Finding the right answer was never the point

Throughout my time at Duke, there have been a few conversations that I found myself repeatedly having with my peers that go along the lines of “nature vs. nurture”, “is your phone an intrinsic part of your mind” and other pretentious conversations that are like puzzles and toys to play with in a conversation. I noticed that there are two types of approaches people take towards these conversations: one, attempt to create a sound argument to answer the literal question, or two, blurt out their gut answer and explore what made them think that way, attempting to formulate an argument as they go. The first approach often involves discussions about semantics of words in the question and a lot of theoreticals — definitely intellectually stimulating. The second approach often comes with multiple tangents that uncover my peers' lores that support their gut feeling — it feels much more lax and exploratory.

Sure, I might be wrong in which I prefer, but that wasn’t the point of the discussion to begin with.

Both approaches are perfectly valid, but I always find myself resonating and trying to invite people to engage in the second approach. I believe that one’s truest self is reflected by their habits and intrinsic beliefs, and it’s a lot more interesting to understand the backstories which make people intrinsically respond a certain way towards these arguments than try to actually formulate a proper argument — starting with the answer then with reasoning has always been more fun to me.

For example, for the “nature vs. nurture” conversations, a peer told me about how his gut seems to only believe in the argument for nature as a “formality,” but has a hard time internalizing that some people could be born in a way that makes them different. Eventually, he uncovered that if he accepts “nature” as a predominant player in the development of one’s self, then it’d imply that his pathway in life is already built with certain careers and activities that would be optimal for his natural build. In a way, he ignores “nature” so he doesn’t have to think about whether he’s built for entrepreneurship, dance, or playing the clarinet; after all, ignorance is bliss.

I’ve also had a peer mention that they think people underestimate “nature” a lot. He started with an argument about one’s career and hobbies being largely influenced by their “nature,” as improving quicker than most in activities as a child due to intrinsic traits would naturally keep you in the game for a longer time to get good. For example, small variations in your size in kindergarten could make you sweep the competition when playing sports and keep you in the game for longer. However, he eventually shared how his family kept pushing him toward “proper” engineering, but he just couldn’t make himself care about it the way he did about game design. For him, believing in “nature” allows him to cope with his rebellion against his parents; it’s a lot easier to pursue something that you’re convinced you were born for. Whether the “nature” part is a knack for creative pursuits or mere rebellion, he believes that this line of reasoning allows him to feel better about himself for pursuing such a career. It’s not about whether he’s right about nature predominating or not — it’s a venue for him to share a deeply defining story.

We have an innate love for making connections and seeking the “truth,” which oftentimes doesn’t let us discuss these questions of “nature vs. nurture” to their fullest extent in an average conversation. Though similar personal stories could’ve been expressed with the first approach as two people approach the question literally (similar to a brain teaser), the second approach provides a rich environment for humanity and connection to be emphasized. It allows one to think with the other person about why they think the way they do. Sure, science and logic might state that nature and nurture work together, but I think there’s ripe conversation to be had about our subjective views that are informed by our life experience rather than a logical line of reasoning. Ironically, approaching more conversations with lax unseriousness could lead to more deeply serious discussion.

These silly little conversations and topics can be discussed without a pretentious philosophical discussion — the “nature v. nurture” conversation isn’t the most natural discussion to have — but if the door opens itself to such discussions, I enjoy my time with people who take it as an exploration instead of a search for the right answer. There’s a certain freedom in not having to reach a conclusion. Letting a conversation wander without a set goal leads to more interesting insights. It’s not always about the topic and answers themselves but about understanding where people are coming from and what shapes their thinking.

It’s fun to take it easy in a conversation and simply toy holistically with ideas instead of analyzing them. It brings out more humanity than most investigative discussions. These small conversations let us engage without the pressure of certainty, making room for genuine understanding. It’s not about proving a point but about grasping how someone else views the world. The value of conversation isn’t in finding the right answer — it’s in the exploration of thoughts and beliefs that reveal who we are and how we think.