4 ms·

"When someone has a point of view we find difficult to understand, disagreeable, or even offensive, we must look to the set of circumstances that person has exp

"When someone has a point of view we find difficult to understand, disagreeable, or even offensive, we must look to the set of circumstances that person has experienced that resulted in that point of view." This is great advice for getting along with people and treating others politely. However, I don't think it provides any insight into actually improving public policy or improving one's own beliefs. Of course we all "pick sides" based on our own experiences in debates like these. There will never be any way to systematically remove all bias in a debate. Rather than try to dig up and fully understand the causes of every bias in every individual, we should take the simpler route: Examine just your own biases, judge everyone else's viewpoints based on facts and data alone, and never take strong positions on any point without an abundance of objective justification. You will end up agreeable, epistemically cautious, and continuously learning.

mpartel 10y ago
Examining your own biases is certainly useful, but why not do both? I think the main value of the approach in the article is not to immediately arrive at answers but to promote a better culture of discussion. It may be slow going on a larger scale, and I may be overly optimistic, but I feel that a person does not need very many instances of being genuinely listened to before permanently "converting" into a more accepting and empathetic human being, possibly even one that goes on to pay it forward.
groby_b 10y ago
I'm curious - if you say "judge on facts and data alone, without listening", how will you know all the facts? How will you know you did not miss some data? Sure, for some debates, there is a preponderance of evidence that a specific view is right. For many things in the public light, the debate is not that simple, though. Many of our hotbutton political issues are very complex and nuanced. To stay with the article's example, there is no "correct" answer to "should abortion be legal". It is, at its core, a choice about ethics, and personal values. And any decision on the topic is a compromise. We will never compromise if we don't hear the other person. And even if they have outmoded or irrational beliefs, how will we ever get in agreement if we just say "you are wrong"?
- mgraczyk 10y ago
  > if you say "judge on facts and data alone, without listening", I didn't say "without listening". I meant that it is better to pay attention to facts instead of positions or opinions. It's not important that your conversation partner believes X or claims that "Y is obvious". Instead you should pay attention when your conversation partner points on "people measured X in in such and such a way and found Y". Collect evidence in your head, not opinions or other people's' summaries of the evidence. I agree that in many cases there is no obvious correct answer. In those cases I think it is reasonable not to take a strong position. We should make decisions and compromise by examining objective facts in tandem with our own ethics and values, not by examining others' ethics and values. To be specific, I should evaluate facts about abortion rates, fetal development, and family planning outcomes in the context of my own ethical worldview. If I want to change my ethics, then the conversation should be about ethics instead of abortion. > how will we ever get in agreement I believe in many cases, we will not come to agreement. Many people will never change their mind on abortion (in either direction). The goal is to be happy and improve ones own worldview without it being necessary to agree or to figure out why the other person is biased.
  - groby_b 10y ago
    I wish you good luck with this approach. I prefer to understand people I disagree with - many arguments are rooted in personal history, not naked facts. I tried the "purely fact driven, ignore emotions" approach - it did not lead me to a point where I was happy. (It tends to stunt relationships, in my experience) I hope it plays out better for you.

mpartel 10y ago

Examining your own biases is certainly useful, but why not do both? I think the main value of the approach in the article is not to immediately arrive at answers but to promote a better culture of discussion. It may be slow going on a larger scale, and I may be overly optimistic, but I feel that a person does not need very many instances of being genuinely listened to before permanently "converting" into a more accepting and empathetic human being, possibly even one that goes on to pay it forward.

groby_b 10y ago

I'm curious - if you say "judge on facts and data alone, without listening", how will you know all the facts? How will you know you did not miss some data? Sure, for some debates, there is a preponderance of evidence that a specific view is right. For many things in the public light, the debate is not that simple, though. Many of our hotbutton political issues are very complex and nuanced. To stay with the article's example, there is no "correct" answer to "should abortion be legal". It is, at its core, a choice about ethics, and personal values. And any decision on the topic is a compromise. We will never compromise if we don't hear the other person. And even if they have outmoded or irrational beliefs, how will we ever get in agreement if we just say "you are wrong"?

mgraczyk 10y ago
> if you say "judge on facts and data alone, without listening", I didn't say "without listening". I meant that it is better to pay attention to facts instead of positions or opinions. It's not important that your conversation partner believes X or claims that "Y is obvious". Instead you should pay attention when your conversation partner points on "people measured X in in such and such a way and found Y". Collect evidence in your head, not opinions or other people's' summaries of the evidence. I agree that in many cases there is no obvious correct answer. In those cases I think it is reasonable not to take a strong position. We should make decisions and compromise by examining objective facts in tandem with our own ethics and values, not by examining others' ethics and values. To be specific, I should evaluate facts about abortion rates, fetal development, and family planning outcomes in the context of my own ethical worldview. If I want to change my ethics, then the conversation should be about ethics instead of abortion. > how will we ever get in agreement I believe in many cases, we will not come to agreement. Many people will never change their mind on abortion (in either direction). The goal is to be happy and improve ones own worldview without it being necessary to agree or to figure out why the other person is biased.
- groby_b 10y ago
  I wish you good luck with this approach. I prefer to understand people I disagree with - many arguments are rooted in personal history, not naked facts. I tried the "purely fact driven, ignore emotions" approach - it did not lead me to a point where I was happy. (It tends to stunt relationships, in my experience) I hope it plays out better for you.