5 ms·

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

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.
zzalpha 10y ago
If listening and understanding other people isn't the first step to working through these problems, nothing is. So I'll make a counter-point: let's say we're back in the old slavery days. I'm sure Abe did his fair share of listening and talking with folks from the South. But eventually, there just ain't no compromising and something had to be done. And so it was done. Ultimately, I think, for some issues, there is simply no room for compromise. At that point, it's simply a question of who has the power to push their agenda. That or there's gridlock and nothing happens at all (see: climate change). Now, on a one-on-one basis, I think this post is full of excellent lessons. Active listening, empathic connection, these are great tools when dealing with individuals, whether that be in a personal or professional setting. But in the large? To me, history demonstrates that it's simply idealism to believe that people can, in aggregate, come together on complex, polarizing issues.
- Artlav 10y ago
  Ah, i had an impression that the article was talking about the one-on-one case, and so assumed you were too. Makes more sense now.
- whiddershins 10y ago
  >> To me, history demonstrates that it's simply idealism to believe that people can, in aggregate, come together on complex, polarizing issues. Just look at how much the majority opinion on dozens of topics has changed over the past few decades. Marijuana legalization. Gay marriage. Mass incarceration. Lots and lots of change happens in the hearts and minds of lots and lots of people without force being involved. People often change their views very gradually, over time, as they realize aspects of things which weren't apparent to them before. A big part of this is often empathetic discussions with the people around them. I think you, and other commenters in this thread, seem to imply that the assumptive goal is to change someone's mind RIGHT NOW, or else just force them to do what you know is right, and ignore their wrongheadedness. The civil war was a serious net benefit to humanity by outlawing slavery. But the underlying concerns of Southerners, which was the dismantling of their economy, was never addressed. This has led to generational poverty in the south which has never been fully undone, and created a fertile field for the southern strategy and Jim Crow, which are arguably continuing to affect us in the form of the current presidential campaign. Force may have been necessary, but a deeper understanding might have made the aftermath of force far better.
justratsinacoat 10y ago
>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 Honest question -- exactly what do you get out of talking and listening to people explain 'ethically flawed' or 'counterfactual' beliefs to you? What have you learned? How better to deal with people of that sort? I realize this sounds sarcastic, but whenever I've been in that situation I've only come to the sinking realization that the discussion I am trying to have with this person is fruitless at best and damaging to us both at worst.
- whiddershins 10y ago
  I have changed opinions on certain topics, for example my thoughts about gun control and libertarianism are more nuanced than years ago. I can articulate many viewpoints extremely clearly which I don't happen to hold, which means if I am in a debating mood I can much more precisely debate someone, rather than simply dismissing them. I repeatedly realize my own opinions are sometimes based on unexamined assumptions, which no matter how many times I realize it and try to root it out, keeps coming to my attention over and over. I repeatedly am reminded that almost everyone believes they are acting morally, and it is humbling to try to understand the morals of the person who seems so "immoral." I often am floored when I realize just how different my lived experience is from the person who has formed such a puzzling belief, and it massively broadens my perspective to learn about those narratives. These are just a few things off the top of my head, I bet I could think of many more.
  - justratsinacoat 10y ago
    A more concise and convincing presentation than the article itself. Thanks!
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    Very well put. I would just add that I usually find that, while I may disagree with the course of action the person is advocating, I can still see that the deeper ends they see it as achieving have some legitimacy.
AnimalMuppet 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. Well, you did a good job of actually living out what you are saying, by not downvoting, and instead responding with a calm and reasonable reply.

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.

zzalpha 10y ago

If listening and understanding other people isn't the first step to working through these problems, nothing is. So I'll make a counter-point: let's say we're back in the old slavery days. I'm sure Abe did his fair share of listening and talking with folks from the South. But eventually, there just ain't no compromising and something had to be done. And so it was done. Ultimately, I think, for some issues, there is simply no room for compromise. At that point, it's simply a question of who has the power to push their agenda. That or there's gridlock and nothing happens at all (see: climate change). Now, on a one-on-one basis, I think this post is full of excellent lessons. Active listening, empathic connection, these are great tools when dealing with individuals, whether that be in a personal or professional setting. But in the large? To me, history demonstrates that it's simply idealism to believe that people can, in aggregate, come together on complex, polarizing issues.

Artlav 10y ago
Ah, i had an impression that the article was talking about the one-on-one case, and so assumed you were too. Makes more sense now.
whiddershins 10y ago
>> To me, history demonstrates that it's simply idealism to believe that people can, in aggregate, come together on complex, polarizing issues. Just look at how much the majority opinion on dozens of topics has changed over the past few decades. Marijuana legalization. Gay marriage. Mass incarceration. Lots and lots of change happens in the hearts and minds of lots and lots of people without force being involved. People often change their views very gradually, over time, as they realize aspects of things which weren't apparent to them before. A big part of this is often empathetic discussions with the people around them. I think you, and other commenters in this thread, seem to imply that the assumptive goal is to change someone's mind RIGHT NOW, or else just force them to do what you know is right, and ignore their wrongheadedness. The civil war was a serious net benefit to humanity by outlawing slavery. But the underlying concerns of Southerners, which was the dismantling of their economy, was never addressed. This has led to generational poverty in the south which has never been fully undone, and created a fertile field for the southern strategy and Jim Crow, which are arguably continuing to affect us in the form of the current presidential campaign. Force may have been necessary, but a deeper understanding might have made the aftermath of force far better.

justratsinacoat 10y ago

>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 Honest question -- exactly what do you get out of talking and listening to people explain 'ethically flawed' or 'counterfactual' beliefs to you? What have you learned? How better to deal with people of that sort? I realize this sounds sarcastic, but whenever I've been in that situation I've only come to the sinking realization that the discussion I am trying to have with this person is fruitless at best and damaging to us both at worst.

whiddershins 10y ago
I have changed opinions on certain topics, for example my thoughts about gun control and libertarianism are more nuanced than years ago. I can articulate many viewpoints extremely clearly which I don't happen to hold, which means if I am in a debating mood I can much more precisely debate someone, rather than simply dismissing them. I repeatedly realize my own opinions are sometimes based on unexamined assumptions, which no matter how many times I realize it and try to root it out, keeps coming to my attention over and over. I repeatedly am reminded that almost everyone believes they are acting morally, and it is humbling to try to understand the morals of the person who seems so "immoral." I often am floored when I realize just how different my lived experience is from the person who has formed such a puzzling belief, and it massively broadens my perspective to learn about those narratives. These are just a few things off the top of my head, I bet I could think of many more.
- justratsinacoat 10y ago
  A more concise and convincing presentation than the article itself. Thanks!
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  Very well put. I would just add that I usually find that, while I may disagree with the course of action the person is advocating, I can still see that the deeper ends they see it as achieving have some legitimacy.

AnimalMuppet 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. Well, you did a good job of actually living out what you are saying, by not downvoting, and instead responding with a calm and reasonable reply.