Now that introduction is a little dramatic but reiteratively intended. We have a busy and categorically vast, intra-inter-dialogue; some fact and some thought.
Facts are somewhat binary, meaning information that is mostly non-negotiable and beyond doubt, unless ipso facto intended as such.
Thoughts are an amalgamation of believes, values, feelings and perceptions of fact with a much high variable probability.
Most unknowingly, we often contaminate our thoughts with an angle of fact in the hope of substantiating words to be the binary truth. We use this skill to present our case as impenetrable, or at the least in the desire for such outcome. Sometimes our thoughts are backed by experience and knowledge, and sometimes we reference others, all in the bid of increasing probability of fact.
The potential harm, however, is that the recipient of such conversations is left powerless due to the unobjectionable intent of such dialogue. Who can after all argue with Johnny’s certitude when backed with 15 years’ experience, four others in support, and quoting scripture from a science magazine? I've heard people said that God told them so! Now, who dare argue that?
Contaminated thought conveys a more profound message; “I am right, and you're not”. It just then makes sense that only a few such self-righteous connections survive in a world where we all desire conversational equality. After each inequitable transaction, most of us would gravitate to feeling small and cheated. We will walk away and feel deeply dissatisfied.
Exploring four questions might be a right place to start clarifying our contaminated dialogue :
How often do I to prove a point by turning thoughts into fact?
Who are the ones I do this with most?
What is underneath this need of me to be right sometimes?
What will happen if I present non-contaminated thoughts, thus allowing others to contribute freely?
There is much to say about why we contaminate our thoughts and facts. I’d recommend looking back to the time you turned seven.