4 ms·
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. I
by 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.
- __jal 10y agoI'll throw out at least one selfish, utilitarian-ish reason why understanding of contrary viewpoints still matters: if you don't have a theory of mind that at least somewhat tracks an adversary, you will probably lose whatever competition you're in against them, unless they're even worse at empathy. In complicated political games, from presidential horse races to office promotions, predicting the actions of others and having a guess as to how they may react in different situations is extremely important. So even if compromise is indeed impossible, understanding where they are coming from is usually vital to beating them. Whoever "they" are. There is also the personal growth angle, but sadly, that doesn't seem to be compelling to a significant fraction of folks.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoIt can still take the hatred out. A pro-life person could say, "I believe that life begins at conception (or when the heart starts, or when the brainwaves start), and after that, abortion is murder. But I also understand what a horrible position that puts many women in, and the real pain it causes in real lives. I still can't compromise - I believe abortion should be illegal - but I can understand why people are on the other side, and I don't hate them for being there." And a pro-choice person could say, "I care about womens' ability to choose what they want for their own lives. But I can see how, if you genuinely believe that abortion is murder, you simply can't support it in good conscience. I can't agree with you, and we can't compromise. But I can respect you for standing for what you think is morally right, even when I think you're wrong on what is actually moral in this situation." Wouldn't that be better? It's still an unresolvable issue. But if we could remove the hatred on both sides, wouldn't that be better?
- kaybe 10y agoBoth can then hopefully direct their efforts towards the real problem, need for abortion. If that can be reduced or even eliminated with more support and sex ed, both win. Maybe not in absolute terms, but it's something. This might not always be possible for disagreements, but sometimes it can help to step back and consider the issue and it's implications for society from other angles.