Increase Your Intelligence, Use the DORR

        Stop and ponder this for a second; how do you argue? Are you mostly passive or combative? Would you label yourself as pretty persuasive or primarily domineering? If you can answer this, next, see if you can determine why you argue that way. Whatever answer you come up with should be food for thought on its own, but allow me to supplement that full course meal with a healthy consideration; if your answer lacked any parallels to increasing your intelligence, my friend, I dare say you are leaving good money (or fruit, if you prefer) on the table. Not to say that you won't experience an intellectual increase anyway, but your intention will still make a difference because intentions influence decisions and therefore, results. However, before we get lost in this rabbit hole, we first have to agree that an argument is truly fertile ground for producing intelligence. I will enlist the help of two historical figures, Socrates and Galileo, to help me make that case.

Few men have been recorded to believe in the value of argumentative dialogue to the extent that Socrates did. In short, he was persecuted and convicted for it, and chose death over exile as his resulting punishment. True to character for the man who spoke "The unexamined life is not worth living." Today, the method he is purported to have used to question and expose the ignorance of his fellow man is termed the Socratic method. Socrates supported the notion that truth could be cornered by eliminating ideas and beliefs containing inherent contradictions. In his own way, Galileo would echo this belief roughly two millennia later in saying "You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself." The words and methods of these men imply that you cannot truly teach someone by telling them what to think, they must be allowed to reach their own definitive conclusion for true learning to take root. I'd buy that every day of the week, and thus, I will not simply tell you that intelligence can be nourished through argument; I will provide empirical evidence and a model to help you determine if this belief also resides within you. This model is called the DORR (sounds like "door"), an acronym for Divisive, Objective, Reflective, Receptive, but more on that a little bit later.

Let's first lay some common ground to build on. To simplify the principle of learning, let's agree that learning is about the correction of incorrectness. In first learning to walk or communicate, you lack the strength, knowledge, and experience to do either correctly. Nonetheless, you develop these skills over time and through diligence to the point that these become skills you employ without much mental effort at all. This is generally how the learning process applies, unless you are referring to a prodigy. They will be the outliers for this part of the discussion.

For the purpose of easy digestion, the Socratic method for learning is comparable to the scientific method. Start with a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, gather data, interpret the results, refine the hypothesis, repeat for further evidence. The underlying theme to note here is that deciphering what is most likely true is a process of continuously eliminating what isn't true until the results are sound. Therein lies the beauty of the learning process, as well as the acceptance of being wrong. "To admit you were wrong is to declare you are wiser now than before," and wiser is always better ( Be sure to remember this one. This wisdom has more life applications than anyone could ever tell you.). So we need not fear failure or being incorrect; it's a natural part of the learning process.

Finally, we need to cover intelligence. First off, intelligence is not a "gift" or a "special ability" as some believe to be the case. These words apply to traits such as having a particular physical build or a naturally tuned singing voice. I will never have the natural voice of Adele and she will never have my natural athletic build because these are inherent traits for each of us. Intelligence, however, is not an inherent trait; it is a skill and skills can be learned and improved upon. Intelligence is the skilled use of reason, or the skilled use of logical and factual thinking and communication. To improve on this skill, or any skill, requires work; you must supplement research and practice with application of your limited ability with the skill so that it can progress through the learning process. Now, unless you disagree with the prescribed principle of learning or the labeling of intelligence as a skill, it should be fair to say we have a foundation to build a case on. So if fair is fair, let's build.

When you are asked to keep an open mind, to listen and learn, or to remember that you have two ears and one mouth, your are being reminded to value new inputs into your mental model for the sake of learning and understanding. This is good advice, but this alone will not hone your intelligence because there is no application of your understanding. There is no validation of your output or comprehension. Further, Socrates may methodically validate that you don't truly agree with your newfound "unexamined" knowledge and Galileo may argue that you have not been "taught" at all if you really bought into that input so quickly. Enter the value of the argument; or more appropriately, the dialectic (though I will continue to use "argument" for readability). "Dialectic" is preferred above the term "argument" because it speaks to intention, which influences decisions and results. The intention behind dialectical discourse is to cooperatively establish truth through reasoned arguments. This means the way you argue should not prioritize "winning" the argument, bullying or persuading others to agree with a determined point, or invalidating another party. Otherwise, you will forfeit your opportunity to apply intelligence and develop your skill. Now of course, you will fail to apply sound logic if you don't understand the subject matter at hand, but this does not mean you should avoid the argument. Dare to be incorrect and subsequently allow someone else to help you correct your incorrectness. This is a learning opportunity for those ready to seize it, for the argument is the classroom and the dialectic is the test.

My recommended tool for this discourse will be the DORR model; you will operate in the model's four modes to expand your knowledge and increase your intelligence. The four modes of the DORR model are Divisive, Objective, Reflective, and Receptive, and you progress through them in this order. Depending on your levels of self-esteem and comfort with conflict, the first mode in DORR may be the easiest or the hardest mode to execute on because it requires you to put yourself in the line of fire. The Divisive mode plays out in portions of an argument where a disagreement occurs. Whatever your level of knowledge or ignorance is on the topic at hand, this is where you draw a clear line between (divide) your understanding or position and the other party's. For instance, you might think Mary is a terrible chair person for the planning committee even though Sam thinks she is praiseworthy. Define your position and support it with your reasons. Yes, you must do both of these. "I think this because of..." should suffice.  This puts intelligence in play from step one. Your reasons could be that Mary never shows up to any of the planning meetings and you rarely see her at the events the committee plans. This is your position and you must stand by it initially. The Divisive mode does not have to last long, but it must present a stage for the rest of the process to play out. If Sam agrees with your point and provides no counter argument, then congratulations; you just changed the world by one opinion or you've found someone who doesn't have a strong enough position here to mine anything from. Either way, there's progress.  On the other hand, if Sam disagrees and offers his position, then we have found an opportunity to progress through the DORR.

You may progress to the Objective mode once Sam provides a valid argument for his position, but only then will you advance from Divisive. This is where you will be able to consider new information to expand your knowledge or defend your position logically to increase your intelligence. Either way, you should remain open-minded (Objective) about the words you hear, as well as the words you use. Respectfully stick with facts and truth. Do not allow personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretation to distort your perception or communication. Now, Sam may reason that while Mary doesn't show up to planning meetings, she is the one who submits the agenda for every meeting but cannot actually make the meetings because that is the only time she is able meet with external vendors to price options and workout contracts; tasks that no one else on the committee stepped up to perform. In being objective, you may concede these are good points you were not aware of, but you may feel she is still shirking an important responsibility of the chair position to lead the meetings or you may concede to Sam's position because the committee goal of planning is being achieved. Any direction is valid so long as logic and facts win the day. The Objective mode should occupy the majority of the discourse.

In the Reflective mode, you will consider and evaluate the points made by each party on the topic, including your own. You can assess what facts were valid, what statements were unfounded, what insights were gained, and even how good or bad did the conversation go. The Reflective mode can begin as soon as the Objective debate is over or at any time later following the exchange, but it is vital that this mode does not run its course until you have had the opportunity to meditate on your own about the conversation. This will ensure that your reflection process is not influenced by external sources. The Receptive mode is where the valuable data gathered from the Reflective mode is incorporated into your experience and knowledge base. This may implore you to fortify your original position, refine your original position, or abandon it all together. Just be sure that you understand the logic of what you are considering as if you had to explain it to someone else later. The Reflective and Receptive modes can be exercised simultaneously or procedurally, to each their own. What matters is that the end result will not be an "unexamined" experience and you will be one experience better in growing your intelligence.

Each time you apply the DORR model or comparable methods to an argument, you move into dialectic territory and put your intelligence to task in ways even Socrates himself would applaud. While it may not have been fully appreciate in his time, ideological conflict can be very productive and beneficial if engaged in with care. Ideas are vetted, mental stimulation and advancement is encouraged, and differences in perspective are addressed head on. The DORR model capitalizes on the knowledge that people learn by doing and that intelligence is a skill; implying that perseverance will pay off if you desire greater brain power. So don't avoid arguments, embrace the opportunity. For first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.