I will appoint him to be my firstborn,
the most exalted of the kings of the earth.”
They gave me the Sunday school answer, “Jesus.” If true, this would directly confirm their interpretation of Colossians 1:15, but at this point the obliviator lost even her companions. When she came up for air, I asked her who the context of Psalm 89:27 is referring to. She read verse 20: “I have found David my servant; with my sacred oil I have anointed him.” After I pointed this out, it applied the brakes to the derailed train. The conversation had nowhere to go but back to John 1:3.
Unfortunately, when Jehovah’s Witnesses are backed into something like this, they typically refer the obliviated to another source that is not available in the moment, such as an apologist they claim has all the answers who will call you later if you give them your phone number (which is a call I have never received). But forcing the train to get back on the tracks leaves them with unanswered questions, causing cognitive dissonance initially and perhaps further cognitive dissonance through later conversations with their said apologist. At this point the conversation no longer was productive, so we parted ways. But when I left, the train was on the tracks, and it had momentum. The key is to leave them with deep questions that they cannot simply let go. By their culture, Jehovah’s Witnesses are studious, which can work in the favor of truth.[3]
Matthew 7:6 “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.”
If the obliviator has come to a point of contention, it seems the best thing might be is to peacefully, but swiftly, leave the conversation. Jesus says, “do not give what is holy to the dogs” (Matthew 7:6). Sometimes, the best thing to do is simply ignore them, especially in context of social media. You do not want to become derailed yourself. By not ignoring and continuing, you are giving them more to obliviate on, which steals away any conversational productivity.
The implication in Matthew 7:6 is that you should not give the dogs what is holy or throw your pearls of wisdom before swine, but instead, give what is holy to those who will accept it, and cast your pearls before those who value them. In other words, move on to someone who will do these things. When do we move on? When the conversation has lost productivity, which further attempts might only end up in belligerence, detriment, or just a bitter taste in one’s mouth. Go to the next train.
[1] This might however, be an appropriate response if you have an established relationship.
[2] As opposed to the sandwich rule, which goes along the lines of compliment, constructive criticism, compliment. I find that if we leave them with a very positive compliment, this is where focus is frequently directed, derailing the train all over again.
[3] What happens in time seems to be the number one ally in Jehovah’s Witnesses leaving their cult.
When you have these conversations, have you ever experienced cognitive dissonance as well? Does the person you're conversing with ever feel obliviated?
ReplyDeleteYes, and perhaps. I am but a man myself, but when I experience cognitive dissonance, the only way to go is toward the truth. Sometimes it hurts, but it is the right thing to do.
DeleteAs per your second question, I try to speak as logically sound and as linearly as possible, but this doesn't mean that eyes never glaze over during my attempts to explain.