4 ms·

Eh, perhaps I'm cynical, but listening to someone, and coming to understanding regarding how they might have developed there beliefs, sounds nice, and it's very

by zzalpha 10y ago

Eh, perhaps I'm cynical, but listening to someone, and coming to understanding regarding how they might have developed there beliefs, sounds nice, and it's very compassionate, but I question if it's actually a step toward compromise, or simply understanding. After all, for an increasing number of issues, in the end, the beliefs themselves are so polarized they leave no room for compromise. To this woman, it doesn't matter that someone had to make the painful choice to have an abortion. They don't care why. The act itself is morally unjustifiable. That is their belief. There is no room for compromise in a belief system like that. The same is true when you look at debates about gun control, climate change, etc. So, sure, listening and understanding is an important first step. But in a world where we are actively encouraged to conflate facts and beliefs (see: Trumpiness), and where beliefs are so starkly polarized into black-and-white, good-and-evil, how can we have productive conversations on level ground that lead to compromise? We can't even decide which facts are actually facts!

throwanem 10y ago
So hey, why bother trying, right?
- zzalpha 10y ago
  Or you could provide a counter-argument so we can have a discussion. Kinda making my point for me. :)
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Just like you're making mine, and the article author's. Listening is a lot harder than contempt, but you might think about trying it some time all the same.
    - zzalpha 10y ago
      Who wasn't listening? Did anything in either of my comments imply I wasn't? I read the author's post. I digested it. I provided my counterpoint. Your initial response was essentially dismissal. I prompted you to provide a more substantial response (admittedly rather sarcastic, though I hope it wasn't viewed as hostility... probably a bad decision, that), and you once again come back with a pithy response. It's almost as though you feel I've offended you by providing my viewpoint, which I find odd since I haven't personally attacked anyone, certainly not you, whom I don't know from Adam.
      - throwanem 10y ago
        "Offended" is the wrong word. "Pissed off" is closer. That probably seems not very fair to you, but you're far from the first person in a short space of time whom I've seen fail to recognize the fact that, while understanding the other person's perspective certainly isn't guaranteed to lead to compromise, it just as certainly is the only thing that can. The really infuriating thing is how close to it you come, and again, I see this all the time. "The viewpoints are so polarized that no compromise is possible," you say. But that's not true. Having read and digested the article, you (have no excuse not to) understand where this individual woman's objection to abortion originates: in deep, lifelong personal pain. You talk about compassion, but only so you can dismiss it offhand on your way to a multi-paragraph denunciation of the way she and people like her are just so unreasonable. And it's amazing how the other guy is the only one who ever has that problem. That's why I talk about contempt. I mean, in the example we're looking at here, there's every reason to imagine that a show of compassion, from someone who's able to put basic human integrity ahead of mere ideological disagreement, might help give this woman some perspective that'd make it possible for her to understand the issue of abortion from a point of view outside the one that she's used to, because it comes along with the pain that her condition has inflicted upon her. Even if it doesn't, easing another person's suffering is a bedrock tenet of almost any scheme of ethics or morals. But that doesn't even occur to you, because you're so caught up in the question of whether you can make someone else think like you that nothing else has a chance to get a look in. Perhaps it's unjust of me to react to this kind of heartlessness with contempt. Perhaps it's even cruel. I know for damn sure it doesn't help anything or convince anyone. At the moment, I find the urge insuperable. I mean, how high-minded can you really imagine yourself to be if the only people for whom you are capable of empathy are those who already believe substantially what you do? Does that not at some level of your psyche stimulate a certain degree of unease? I'd really like to hope so.
        zzalpha 10y ago
        You talk about compassion, but only so you can dismiss it offhand on your way to a multi-paragraph denunciation of the way she and people like her are just so unreasonable. I denounced nothing. I said her beliefs are her beliefs and that they are unlikely to be shaken purely because someone listened to her. You read malice into a comment where none was present. You read judgement into a comment where none was given. You're failing, right now, at the very kind of compassionate listening you feel is so very important. Even if it doesn't, easing another person's suffering is a bedrock tenet of almost any scheme of ethics or morals. But that doesn't even occur to you, because you're so caught up in the question of whether you can make someone else think like you that nothing else has a chance to get a look in. How do you know that it didn't? Once again, you're reading into my post values and motivations I never espoused, I presume based on past experiences with others who disagree with you. In fact, in my other comments, I agree that, on an individual, one-on-one basis, this post contains immensely valuable moral and personal lessons. My comment, rather, is about whether a small act like this might change how we debate and decide upon issues in the large (my claim is that it is idealistic but unlikely to have value in the large). I apologize if my comment wasn't clear, that I was not disagreeing with the compassionate act of listening, but rather questioning it's value in improving the way we hold forth on discourse in broader society. Hopefully I've made that clearer here. Perhaps it's unjust of me to react to this kind of heartlessness with contempt. And now you're making it personal. I'd thank you for the discussion, but I'm not sure much of value has come out of this. It's a shame, but so be it.
    - justratsinacoat 10y ago
      Jesus, read your comments in this thread again. Do you really think you're a champion of Listening? A guy made a rather cogent point about whether this protocol will actually help resolve issues or not (which the linked article doesn't make claims about one way or the other), and you responded with the soul of Contempt, reducing his argument to an implicit "eh, why bother". edit: thanks for your response to 'zzalpha, helped me understand your position, and my response above seems a bit harsh in light of that. That said, I'll leave it up because the expository rant came afterward :P
      - throwanem 10y ago
        No, your response was totally justified, and it in turn informed mine. I think I said that contempt is easier than compassion, and I guess I demonstrated that, too. It's not always easy to keep a level head and remember that cruelty is almost never a constructive response to cruelty, and sometimes I'm really bad at it. Next time I intend to do better, and I'm glad I managed not to fail entirely at getting my point across in spite of doing a poor job this time.
  - noobiemcfoob 10y ago
    "so why bother trying, right?" is a valid critique of your argument. More verbosely, your complaints are correct and fair, but they aren't altogether a rejection of attempting to find compromise.
jbob2000 10y ago
I was going to comment something similar. This woman and her story make me think that trying to change her opinion on abortions would be wasted effort. She spent her entire life hating women who can have babies. You can scrub all you want, but grime that thick ain't coming off.
aiiane 10y ago
Sometimes compromise isn't the goal. Sometimes the goal is just to eventually find a way to do something that not everyone will agree with while not completely alienating the dissenters. You don't have to agree with something to be willing to support it. (I've lost track of the number of times I've said "I'm not sure this is the best option here, but doing nothing would be worse, so let's try your plan." Or vice versa.) Not every decision needs to be based on consensus, but that doesn't mean the only other option is to ignore everyone else.
bamboo_7 10y ago
I think you said it yourself that understanding is an important first step....
whiddershins 10y ago
It was hard for me to resist the urge to downvote this comment. Yes, everything you are saying has merit, but overall I completely disagree with the main thrust of your point. If listening and understanding other people isn't the first step to working through these problems, nothing is. And I am unwilling to just call the problems unfixable, throw my hands up, and resign myself to a world full of such misunderstanding, recrimination, and pain. I make a serious effort to nurture relationships with people who hold beliefs very different from mine, some of these beliefs I even consider ethically flawed, or counterfactual. And yet I get so much out of talking and especially listening to these people explain their beliefs to me. I feel grateful to have the opportunity to see the world through other lenses, and I have learned and grown as a result. If more people did this, I like to imagine that the timbre of discussion would change from default contempt to something far better.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>If listening and understanding other people isn't the first step to working through these problems, nothing is. It is the first step, but it only works if the other side is also willing to take it with you. If you are the only one changing your position, it is not a mutual compromise, by definition.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    No. But even in the worst case, if there is no possibility of compromise and it comes to force, you are in a position to use the force with sadness rather than hatred. That's much better for you, and it's even better for the other side, especially if you win.
    - woodandsteel 10y ago
      >you are in a position to use the force with sadness rather than hatred That's a very wise thought.
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    >It is the first step, but it only works if the other side is also willing to take it with you. If you are the only one changing your position, it is not a mutual compromise, by definition. That's true. However, once the other person feels well understood, they often get more interested in trying to understand your side. And then, once you and the other person side each have a better understanding of what the other wants, it may be possible to come up with some third alternative that makes both of you happy.
maxxxxx 10y ago
That's the purpose of wedge issues. It's a deliberate act by parties to make compromise impossible. When I am in good mood I just try to understand their position and store it as piece of information. Trying to convince someone is pretty hopeless.
SCdF 10y ago
Maybe the point isn't about compromise in a belief system, or about changing people's minds. Maybe it's about prioritising understanding, compassion and sharing over the adversarial thrust and parry of argument and debate, and letting people change their own minds.
noobiemcfoob 10y ago
What you can say, at least, is that it is a step that brings understanding. Often, but not always, that understanding can illuminate an acceptable compromise.
chki 10y ago
I don't see how this wouldn't be a step towards understanding another person: more information should always help you to grasp somebody else's line of thought. I think you are right that understanding is really far away from compromise, especially if your conversational counterpart is obviously having a very non-rational standpoint. But isn't it still better to "understand" them and wouldn't it be easier for you to work out something if you don't think the person you are talking to is actually just crazy or unintelligent? In the given example: would you say the situation was "better" before the unexpected question or afterwards? And is there really another question to ask that could provide a more positive outcome? I would personally not think so, but maybe I'm just not understanding you completely.. :)
- zzalpha 10y ago
  I think it depends on how you define "better". The situation is better in that the listener has a more empathic, more thorough understanding of the speaker. In that sense there was a positive exchange of information and understanding, which is great. Beyond that, though, what has been accomplished? I know that sounds hopelessly utilitarian, but in the end, when it comes to issues like, say, abortion, I fail to see how this kind of understanding is valuable unless it further leads to a coming together of minds to form agreement or compromise. Now, you mention that "wouldn't it be easier for you to work out something if you don't think the person you are talking to is actually just crazy or unintelligent"? My claim is that it doesn't matter. That whether or not I understand the other person, the very nature of the disagreement and the very fundamental principles upon which the two positions rest, makes compromise impossible. After all, how do you compromise with someone who believes, run down to their toes, that abortion is equivalent to the murder of a child? You can't. That belief system doesn't make room for even entertaining the idea of compromise. And the clever thing about modern politics and rhetoric is that they've taken issues that you wouldn't think would be wedge issues, and transformed them into wedge issues by building entire moral edifices around them. The result is that when you debate someone about something as dull as, say, tax policy, it's no longer about debating facts and ideas, but rather debating values and culture and beliefs. And when you debate those values and beliefs, what you're actually doing is attacking the very things that define who that person is.
swsieber 10y ago
I think it's hard to compromise when emotions are still in the way. Listening gets to the root of the why. I see it as opening the door. Will it always work? No. But I think it gets you closer.
Artlav 10y ago
Hm? Understanding is important. It opens up possibilities for change and/or improvements. You might call someone who deny evolution a thickhead or a zealot, ignore, and that's the end of it. Or you can try to ask "why do you think so", and turns out they only heard about evolution from their pastor, who spoke about some nonsense like "monkeys gave birth to human babies". From there, it might be possible to point that out in a way that would make them read a wiki article about it, for example. That is, make one real step towards changing the opinion. Assuming the other side would care to answer the "why", however...
crpatino 10y ago
"belief" itself is a loaded word, and I think it muddles the discussion. You're probably able to use a technical definition of "belief" along the lines of "falsifiable assertation". Most people don't see it that way; being conditioned to equate "belief" with "opinion that is factually wrong". Even for those of us that know the technical definition, we have to make a conscious effort to no fall back to the casual definion on our day to day lives. And from there, there's a slipery slope that goes down to "opinion I do not agree with". It is much more productive to see this issue in terms of values. If is not that this person cannot see the facts, but that she assigns a moral meaning to those same facts that is different from the one you would prefer. From there, it is Politics 101. If you want her to withdraw her opposition to abortion, you have to find some other issue X that is of comparable value to her, and either offer your support to make X happen or threaten to block her from achieving X. This is not pretty, but in a democratic society, it leaves everybody more or less equaly frustrated with the compromise; while at the same time nobody's deepest needs and wants get ignored.
basseq 10y ago
I think understanding matters. It may not lead to compromise, but it'll get you closer than just ignoring dissenting worldviews. And it's healthy. So much of the hate and anger around, say, politics today is predicated on not understanding and actively refusing to change that situation. We dismiss and actively insult those who we disagree with: idiot, racist, bigot, naive, liar, insane, greedy. You may never compromise on a polarizing issue because any middle ground is either non-existent or functionally equivalent to full capitulation. That's life. But if you shut down, ignore, or insult those who disagree with you on one issue, they're not even going to show up to the table on the next issue where compromise is more feasible.
joyeuse6701 10y ago
X person opposes your view...It is absolutely imperative to understand this person for the purpose of either compromise or annihilation. Know thine enemy. In the process you'll come to know yourself.
- buckbova 10y ago
  It is a battleground. Groups hijack points of view to promote their own "hidden" agendas. This is why some arguments are dismissed. If group A has to accept group B's point of view as fact then they also must give merit to group B's solution. If everyone spoke honestly and plainly we can finally see these opposing sides are enemies on this instead of each pretending to have the high ground.
fatbird 10y ago
By actually listening to her, he found that she doesn't have an intractable philosophical opposition to abortion. Her opposition to abortion is rooted in her insecurity because her husband left her because she's barren; she feels like she's failed at being a woman, so other women getting abortions feels like a spiteful act to her. Clearly, there is in fact room for compromise with her. At that point, the author could probably have shared his story about women he knew who'd had abortions, for whom it was a painful decision that wasn't thoughtless and casual and spiteful, and wasn't an indictment of her worth. Done carefully, she probably would have acknowledged that it's properly a deeply personal decision and she's not really that committed to her own feelings.
- zzalpha 10y ago
  By actually listening to her, he found that she doesn't have an intractable philosophical opposition to abortion. Actually, we don't know that either way. We understand where her philosophical position takes root. That's it. On its own that's certainly interesting. Whether or not there's flexibility in that position, though, is a question that remains unanswered. Clearly, there is in fact room for compromise with her. I'm curious, what, in the post, leads you to that conclusion?
  - fatbird 10y ago
    We do know that she doesn't have an intractable philosophical opposition because she acknowledges that her opposition is based on her circumstances. That's neither philosophical nor intractable. "Intractable" would be something like "I just believe it's totally wrong and won't entertain discussion otherwise." Room for compromise comes from the fairly obvious approach of disassociating abortion from her personal circumstances... likely by sharing the author's stories about women he knows for whom abortion was a difficult but justified personal choice, not a spiteful act directed at the woman to shame her for being barren. With some empathetic discussion, this doesn't seem an unreasonable outcome. What more do you want, to believe that there is room for compromise?
woodandsteel 10y ago
>for an increasing number of issues, in the end, the beliefs themselves are so polarized they leave no room for compromise. That's quite true. But what is often going on in this sort of a situation is a self-perpetuating pattern in which poor listening, anger, fear, attacking the other side, and rigidly clinging to extreme positions all reinforce each other. What mutual listening can do in many cases is change this into a much better self-reinforcing pattern in which people calm down, become more understanding, and become more fact-oriented and realistic in their thinking, and this in turn makes it possible to reach a good agreement such as on governmental policy. I am not saying this always works, but I think it should be one of our standard approaches, and everyone ought to know and practice it, as appropriate.
cderwin 10y ago
I think you've got to understand that Point of View is absolutely crucial in ascertaining how "radical" a view point is. I think to most people here the idea of incarcerating people who choose to abort there pregnancies is truly radical, something that seems without basis in fact or logic. But you're missing the crucial point here, which you could come to by listening: to the woman in the article, abortion is murder. It is killing another individual. If you are willing to take that as fact, to consider another's point of view instead of just be reviled by it, you might realize that given the presumption that abortion is literally murder, the criminalization of abortion is not so absurd after all. Now, you may still have now idea and be reviled by the notion that abortion could be considered murder, but at least you understand why they would want abortion to be criminalized.
dingo_bat 10y ago
>They don't care why. The act itself is morally unjustifiable. I think this very similar to how people view the act of murder. This is nothing special about abortion. They just view it as a crime. >There is no room for compromise in a belief system like that. Exactly. That is why, listening does nothing. In the article, the author felt very warm and fuzzy but look at the result of that encounter. The woman went on believing what she already believed and the author went on believing what he already believed. So what's the point?
hashkb 10y ago
> beliefs are so starkly polarized into black-and-white This would be less of a thing if we all listened more, instead of hearing the first few words from across the aisle, tuning them out, and preparing to retort back. I think your conclusion is begging the question.

by zzalpha 10y ago

throwanem 10y ago

So hey, why bother trying, right?

zzalpha 10y ago
Or you could provide a counter-argument so we can have a discussion. Kinda making my point for me. :)
- throwanem 10y ago
  Just like you're making mine, and the article author's. Listening is a lot harder than contempt, but you might think about trying it some time all the same.
  - zzalpha 10y ago
    Who wasn't listening? Did anything in either of my comments imply I wasn't? I read the author's post. I digested it. I provided my counterpoint. Your initial response was essentially dismissal. I prompted you to provide a more substantial response (admittedly rather sarcastic, though I hope it wasn't viewed as hostility... probably a bad decision, that), and you once again come back with a pithy response. It's almost as though you feel I've offended you by providing my viewpoint, which I find odd since I haven't personally attacked anyone, certainly not you, whom I don't know from Adam.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      "Offended" is the wrong word. "Pissed off" is closer. That probably seems not very fair to you, but you're far from the first person in a short space of time whom I've seen fail to recognize the fact that, while understanding the other person's perspective certainly isn't guaranteed to lead to compromise, it just as certainly is the only thing that can. The really infuriating thing is how close to it you come, and again, I see this all the time. "The viewpoints are so polarized that no compromise is possible," you say. But that's not true. Having read and digested the article, you (have no excuse not to) understand where this individual woman's objection to abortion originates: in deep, lifelong personal pain. You talk about compassion, but only so you can dismiss it offhand on your way to a multi-paragraph denunciation of the way she and people like her are just so unreasonable. And it's amazing how the other guy is the only one who ever has that problem. That's why I talk about contempt. I mean, in the example we're looking at here, there's every reason to imagine that a show of compassion, from someone who's able to put basic human integrity ahead of mere ideological disagreement, might help give this woman some perspective that'd make it possible for her to understand the issue of abortion from a point of view outside the one that she's used to, because it comes along with the pain that her condition has inflicted upon her. Even if it doesn't, easing another person's suffering is a bedrock tenet of almost any scheme of ethics or morals. But that doesn't even occur to you, because you're so caught up in the question of whether you can make someone else think like you that nothing else has a chance to get a look in. Perhaps it's unjust of me to react to this kind of heartlessness with contempt. Perhaps it's even cruel. I know for damn sure it doesn't help anything or convince anyone. At the moment, I find the urge insuperable. I mean, how high-minded can you really imagine yourself to be if the only people for whom you are capable of empathy are those who already believe substantially what you do? Does that not at some level of your psyche stimulate a certain degree of unease? I'd really like to hope so.
      - zzalpha 10y ago
        You talk about compassion, but only so you can dismiss it offhand on your way to a multi-paragraph denunciation of the way she and people like her are just so unreasonable. I denounced nothing. I said her beliefs are her beliefs and that they are unlikely to be shaken purely because someone listened to her. You read malice into a comment where none was present. You read judgement into a comment where none was given. You're failing, right now, at the very kind of compassionate listening you feel is so very important. Even if it doesn't, easing another person's suffering is a bedrock tenet of almost any scheme of ethics or morals. But that doesn't even occur to you, because you're so caught up in the question of whether you can make someone else think like you that nothing else has a chance to get a look in. How do you know that it didn't? Once again, you're reading into my post values and motivations I never espoused, I presume based on past experiences with others who disagree with you. In fact, in my other comments, I agree that, on an individual, one-on-one basis, this post contains immensely valuable moral and personal lessons. My comment, rather, is about whether a small act like this might change how we debate and decide upon issues in the large (my claim is that it is idealistic but unlikely to have value in the large). I apologize if my comment wasn't clear, that I was not disagreeing with the compassionate act of listening, but rather questioning it's value in improving the way we hold forth on discourse in broader society. Hopefully I've made that clearer here. Perhaps it's unjust of me to react to this kind of heartlessness with contempt. And now you're making it personal. I'd thank you for the discussion, but I'm not sure much of value has come out of this. It's a shame, but so be it.
  - justratsinacoat 10y ago
    Jesus, read your comments in this thread again. Do you really think you're a champion of Listening? A guy made a rather cogent point about whether this protocol will actually help resolve issues or not (which the linked article doesn't make claims about one way or the other), and you responded with the soul of Contempt, reducing his argument to an implicit "eh, why bother". edit: thanks for your response to 'zzalpha, helped me understand your position, and my response above seems a bit harsh in light of that. That said, I'll leave it up because the expository rant came afterward :P
    - throwanem 10y ago
      No, your response was totally justified, and it in turn informed mine. I think I said that contempt is easier than compassion, and I guess I demonstrated that, too. It's not always easy to keep a level head and remember that cruelty is almost never a constructive response to cruelty, and sometimes I'm really bad at it. Next time I intend to do better, and I'm glad I managed not to fail entirely at getting my point across in spite of doing a poor job this time.
- noobiemcfoob 10y ago
  "so why bother trying, right?" is a valid critique of your argument. More verbosely, your complaints are correct and fair, but they aren't altogether a rejection of attempting to find compromise.

jbob2000 10y ago

I was going to comment something similar. This woman and her story make me think that trying to change her opinion on abortions would be wasted effort. She spent her entire life hating women who can have babies. You can scrub all you want, but grime that thick ain't coming off.

aiiane 10y ago

Sometimes compromise isn't the goal. Sometimes the goal is just to eventually find a way to do something that not everyone will agree with while not completely alienating the dissenters. You don't have to agree with something to be willing to support it. (I've lost track of the number of times I've said "I'm not sure this is the best option here, but doing nothing would be worse, so let's try your plan." Or vice versa.) Not every decision needs to be based on consensus, but that doesn't mean the only other option is to ignore everyone else.

bamboo_7 10y ago

I think you said it yourself that understanding is an important first step....

whiddershins 10y ago

It was hard for me to resist the urge to downvote this comment. Yes, everything you are saying has merit, but overall I completely disagree with the main thrust of your point. If listening and understanding other people isn't the first step to working through these problems, nothing is. And I am unwilling to just call the problems unfixable, throw my hands up, and resign myself to a world full of such misunderstanding, recrimination, and pain. I make a serious effort to nurture relationships with people who hold beliefs very different from mine, some of these beliefs I even consider ethically flawed, or counterfactual. And yet I get so much out of talking and especially listening to these people explain their beliefs to me. I feel grateful to have the opportunity to see the world through other lenses, and I have learned and grown as a result. If more people did this, I like to imagine that the timbre of discussion would change from default contempt to something far better.

enraged_camel 10y ago
>>If listening and understanding other people isn't the first step to working through these problems, nothing is. It is the first step, but it only works if the other side is also willing to take it with you. If you are the only one changing your position, it is not a mutual compromise, by definition.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  No. But even in the worst case, if there is no possibility of compromise and it comes to force, you are in a position to use the force with sadness rather than hatred. That's much better for you, and it's even better for the other side, especially if you win.
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    >you are in a position to use the force with sadness rather than hatred That's a very wise thought.
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  >It is the first step, but it only works if the other side is also willing to take it with you. If you are the only one changing your position, it is not a mutual compromise, by definition. That's true. However, once the other person feels well understood, they often get more interested in trying to understand your side. And then, once you and the other person side each have a better understanding of what the other wants, it may be possible to come up with some third alternative that makes both of you happy.

maxxxxx 10y ago

That's the purpose of wedge issues. It's a deliberate act by parties to make compromise impossible. When I am in good mood I just try to understand their position and store it as piece of information. Trying to convince someone is pretty hopeless.

SCdF 10y ago

Maybe the point isn't about compromise in a belief system, or about changing people's minds. Maybe it's about prioritising understanding, compassion and sharing over the adversarial thrust and parry of argument and debate, and letting people change their own minds.

noobiemcfoob 10y ago

What you can say, at least, is that it is a step that brings understanding. Often, but not always, that understanding can illuminate an acceptable compromise.

chki 10y ago

I don't see how this wouldn't be a step towards understanding another person: more information should always help you to grasp somebody else's line of thought. I think you are right that understanding is really far away from compromise, especially if your conversational counterpart is obviously having a very non-rational standpoint. But isn't it still better to "understand" them and wouldn't it be easier for you to work out something if you don't think the person you are talking to is actually just crazy or unintelligent? In the given example: would you say the situation was "better" before the unexpected question or afterwards? And is there really another question to ask that could provide a more positive outcome? I would personally not think so, but maybe I'm just not understanding you completely.. :)

zzalpha 10y ago
I think it depends on how you define "better". The situation is better in that the listener has a more empathic, more thorough understanding of the speaker. In that sense there was a positive exchange of information and understanding, which is great. Beyond that, though, what has been accomplished? I know that sounds hopelessly utilitarian, but in the end, when it comes to issues like, say, abortion, I fail to see how this kind of understanding is valuable unless it further leads to a coming together of minds to form agreement or compromise. Now, you mention that "wouldn't it be easier for you to work out something if you don't think the person you are talking to is actually just crazy or unintelligent"? My claim is that it doesn't matter. That whether or not I understand the other person, the very nature of the disagreement and the very fundamental principles upon which the two positions rest, makes compromise impossible. After all, how do you compromise with someone who believes, run down to their toes, that abortion is equivalent to the murder of a child? You can't. That belief system doesn't make room for even entertaining the idea of compromise. And the clever thing about modern politics and rhetoric is that they've taken issues that you wouldn't think would be wedge issues, and transformed them into wedge issues by building entire moral edifices around them. The result is that when you debate someone about something as dull as, say, tax policy, it's no longer about debating facts and ideas, but rather debating values and culture and beliefs. And when you debate those values and beliefs, what you're actually doing is attacking the very things that define who that person is.

swsieber 10y ago

I think it's hard to compromise when emotions are still in the way. Listening gets to the root of the why. I see it as opening the door. Will it always work? No. But I think it gets you closer.

Artlav 10y ago

Hm? Understanding is important. It opens up possibilities for change and/or improvements. You might call someone who deny evolution a thickhead or a zealot, ignore, and that's the end of it. Or you can try to ask "why do you think so", and turns out they only heard about evolution from their pastor, who spoke about some nonsense like "monkeys gave birth to human babies". From there, it might be possible to point that out in a way that would make them read a wiki article about it, for example. That is, make one real step towards changing the opinion. Assuming the other side would care to answer the "why", however...

crpatino 10y ago

"belief" itself is a loaded word, and I think it muddles the discussion. You're probably able to use a technical definition of "belief" along the lines of "falsifiable assertation". Most people don't see it that way; being conditioned to equate "belief" with "opinion that is factually wrong". Even for those of us that know the technical definition, we have to make a conscious effort to no fall back to the casual definion on our day to day lives. And from there, there's a slipery slope that goes down to "opinion I do not agree with". It is much more productive to see this issue in terms of values. If is not that this person cannot see the facts, but that she assigns a moral meaning to those same facts that is different from the one you would prefer. From there, it is Politics 101. If you want her to withdraw her opposition to abortion, you have to find some other issue X that is of comparable value to her, and either offer your support to make X happen or threaten to block her from achieving X. This is not pretty, but in a democratic society, it leaves everybody more or less equaly frustrated with the compromise; while at the same time nobody's deepest needs and wants get ignored.

basseq 10y ago

I think understanding matters. It may not lead to compromise, but it'll get you closer than just ignoring dissenting worldviews. And it's healthy. So much of the hate and anger around, say, politics today is predicated on not understanding and actively refusing to change that situation. We dismiss and actively insult those who we disagree with: idiot, racist, bigot, naive, liar, insane, greedy. You may never compromise on a polarizing issue because any middle ground is either non-existent or functionally equivalent to full capitulation. That's life. But if you shut down, ignore, or insult those who disagree with you on one issue, they're not even going to show up to the table on the next issue where compromise is more feasible.

joyeuse6701 10y ago

X person opposes your view...It is absolutely imperative to understand this person for the purpose of either compromise or annihilation. Know thine enemy. In the process you'll come to know yourself.

buckbova 10y ago
It is a battleground. Groups hijack points of view to promote their own "hidden" agendas. This is why some arguments are dismissed. If group A has to accept group B's point of view as fact then they also must give merit to group B's solution. If everyone spoke honestly and plainly we can finally see these opposing sides are enemies on this instead of each pretending to have the high ground.

fatbird 10y ago

By actually listening to her, he found that she doesn't have an intractable philosophical opposition to abortion. Her opposition to abortion is rooted in her insecurity because her husband left her because she's barren; she feels like she's failed at being a woman, so other women getting abortions feels like a spiteful act to her. Clearly, there is in fact room for compromise with her. At that point, the author could probably have shared his story about women he knew who'd had abortions, for whom it was a painful decision that wasn't thoughtless and casual and spiteful, and wasn't an indictment of her worth. Done carefully, she probably would have acknowledged that it's properly a deeply personal decision and she's not really that committed to her own feelings.

zzalpha 10y ago
By actually listening to her, he found that she doesn't have an intractable philosophical opposition to abortion. Actually, we don't know that either way. We understand where her philosophical position takes root. That's it. On its own that's certainly interesting. Whether or not there's flexibility in that position, though, is a question that remains unanswered. Clearly, there is in fact room for compromise with her. I'm curious, what, in the post, leads you to that conclusion?
- fatbird 10y ago
  We do know that she doesn't have an intractable philosophical opposition because she acknowledges that her opposition is based on her circumstances. That's neither philosophical nor intractable. "Intractable" would be something like "I just believe it's totally wrong and won't entertain discussion otherwise." Room for compromise comes from the fairly obvious approach of disassociating abortion from her personal circumstances... likely by sharing the author's stories about women he knows for whom abortion was a difficult but justified personal choice, not a spiteful act directed at the woman to shame her for being barren. With some empathetic discussion, this doesn't seem an unreasonable outcome. What more do you want, to believe that there is room for compromise?

woodandsteel 10y ago

>for an increasing number of issues, in the end, the beliefs themselves are so polarized they leave no room for compromise. That's quite true. But what is often going on in this sort of a situation is a self-perpetuating pattern in which poor listening, anger, fear, attacking the other side, and rigidly clinging to extreme positions all reinforce each other. What mutual listening can do in many cases is change this into a much better self-reinforcing pattern in which people calm down, become more understanding, and become more fact-oriented and realistic in their thinking, and this in turn makes it possible to reach a good agreement such as on governmental policy. I am not saying this always works, but I think it should be one of our standard approaches, and everyone ought to know and practice it, as appropriate.

cderwin 10y ago

I think you've got to understand that Point of View is absolutely crucial in ascertaining how "radical" a view point is. I think to most people here the idea of incarcerating people who choose to abort there pregnancies is truly radical, something that seems without basis in fact or logic. But you're missing the crucial point here, which you could come to by listening: to the woman in the article, abortion is murder. It is killing another individual. If you are willing to take that as fact, to consider another's point of view instead of just be reviled by it, you might realize that given the presumption that abortion is literally murder, the criminalization of abortion is not so absurd after all. Now, you may still have now idea and be reviled by the notion that abortion could be considered murder, but at least you understand why they would want abortion to be criminalized.

dingo_bat 10y ago

>They don't care why. The act itself is morally unjustifiable. I think this very similar to how people view the act of murder. This is nothing special about abortion. They just view it as a crime. >There is no room for compromise in a belief system like that. Exactly. That is why, listening does nothing. In the article, the author felt very warm and fuzzy but look at the result of that encounter. The woman went on believing what she already believed and the author went on believing what he already believed. So what's the point?

hashkb 10y ago

> beliefs are so starkly polarized into black-and-white This would be less of a thing if we all listened more, instead of hearing the first few words from across the aisle, tuning them out, and preparing to retort back. I think your conclusion is begging the question.