Telling the Truth

It is not acceptable for anyone to lie knowingly.

When lies are used to gain an advantage over others or to erode the confidence and trust of fellow citizens in existing institutions, speakers must be held accountable for their dishonesty. I distinguish between an occasional error or a slip of the tongue and a deliberate intention to lie for personal gain.

When lies are told, those who recognize the falsehood are responsible for exposing them. However, exceptions may exist where lying serves a greater good. In such cases, community consensus is necessary to affirm that certain mistruths may serve a higher purpose. Additionally, these exceptions should be documented and socially approved. It is inappropriate for an individual to decide alone that a lie serves the greater good.

If lies are spoken publicly, it is fitting for others to correct them openly and respectfully. This correction should come from the heart, free from anger or intent to harm, even if the initial falsehood were spoken with self-serving intentions. In such cases, it may be appropriate to interrupt the flow of speech to bring the truth to listeners’ attention. It is neither necessary nor beneficial to let the lie persist; instead, the norms of dialogue should foster a shared understanding that all speakers will adhere to telling the truth.

Radical Listening

When speaking, a person should stay within the time allotted for their turn. Dialogue, by nature, involves turn-taking, and no one individual should monopolize the conversation, particularly when others seek to contribute. At the same time, listeners are responsible for engaging attentively, focusing on understanding each contribution’s content and potential value.

Radical listening requires that listeners make a deliberate effort to learn from others. This means maintaining focus without framing a response based on one’s perspectives, allowing for a genuine assessment of what is being offered. Questions should aim to clarify or expand on what has been shared rather than interject personal viewpoints prematurely. The goal of each turn of talk should be to fully understand the original speaker’s contribution before offering new insights.

In radical listening, listeners set aside their views to understand others’ perspectives. This practice fosters learning from differences, and conversations should honor all contributions. Over time, each utterance should reflect loving-kindness, compassion, empathy, and wisdom. Ideally, all speakers should have approximately the same number of turns and equal speaking time, ensuring everyone can engage in radical listening and ask clarifying questions that deepen understanding.

Each turn in the conversation builds on previous insights. Speaking from the heart should reflect an intention to clarify, elaborate, and expand understanding, contributing to a shared knowledge system that values agreement and disagreement, similarities and differences, coherence and contradiction.

Cogenerative Dialogue

The central elements of cogenerative dialogue have been outlined in the two sections above. Although research on cogenerative dialogue has primarily focused on formal settings like schools and institutions such as museums, where teaching and learning are structured, it is a valuable tool for any social group interaction. For example, conversations within the home can incorporate cogenerative dialogue. Likewise, dialogues in any setting can adopt principles such as turn-taking, radical listening, correcting speech that seeks personal gain at others’ expense, and learning from differences while expanding shared knowledge.

Cogenerative dialogue is an open, expansive system rather than one that narrows down to a single, highly valued consensus. This type of dialogue fosters the development of useful knowledge and showcases the diverse contributions of all participants. Cogenerative dialogue is inclusive, benefits individuals of all ages, and adapts to any social setting.