Jump to content

Do you try to understand the other side


uhtred

Recommended Posts

In political discussions where you have a strong opinion / feeling, do you make an effort to understand why the other side wants / believes what they do, or do you tend to just dismiss them as stupid / evil / whatever?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Neutral Charge

I first asses their capability for reasoning and logical debates, if theres none present i just dissmiss the whole thing and move on, no time to loose on this sorts of things if they lack the above, they wont understand half the things you say and full on reject the other half, resulting in frustration, maybe anger and lost time.

Humans mostly are  dificult in letting go of their way of seeing reality, so i discuss perspectives only with those who can debate for the sake of getting wiser and fuller in understanding.

My view on this

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reeeeeeally depends on the subject and their attitude.  But often the latter.

 

My relationship with my mom went a long way in teaching me when to recognize that some people are just a lost cause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I try.

 

Usually I run on the assumption that I don't know things, and don't understand them. If the person is up for that sort of discussion, and I ask enough questions, and get a sense for another persons reality, then usually I can find one or two differences that result in the different results. If nothing else I can usually find the actual line of disagreement ("Okay, so we agree on X Y and Z, but disagree on M. You believe M because of K, and if you believed different things about K, you would change your mind on M").

 

 

... That said, I work in research. There's probably an unusually high number of people that CAN be talked to in that way around here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All the time. I actually only have very strong opinions on certain things, and even then, I can potentially see why people disagree. I often go looking for counter arguments to make sure my reasoning is sound. 

 

Except anti-vaxx people. No excuse. Get vaccinated so you don't compromise those who can't and are vulnerable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people dismissing 'the other side' is one of the biggest causes of problems in today's world. No one is listening to each other, no one is trying to understand what the other side actually wants. Often we want similar things, but when we automatically dismiss 'the other side' and call them 'evil', we shut down any ability to work together. When we can't work together, there is no opportunity to fix issues in a way that works for everyone.

 

Its like people are afraid to listen to differing opinions these days...just listening doesn't mean you have to change your mind, it doesn't mean you'll agree with the person. You're not going to listen to a KKK member talk about his views and automatically agree and become a KKK member yourself. By not listening and not trying to understand, all we do is alienate each other, put more and more distance between people, and make it easier and easier to demonize and hate one another. 

 

I see people talk about 'lost causes' and 'there's no changing some people' and I think of is Daryl Davis. I think of Cassie Jaye. There are people who will take more time and effort than you have to offer, and there are people who will be dangerous to those around them while you try, but a cause is only lost when there's no one left who will take it up.

 

I believe that it is arrogance to say you have nothing to learn from listening to someone, that there's no point in trying to understand someone else, no matter how vitriolic and cruel they might seem. Very little that is real is evil, and no one wakes up in the morning intending to be the villain. Everyone does what they do for reasons they believe are justified and right. Antivaxxers truly believe they're protecting their kids with the same fervor vaccinating parents do. Religious people believe they have the true way into heaven and are just trying to save your soul from eternal suffering. Even Hitler was trying to bring his countrymen together against a world that he perceived as bullying them and holding them back. It it arrogance to assume that you are right in all things and that any one with a different idea is stupid. It is stupidity to believe that those who oppose you do so because they want people to suffer. If we start listening to one another, start understanding why we say the things we say and do the things we do, maybe we can start to actually identify the real problems, and come up with solutions that work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I make an attempt to understand the opposing point of view. The way I think through things is in five steps. Firstly, what do I want it to be. Secondly, what evidence do I have to support my opinion. Thirdly, what do they want it to be. Fourthly, what evidence do they have to support their opinion. Fifthly, reconciling conflicting evidence to determine who was correct. I love to argue/debate so to make a more interesting argument it helps to know all sides.

 

I like to think I have a fairly-high tolerance level for people who disagree with me. I usually only dismiss someone as stupid/evil/evilly-stupid if they:

1) Ignore overwhelming evidence.

2) resort to logical fallacies (especially ad hominem. Sorry, but if someone calls me personally ignorant/elitist/etc. you are now on my list of enemies. Attack the ideas all you want but never never attack me personally without offering any actual evidence on how I am ignorant/elitist/etc. If there is something in my personality you dislike then mention it, criticism is the only way to learn, but shoot the message not the messenger. This one is a really big point for me, I do not tolerate people who conflate Me and My Personality with an Idea I mention. I place special attention when formulating arguments to avoid attacking my opponent by saying, "That idea they mention is false because ..." rather than, "They are wrong because ...").

3) make no effort to understand my points (the people who say, "I think what I think and I am justified in doing that regardless of what evidence you bring". Usually when this happens those people have major emotions wrapped around an issue meaning a logical argument will do nothing to change their minds since they are too emotionally invested).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SpiderSquid said:

I do and see it from their perspective and understand why they see it or believe it this way or that way but I won’t budge my beliefs for them. 

Have you never learned that your beliefs were wrong?   I have changed my opinions on issues when I learned more about them.  Often things that seem simple at first glance may be more complicated when you learn more. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Philip027 said:

Reeeeeeally depends on the subject and their attitude.  But often the latter.

 

My relationship with my mom went a long way in teaching me when to recognize that some people are just a lost cause.

This.

 

Some opinions just merit silencing and shunning, not giving them the privilege of discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, uhtred said:

Have you never learned that your beliefs were wrong?   I have changed my opinions on issues when I learned more about them.  Often things that seem simple at first glance may be more complicated when you learn more. 

 

 

I have changed my beliefs cause I learnt more about the world but even if understand someone doesn’t mean I’m gonna change mine, I’ll change mine when I understand myself better but not because I understand others better. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I try to see if there's any solid logical or ethical reasoning behind opposing viewpoints, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sometimes curious what logical basis people have for their beliefs. That said it can be hard for me to think highly authoritarian people aren’t douchebags and people who deny scientific evidence in favor of baseless superstitions aren’t stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
InDefenseOfPOMO

I tend to have a postmodern perspective.

 

No matter what "side" a person represents nothing between him/her and others can be settled with reason or evidence.

 

At the most, maybe a subconscious "agree to peacefully exist in disagreement" can be reached.

 

Anybody who has not noticed that in the contemporary world what is "true" and what is "reality" are constantly changing is not paying attention.

 

I am more interested in the motivation behind a truth claim; who gains and who loses from it; etc. than whether or not it corresponds with any supposedly objective truth or reality. Any objective truth/reality speaks for itself. We need to shut up and listen to the latter, not listen more to "sides".

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's a reasonable point of view, such as, for example, should a new housing estate be built on green belt, then yes, if its an unreasonable argument, such as deporting everyone of a particular race, then no. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I llsten, and I understand, but that doesn't  mean I have to agree.  My mind is my own.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I lean more into scientific POV, and the left point or view, I find myself distancing myself from the opposite point of view unless they do have something I would agree with such as free speech (I'm a very strong believer of that).

 

23 hours ago, Scottthespy said:

I think people dismissing 'the other side' is one of the biggest causes of problems in today's world. No one is listening to each other, no one is trying to understand what the other side actually wants. Often we want similar things, but when we automatically dismiss 'the other side' and call them 'evil', we shut down any ability to work together. When we can't work together, there is no opportunity to fix issues in a way that works for everyone.

Actually, dismissing the other side is actually the least of problems in today's world when the other side infringes on individuals' right to bodily integrity, or promotes scientific illiteracy. I don't see why I should have to listen to people that wants to ban abortion, or flat earthers, or anti-vaxxers. They don't have anything worth listening to, and all they have are fallacy and in the case of abortion, the failure to prioritize the bodily integrity and health of conscious being over the unconscious. They have their rights to say whatever drivel they want, but no one has to listen or care or try to understand their POV.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, R_1 said:

As I lean more into scientific POV, and the left point or view, I find myself distancing myself from the opposite point of view unless they do have something I would agree with such as free speech (I'm a very strong believer of that).

 

Actually, dismissing the other side is actually the least of problems in today's world when the other side infringes on individuals' right to bodily integrity, or promotes scientific illiteracy. I don't see why I should have to listen to people that wants to ban abortion, or flat earthers, or anti-vaxxers. They don't have anything worth listening to, and all they have are fallacy and in the case of abortion, the failure to prioritize the bodily integrity and health of conscious being over the unconscious. They have their rights to say whatever drivel they want, but no one has to listen or care or try to understand their POV.

Aren't your examples:  anti-abortion, anti-vax and flat earthers very different?

 

Flat earthers (not sure if any actually exist) are clearly factually wrong - there is a huge amount of evidence (including lunar eclipses, and talking to people who have been to the south pole and in space).  I don't see how those can be taken seriously.

 

Anti-vaxers are wrong, but in a much more subtle way.  There is lots of evidence that the medical industry has pushed unnecessary and dangerous drugs (like opioids). Vaccines are safe / effective, but it is not crazy to be deeply suspicious of any money-making activity by the medical industry.  Its even possible that not all vaccines are effective - for example the older shingles vaccine didn't have a very good success rate. 

 

Anti-abortion is a tricky moral issue of "what is human".   There is a valid question of a what point between fertilization and graduation from college it becomes human.  Birth is a very arbitrary distinction, since technology is pushing back how young a fetus can survive, and probably in or lifetimes it will be possible to grow a child completely in vitrio - a child who is never born.    Personally  I support abortion rights - but I consider the opposite side to have a valid point of view. 

 

Climate change is even trickier.  Its very difficult to get reliable information. The IPCC site which used to be the best source now is very difficult to decypher.   I'm a working scientist an I have a very difficult time extracting useful information from them.  Most other sources are secondary - the original papers require subject matter expertise to read. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R_1 said:

As I lean more into scientific POV, and the left point or view, I find myself distancing myself from the opposite point of view unless they do have something I would agree with such as free speech (I'm a very strong believer of that).

 

Actually, dismissing the other side is actually the least of problems in today's world when the other side infringes on individuals' right to bodily integrity, or promotes scientific illiteracy. I don't see why I should have to listen to people that wants to ban abortion, or flat earthers, or anti-vaxxers. They don't have anything worth listening to, and all they have are fallacy and in the case of abortion, the failure to prioritize the bodily integrity and health of conscious being over the unconscious. They have their rights to say whatever drivel they want, but no one has to listen or care or try to understand their POV.

My response to 'why should you listen to those people' is Daryl Davis, a black man who goes to KKK rallies and listens to the white supremacist hatred. He talks with these men, he asks for their views and their justifications, not so that he can tell them they're wrong or drop some 'truth bomb' on them, but just to hear them. And as a result over two hundred Klansmen have deradicalized, handed in their robes, left the Klan. By not automatically dismissing him, he ended up befriending these people, and once they were friends with him, they were more willing and more able to see his side, and see the flaws in their own arguments. 

 

I have a personal anecdote of this as well...my manager at a car wash I worked for was a modern practical hippy. She could listen to anyone talk about the most hateful, vitriolic world views without judgement or chagrin. And I watched as, over the years, the same hateful angry bitter people came in and spilled out their black little hearts to her...and the more they did it without her 'clapping back', the less of it they had in them. The more her lack of judgment started to sink in. The more they opened to her, and started asking for her thoughts, and then listening back when she gave them. I watched some people with terrible and cruel opinions slowly let go of them and become happier, healthier, and kinder people just because someone listened...not sharing their views, but not automatically demonizing them either...just listened.

 

Its foolish to assume we know all of some one's argument just because we don't agree with their conclusion. Maybe they'll have some evidence we didn't know about, maybe they'll have some experience we weren't aware was  possible, maybe they'll know some world circumstance we had no idea was a thing. Maybe it won't justify their mindset, but it will still be something new, something to consider. And in that very act of listening and considering that other person, they'll be more likely to listen to and consider us. And that way, maybe we deradicalize some people with fringe opinions. And maybe, just maybe, we realize some of our own opinions aren't as flawless as we thought they were. To assume everything I personally think is flawlessly based in fact, when I cannot possible know all of everything, is arrogance. There will always be something more out there that I haven't encountered, some point of view that I haven't considered. Closing these people down just because I don't like their conclusions creates stagnation and divides us as a people. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a perfect understanding of the world around me, infact I live in a pretty small human sized domain and there is a lot outside of that that I don't have a perspective on at all. what written language should people in Burma learn? what rules should the cattle market have in Missouri? should there be a hight limit on a condo building being built in a part of your town that you've never visited?

 

I believe I am right about the few things I know, but I have no ownership of what right is. I think it is hard to commit to the idea that right is relative, that there isn't universal truth, save for when that thought benefits you, but I think it puts you in a better place when making the assumptions we undoubtedly make.

 

I fear the echo chamber, and I think it is healthy to work hard from falling into it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another approach is to start by understanding what each of you wants as goals.  There is an important difference between disagreeing on goals and disagreeing on methods to reach those goals.   Its sort of like arguing about which way to turn at the next intersection before you have agreed on where you are going. 

 

For example two people might agree that reducing CO2 emissions is important but disagree as to the best way to achieve that goal.  That is very different from disagreeing over whether CO2 needs to be reduced.    In the second case, there is the question of whether you disagree on the existence of climate change, or disagree on whether something needs to be done about it.    

 

All these change the approach to trying to convince someone to come to your side, or whether possibly you haven't fully considered the issues and need to re think your own side. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I would say I do try to understand "the other side"... but that doesn't mean I have to approve of their viewpoints. By the same token, they don't have to approve of mine. 

 

I live with two people who are on "the other side", and there are many aspects of them I admire - face to face, they're gracious, generous, honest, hard-working, and good-humored. We share many interests, such as organic gardening, electric vehicles , and old sci-fi  TV shows.  My cousin George endured years of childhood health problems and abuse that contributed to social difficulties and alcoholism... I admire that, but the bad environment left both he and his mother with a very jaded outlook.

 

Talk to them in private, and you'll hear their racist and misogynist views, their disdain for science, and discover their absolute addiction to anti-government conspiracy theorists on YouTube. 

I used to argue with them, but it was always an uphill battle with few successes. I think I finally convinced my cousin that US astronauts did, in fact, land on the moon, and the earth is in fact round.  (Yes, there are people who truly believe the latter). It just became too exhausting to battle decades of ignorance and prejudice, and I had to let go of it. 

 

So how do I handle the moral issue of living with people who think a good portion of the earth's population is inferior? I'm not sure if I have a good answer, but in trying to show my cousin the sort of kindness and consideration he's never had, I 'm hoping he may soften his views.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, coyote55 said:

snip

So how do I handle the moral issue of living with people who think a good portion of the earth's population is inferior? I'm not sure if I have a good answer, but in trying to show my cousin the sort of kindness and consideration he's never had, I 'm hoping he may soften his views.

 

 

 

If it were me, I'd try to find out *why* they believed that.  Do they know a lot of people of the group that they think is inferior?  Can the see how some groups can get trapped in a cycle of discrimination and resulting lack of success?   Sometimes though there is nothing you can do

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do try, but too often do I see them not willing to do the same. I can generally get along with one of my friends who disagrees quite strongly with me on very key political things, but we tend to just "agree to disagree" about those things and move on. I know she's not an idiot and we both don't really understand why the other is taking the stance they do, but we can boil the problem down to "I disagree with X because of Y, but you agree with X because of Z. Correct?" "Yep. So we're not going to agree." "Nope. Wanna talk about anime?"

 

But I've often come across people who just don't listen to the other side and you can tell have their blinders on, or else argue dishonestly. A good example for this would be my boyfriend's asshole grandfather. He believed that we should take all the weapons from people in the Middle East and something about evacuating them from bombing targets that way? I forget the main argument, but the counter was "Why would they agree to that? Would you agree to give up your guns if the government told you it was for your own safety?" He replied "Yes" and my bf knew that was a flat-out lie, and after knowing the man a little longer, I do too. So he was incapable of actually applying his own reasoning to himself and just said what we wanted to hear in order to agree with him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
firewallflower

Yes, usually. There may be occasions when I find an issue or opinion so personal, offensive, or sheerly irrational that I just need to give up and step away, but generally speaking, I do strive to understand where people are coming from and why they think or feel what they do. Understanding doesn't equal agreement, but if I refuse to even listen to those I think are wrong, how can I expect them to listen to me? Empathy, respect an open mind are things I value highly—and maybe I'm just hopelessly idealistic, but I do believe the world would be a better place if everyone would make that little extra effort to consider things from other perspectives.

 

Obviously, if I have an opinion on something, I believe that my opinion is right—otherwise I wouldn't have that opinion. But I can still acknowledge that I am not all-knowing or infallible, and that just because I think I'm right doesn't mean I always am. (After all, everyone thinks they're right...) In fact, the odds are high that I'm wrong about something or other. Most people are. If I am wrong, though of course it's not a comfortable prospect, I want to find that out! And if I'm right, then a better understanding of what the other side really thinks may put me in a better position to be able to sway their point of view—at least, if they are willing to take their turn and consider my arguments.

(Side note: I think is part of the reason why debates on hot-button issues so often seem to go nowhere: Too often, we're just talking past each other because either we can't see or we refuse to see where the "opponent" is coming from. If a pro-choice person is arguing that women should have bodily autonomy [with the premise that a fetus is not alive] and a pro-life person is arguing that babies shouldn't be killed [with the premise that a fetus is alive]... well, at least on the surface, you're having totally different conversations because you're operating from totally conflicting premises. If that's how we approach a disagreement, no one is ever going to change their mind.)

 

Yes, sometimes it's hopeless, sometimes striving for understanding won't get me or them anywhere, sometimes the best or only thing to do is to refuse to engage. But if I approach every disagreement with the assumption that it's hopeless... well, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, firewallflower said:

If that's how we approach a disagreement, no one is ever going to change their mind

I completely agree with the explanation of arguing on two different frequencies never changes anything, however even when the argument occurs on the same premises it, in my experience, will still fail. My favorite argument pro-abortion actually concedes that a fetus is alive and yet despite the fact the logical conclusion to that argument ends with the anti-abortion side having to support abortion or say God is murderous, it still doesn't convince them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
firewallflower
19 minutes ago, Aebt-Ætheling said:

I completely agree with the explanation of arguing on two different frequencies never changes anything, however even when the argument occurs on the same premises it, in my experience, will still fail. My favorite argument pro-abortion actually concedes that a fetus is alive and yet despite the fact the logical conclusion to that argument ends with the anti-abortion side having to support abortion or say God is murderous, it still doesn't convince them.

Yes, too often too true. Because, well... once you've done your part, it does take two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that I have been very good at understanding the "other side" since I became more center on my political views. I feel that mogai genders and sexualities are absolutely ridiculous but I do understand why people seek those kind of things out so they can feel they have a deeper understanding of themselves

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...