Coaching Exercise 2

For my first conversation, I chose the roles of follower and opposer to practice. I am mostly comfortable as a bystander and a mover. I usually play the role of bystander, and in that role sometimes I bring information into the conversation that moves it in a new direction, making me a mover. Bystanding is also the best place for me to be able to create humor, which is what I usually like to contribute to a conversation. I find following to be a bit boring and I only oppose when I feel I must because I do not like confrontation, and I’m a little insecure.

            The conversation consisted of about seven students-colleagues in my gender studies class at MIT. We were having drinks at a bar after class. I was nervous about opposing so I chose to follow at first. The two modes I used to follow were hyperbolic humor to validate a point someone else had made or extreme enthusiasm to agree. Regarding the latter, I kept my ear open for things that I found profound or “mind-blowing” so that I could harness my excitement as a follower. This was not that hard because I have had no formal education in feminism or gender studies, so I found much of the conversation to genuinely enlightening.

            I was very nervous to be an opposer for the reason just stated – a lack of knowledge on the topic. I may have cheated here. Instead of bringing up contradictory information or perspectives, I logged as much as I could of what everyone was saying and waited for them to contradict themselves. I was only able to do it once. I’m not sure it’s a helpful way to oppose because it shifts the focus of the conversation from the topic to the speaker. After I made the observation, which was funny, I realized it was my responsibility to immediately move the discussion back to the topic at hand. As a side note, I heard a line in the new Star Wars movie that I have used to oppose in other conversations. The line is, “I find that answer vague and unconvincing.” It has been useful and I plan to keep using it as I try to get better at opposing.

            My second conversation was with my mom. We had a discussion / debate about the legalization of marijuana. I shared with her the model with her in a text picture beforehand. The focus on the model sort of bookended the conversation. It was turning into a very productive discussion, and I wanted to let it go naturally without putting the breaks on too often to analyze which roles we were fulfilling, but I did do a recap at the end and congratulated my mom for being so flexible. We came to the conclusion, together, that decriminalizing recreational marijuana by using a small fine should be done prior to completely legalizing it. I don’t actually agree with this, but it allowed us to end in a great place.

            My third conversation was with my best friend from high school. We discuss politics often, and every time I feel like I’m walking through a minefield, but none have ever gone off. We were having dinner, just us, and he brought up politics in a super inflammatory way. Eventually, BLM came up and I had an impossible time getting things back on track. Statements like “it’s ok to be pro-police and pro-BLM” did not calm him down. He is a state-prosecutor by trade, and five police have been shot in the last year, one in which the shooter mentioned BLM in an angry non-coherent rant. His emotional investment in the issue made it impossible to work with. He left the conversation in a fit. Our friendship was repaired a few days later via text. He is a closet white-supremacist and ammo-sexual, so I’m not sure we’ll ever find common ground. Ideological discussion may prove to heavy for the friendship and require termination.