Thinking Outside the Divisions

[kerravonsen]

Expanding on some thinky thoughts I had on twitter, prompted by this tweet about vaccination:

Are Anti-Vaccinators Stupid or Disingenuous? A Q&A With Eula Biss http://t.co/4DmYILMi27 #infection

— Paul Agapow (@agapow) October 9, 2014

Polarized, contentious "debates" give us nothing but anger, because people don't bother to find out WHY the other party thinks the way they do. How on earth can you get someone to listen to you if you insult them by declaring them stupid, selfish, deluded, willfully ignorant? The biggest misstep is attributing (malicious) motives to the other party, when you have no way of knowing what their motives are. I've seen this from both sides of many debates, political and religious. Terrorists are "jealous". Atheists deny the existence of God because they "want to keep sinning". Theists believe in God because they are "weak" and need "comfort". And so on and on and on.

It is too simple to say that this is caused by a lack of empathy; I mean, sure, it's not very empathetic to attribute the other person's motives to malice (or to stupidity). But why are we attributing a lack of intelligence and a lack of goodwill to the other party so often?

I think one reason is frustration and confusion, when a person feels that their position is so obviously correct that it is self-evident. This gets called "arrogance" by the person's opponents (and leads to the ridiculous assertion that it's wrong to consider oneself to be right; that certainty is immoral). It isn't the certainty that is the problem. It is that they have internalized their reasons for believing whatever-it-is so much that they can't really explain (even to themselves) why they believe what they do. Or, they can explain, but the explanation is partial, not complete. Not everyone has the skills or mental inclination towards self-analysis to be able to do so. But what the person ends up with is increasing frustration as the other party doesn't grok what they are saying, so they just repeat and repeat it louder and louder (as if that would somehow help) and then finally give up, throw their hands in air, toss in the figurative towel, etc. It isn't so much blaming the other person for one's own lack of skill (because if persuasion was just a matter of skill, then we'd all be buying bridges in Brooklyn) but incomprehension of why the other person couldn't be persuaded. After all, "But it's obvious!" isn't much of an argument.

Frustration, confusion, attribution.

Clearly, one cannot correct this problem in others, but one can attempt to be aware of it in oneself.

Comments

[azulkan2.livejournal.com]

I just read a really good article about vaccinations or not. It was well written and not at all with the finger pointing. Thought you might be interested in reading it.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2014/01/growing_up_unvaccinated_a_healthy_lifestyle_couldn_t_prevent_many_childhood.html?wpsrc=fol_fb

[kerravonsen]

Thanks.

[lindahoyland.livejournal.com]

Very well said.

[kerravonsen]

8-)

[jaxomsride.livejournal.com]

If one is convinced of a thing, the other side is not listened to, if it contradicts that thing. It is not arrogance but stubbornness that tends to drive the arguments that can be boiled down to:

I'm right

No I'm right

No I'm right

No I'M RIGHT.

etc. etc.

Neither side is willing to listen because they are already convinced by their own inner voice anything outside their box is ignored.

[kerravonsen]

So... would you ever apply the "too stubborn" description to yourself? Because if you wouldn't, then you are again falling into the trap of imputing motives to others when you don't know what motivates them.

[jaxomsride.livejournal.com]

Oh no I am aware I can be stubborn to let go of a cherished idea.

I do try to remember you can only change your own mind, you can't force others to change theirs.