Exit strategy: ending a conversation

There are a lot of ways I've changed over the years in how I interact with people and how I do apologetics. Not all of these changes were necessarily for the better. Sometimes they were out of preference or convenience. I was going to write a post listing all the various ways that I've changed, but it's inevitable I'd leave something out and feel the need to go back and edit the post multiple times to add stuff. I decided instead to just focus on one thing--my exit strategy.

My exit strategy used to be to leave it to the other person to end the conversation. As long as they were willing to talk to me, I'd talk to them. If I was arguing with them, I'd keep arguing until either they gave up and dropped out or they conceded my point. One reason I did this is because I just couldn't find a good stopping place. I didn't know how to end a conversation. Another reason was because I always had another thing to say, and it killed me to read what somebody said, have something to say in response, and not say it. Another reason is because I was afraid if I didn't respond it would give the other person or the people watching the impression that I didn't have anything to say, that I had lost the debate, or something like that.

But I found some of these conversations exhausting, and they'd burn up a lot of time. I'd spend hours sometimes writing responses to people on message boards. I enjoyed debating for the most part back then, so it wasn't too big a deal, but if they never seemed to have an end, it would get old. So I had to come up with an exit strategy.

Sometimes, I couldn't find a good stopping place, so I'd pick one arbitrarily. I'd tell the other person something like, "This has been interesting, but all conversations must end, so I'm going to make this my last response. I'll still read what you have to say, though." That was about the most polite thing I could come up with.

Sometimes I give myself a stopping place ahead of time. I'll decide that I'll keep responding today, but once today is over, I'm done. I'm not going to pick it back up tomorrow. Or I'll decide to limit myself to one or two replies, and drop it after that. Way back when, that would've made me very uneasy, but I've gotten more comfortable with walking away from an argument. I'm talking about on line arguments here. I can't see myself just turning around and walking away from somebody who was talking to me in person.

I have developed some criteria for when I think it's a good idea to drop out of a conversation, though. One of them is if the conversation becomes repetitive. If we're just repeating the same points and not getting anywhere with each other, I'll drop out. Most of the time I'll announce the fact that I'm dropping out by saying, "Well, I'd just be repeating myself at this point, so I'm dropping out. Thanks for the discussion." Back in the day, I'd keep pounding the same points hoping that if I worded it a little differently or explained it differently that I could get through to the other person. But now I just get to a point that I think I've explained it adequately enough that the person could get it, and if they don't, then I've done my part, and I leave. I don't know if this is necessarily the best thing for me to do. One of the advantages of explaining things over and over in different ways was that it trained me to become a better communicator. When I discovered that one way of explaining things was unclear or unpersuasive, I'd try something else until I found something that worked better. I made a lot of improvements this way. I don't think I'm as good of a communicator today as I was maybe fifteen years ago, and it may be because I'm out of practice in how I used to do things.

Another criteria I sometimes use is my own judgment about whether the other person gets my point. If the other person resorts to what appears to me to be desperation, then I'll assume I got my point across, and there's no need to rub their noses in it. I don't expect people to say, "By golly you're right," but if they resort to absurdity to avoid the force of my argument, I'll figure they know I'm right without having to say it. People will embrace absurdities to avoid conceding a point. I mentioned this once before about how somebody was willing to entertain solipsism rather than concede my point that he could know his wife had a mind without being able to observe it directly. When you press a materialist or a moral non-realist on the logical consequences of their view, and they can't figure out how to refute your argument, they'll just embrace the absurdity to save face. I've decided its best in these circumstances to let people save face. The reason is because if you press people in these situations, they'll just dig in their heals and eventually convince themselves. Trying to force them to admit that you are right can accomplish the opposite of what you're trying to accomplish. It's better for people to be able to mull things over when you're not around, to dig around to see what other people have to say, etc. I mean put yourself in their shoes. I've been stumped in arguments before. It's embarrassing because it makes you feel stupid. But it's intellectually irresponsible to change your mind on the spot just because you can't come up with a response right away. The responsible thing to do is to take some time to mull it over, study it out, ask around, think it through, etc. Maybe you'll end up changing your mind in the process or maybe you'll discover what was wrong with their argument. I figure by allowing people to save face, I've made it easier for them to think objectively about the issue. If I keep pushing, they'll just push back harder, and they'll go away, not with a desire to think it through objectively, but with a desire to figure out how to refute me. This is all based on my fallible judgment, though. Some people do believe absurd things, and they aren't pretending. But if I suspect they are pretending or blowing smoke, I'll back down because I figure if they're resorting to absurdity, they probably already see the force behind my argument. They just need to spend some time in reflection about it when the pressure is off.

Another criteria I use is putting a limit on the degree of snarkiness or nastiness that I'm willing to put up with. This is not necessarily the best thing for me to do. Even snarky people need Jesus. But I figure any time I spend not talking to a condescending blowhard is time I could spend talking to somebody who's willing to be reasonable and have a civil conversation. I apply this criteria only partly because of the wisdom behind it, but mostly it's mere personal preference. I just don't enjoy talking to abrasive people, and I'm not as patient with them as I used to be. I love the philosophy of religion, and I love exchanging ideas with people who disagree with me, but if somebody is being harsh and unpleasant, it sucks the joy right out of it. As unspiritual as it may seem, I just don't like talking to some people, so I don't. There was this one guy on debate.org who would initiate these threads on the philosophy discussion forum that I always thought were fascinating. He was probably one of the most brilliant and creative people on that site. But every time I tried to engage him in discussion and debate, he'd insult me. I got tired of it and decided to stop interacting with him. I told him why, too. I found that to be a travesty, and I'd still read his posts.

Besides not enjoying having to deal with other people's unpleasantness, there are good spiritual reasons to bow out of conversations with them. People like that are usually not as receptive to different ideas as other people, and you can't have productive conversations with them anyway. Your time could better be spent talking to people with whom you can have a productive conversation. The more time you spend with unpleasant people, the less time you're going to be able to spend with pleasant people. And if your goal is to make the Christian worldview known and accepted, then your time is better spent talking to people who are more open to what you have to say.

And let's not forget that Jesus said not to throw your pearls before swine lest they turn and tear you to pieces. So you ought to put limits on your interactions with rude and nasty people.

One of the major advantages of having an exit strategy other than just preserving your sanity is that it allows you to do other things. Suppose there are multiple conversations going on in the forum you're participating in. If you get bogged down endlessly conversing with one person on one topic, you won't have time to participate in the other discussions. By having an exit strategy, you can move on with your life and do other things. You can get off the internet and go make a knife or shoot bows. So it's a good idea to have an exit strategy. If you have one or more, leave me a comment.