Collecting and understanding many alternate views is helpful in any context.
In polarizing discussions it is even more important.
Understanding many viewpoints doesn’t mean full agreement. Just that one has taken the time to move past “I can’t understand how or why some one can believe that”.
Until you can understand why someone has their view, it’s risky to draw judgements and conclusions. Literally from one’s own lack of understanding.
Holding many simplified models in mind, despite each of their gaps with reality, is as helpful in engineering, physics and navigating life, as it is in politics.
I will add that rarely are the reasons we believe something enough to change the minds of people with different views. No matter how well reasoned or how often we explain ourselves.
If we don’t understand why they hold their views, we inevitably leave valid (real, or in their best experience real) concerns, or knowledge we take for granted, but they don’t have, both totally unaddressed.
We have to understand others well, in their terms, to effect change.
And, of course, to learn from others when they see something, however sharply or dimly, that we have missed. Generally people with differing views, do see something we don’t.
Unfortunately, expressing frustration or impatience with viewpoint intransigence, faithfully reveals we don’t understand the views we are critiquing. Don’t call people “deplorables”. That is footgun credibility suicide.
Understanding, respect, and patience; none are optional.
Make everyone your ally in figuring out a way through any mess.
Pete Buttigieg in the hot seat of Fox News interviews is incredible at this. He also becomes disarmingly likable as a result. Credibility armor upgrade achieved. One wonders why something that works so well, is so rare.
Collecting and understanding many alternate views is helpful in any context.
In polarizing discussions it is even more important.
Understanding many viewpoints doesn’t mean full agreement. Just that one has taken the time to move past “I can’t understand how or why some one can believe that”.
Until you can understand why someone has their view, it’s risky to draw judgements and conclusions. Literally from one’s own lack of understanding.
Holding many simplified models in mind, despite each of their gaps with reality, is as helpful in engineering, physics and navigating life, as it is in politics.
I will add that rarely are the reasons we believe something enough to change the minds of people with different views. No matter how well reasoned or how often we explain ourselves.
If we don’t understand why they hold their views, we inevitably leave valid (real, or in their best experience real) concerns, or knowledge we take for granted, but they don’t have, both totally unaddressed.
We have to understand others well, in their terms, to effect change.
And, of course, to learn from others when they see something, however sharply or dimly, that we have missed. Generally people with differing views, do see something we don’t.
Unfortunately, expressing frustration or impatience with viewpoint intransigence, faithfully reveals we don’t understand the views we are critiquing. Don’t call people “deplorables”. That is footgun credibility suicide.
Understanding, respect, and patience; none are optional.
Make everyone your ally in figuring out a way through any mess.
Pete Buttigieg in the hot seat of Fox News interviews is incredible at this. He also becomes disarmingly likable as a result. Credibility armor upgrade achieved. One wonders why something that works so well, is so rare.
This was submitted earlier but was removed for some reason so I have resubmitted it as immigration is the most important topic in Canada right now
Thank you. It’s a wonderful essay, that couldn’t really be written without contending with a serious topic.