How to listen when you disagree
urbanconfessional.org
urbanconfessional.org
This is just another way of attacking someone else's position, with the added bonus of letting you be intolerably smug while you do it. You're not communicating in good faith unless you're willing to concede the possibility that the other person is actually right about something. At the very least you need to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
This, on the other hand, is a way of reconciling the fact that you obviously don't have a good reason to believe the things you do (otherwise, you wouldn't be threatened by the mere fact that someone disagrees with you) with your preference to believe that your views are in some meaningful way correct: obtain ammunition against the other by "discovering" the real reason they believe such obviously wrong things, then being the superior person by empathizing with this poor benighted creature.
Instead, OP says "first find out how they got to that position in life" which you gotta understand does come across pretty smug since it implies superiority of opinion/belief and degenerates the disagreer as if they are merely using emotion in their logic.
I think ideally you first want to let the battle of logic fly then get into biography details if it's a very sharp disagreement. It may be worthwhile for both sides to hear each other's upbringing and catalyst -- though you might not take the other's lens as your own, it nevertheless will add a little wisdom
Truth often goes deeper than facts and logic.
Discussing things like mathematicians trying to solve a hard math problem would probably help our communications more if anything, compared to say, carrying out discourse like we're all Deepak Chopras...
[0] This idea is described pretty well by the whole "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics" discussion:
https://plus.maths.org/content/unreasonable-effectiveness
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
The idea that facts and logic are everything suggests that we could feed facts into some ubercomputer and the Truth would come out. As of today, it's clearly not the case--computers are excellent at computing, but they are pretty dumb. Humans must be around to select, prioritize, assign values, interpret, and put it all together. Otherwise, computers only spit the most mundane truths out of facts plus logic, and that was precisely one of the decisive criticism of positivim.
Like how math was a good idea that was applied everywhere from physics to modern medicine and architecture?
Don't get me wrong, it's a decent rule of thumb for a lot of ideas, but for formal languages with rigid structures and rigorous definitions such as mathematical logic, it doesn't quite work. In fact, applying a good idea to an area where doing so would objectively be detrimental, would inherently be not logical by definition.
And That's the power of logic. If followed rigorously, it can actually protect us from going down a lot of inaccurate roads, because doing so means it's also highly probable that you're doing something inconsistent with formal logic. This is the same reason why strongly typed programming languages like Haskell and ML have such a cult following, it's because they prevent a lot of silliness from even starting to happen. It's just a specialized niche case of the same idea, letting people discuss complex ideas in a structured way so that they're easier to communicate and verify. Now imagine if he had that kind of clarity in communication with social issues...
> The idea that facts and logic are everything suggests that we could feed facts into some ubercomputer and the Truth would come out.
That's not necessarily true, and drastically undermines what logic actually is. We already know there are several problems that have been proven to be uncomputable, but that doesn't mean we can't use logic to understand them; logic is separate from computability, and vastly more powerful. Logic is what gave birth to the entire notion of computation in the first place, and there are many math proofs that are logically sound but not computable either. To paint logic simply as something that computers do is a mass disservice to what it represents and is capable of.
The issue is usually not with how logic itself works, but with how people misuse, and more importantly, how people misunderstand it. It is just absolutely tragic how undervalued and widely misunderstood logic is in modern society, despite it having given us so much already.
Discerning which facts and therefore which course of action to take often involves a judgement call, a portion of which is attempting to know all applicable parties as individuals.
The portion in the original journal entry about filter bubbles and excising dissent from our daily experience speaks to this.
We cannot make wise decisions without knowing as much as possible about both those who disagree with us as well as those who agree with us. Because sometimes the "why" or "how" is as intellectually valuable as the "what".
(Not always, but more than none by a bunch!)
It can't tell you what objectives are important nor what risks are acceptable. Those are both transitive properties: something is important to some people, something might be acceptable to some people.
There's no objective morality and no objective politics. Even if we try to limit discussion to "facts", things fall apart fairly rapidly once we start talking stochastic events and statistical morality. Controversial subjects get bogged down with duelling sets of statistics each making subtly different claims about causation.
One of the useful things about legal training is that it forces you to separate facts from law. Facts may be true or false but only law and ethics can make claims about what is right and wrong.
It should be noted that this is a controversial view, albeit one commonly held.
There are many people who believe, for example, that given only the laws of physics and the information describing the arrangement of particles making up a kitten, that they could in principle derive the conclusion that it is wrong to set the kitten on fire, without needing any further context. There are many ways to go about this.
You're not going to be able to convince someone who is disagreeing with you from an emotional place, no matter how much logic you throw at them. In addition, you're making it worse each time you do this, because you're ignoring what they're saying, and what they're saying is really important to them.
Listening with empathy is how you bring people to the table. It's also how you understand when to walk away. When you try to forcefully convince someone out of their emotional beliefs without understanding how they got there (and you aren't coworkers or running out of air or something) they will think you are an asshole. The less emotional / more logical person is in the best position to open with empathy.
We were all taught Debate ("Trying to prove your point") instead of being taught to Dialectic ("the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions.").
I have many conversations about Religion and Theology and as soon as I detect the other party is dead set on proving their ideas correct instead trying to find the truth, I understand immediately we won't get anywhere.
It can help you knock that view down, perhaps, but it can also help you to come to that same view yourself, or recognise its value.
Ideology is nearly pointless to discuss. Instead, the author suggests talking about topics that are more personal. By talking about experiences, you can expose the nuance that's so easily blown away by swapping talking points.
Perhaps the author and the woman both agree that people should be less cavalier with pregnancy, and there's a productive way forward. Perhaps they both agree it's a heartbreaking issues and more people need support to deal with it. Even abortion is not so black and white, and arguing about it abstractly is a much less fruitful way to find common ground.
So my common response to strong ideological positions is to take a hypothetical which exposes something I feel uncomfortable with if I were to accept that ideological framework.
The world is pretty much all shades of grey to me (indeed to an extent which occasionally offends), so I find ideological certainty very hard to relate to. It's not that I think they're wrong and I'm right, I'm not attacking their position, I just want to get my head around the fact that when faced with all the ramifications of their position - they're still certain.
These conversations are really interesting to me, and I love talking to people who see the world so differently.
That's the least generous interpretation, though. I think he was doing a personal art project and fishing for an experience that would confirm the truism that the problem in politics is that angry people should just calm down and listen to each other. This is what he got, so this is what he had to use in that narrative.
I don't agree that this is the only reason someone would be threatened by disagreement, or even the main reason. You can feel threatened by disagreement on the basis of the other party acting on their belief, and how that outcome would affect you.
As a relevant example, you can feel threatened by someone disagreeing with your stance on abortion if you are pro-choice, because the down-stream implication of pro-life beliefs is legislation and societal constraints that remove your ability to choose.
If we're just debating in a vacuum then sure, you would only feel threatened as some kind of ego response. But in the real world beliefs tend to result in real-world consequences, and those consequences are the root cause of feeling threatened by disagreement.
Ah, yes. The author is so intolerably smug, the way he didn't advance his own message to the woman, and asked her to speak more of her own experience. I know that I, for one, can't handle it when someone ask for more information without expressing any statement of judgement - I mean, the sheer smugness of it is just intolerable.
> This, on the other hand, is a way of reconciling the fact that you obviously don't have a good reason to believe the things you do
Even though the author clearly and concisely explains why his own opinion is different to the woman's? It's not like it's a complex or hard to read article.
There's a considerable amount of projection going on in your comment. I find the commentary about smugness quite ironic, really.
maybe understanding the motives of your peer is one of the requirements for domination (you can't dominate someone who you don't understand at all), but understanding does not imply domination.
there is another problem: your peer will probably not be ready to share much of his background for fear of your motives; if you know that your words can be used against yourself, then you will not be ready to talk too much.
A couple of hints. One is that I think the easiest way to start doing this is to practice active listening, which is just saying back to the other person the main ideas and feelings they are expressing. This a simple rule, though it can be hard to follow. Active listening forces you to pay attention, and it shows the other person you are understanding, plus if you get something wrong they can correct you.
The other is that when you are arguing disagreeing with someone and they won't listen to you, try listening to them until they feel understood, and they will probably be more interesting in listening to you. Or perhaps the two of you could first reach an agreement that both of you will listen to the other until they feel understood, and then decide which of you will be the first talker.
First, seek to understand and then seek to be understood.
Active listening definitely works for me!
My experience in active listening is that perhaps 1 out of 20 times do you get a good outcome as was the case in this example. Generally, the person will simply yell things at you about the Bible so something like that. However I have had one similar experience a long time ago. When I first came out, almost all my family members were accepting, except for one sister who had a lot of trouble with it. It took a long time to get her into a situation where she would even talk to me about it. When she finally did, it had a lot more to do with her failed marriage and something about how hard she tried to make it work and how it was not fair that she tried to live according to the Christian way (my family is super religious, I am not, I am an atheist, all other family is evangelical). She seemed to think I was getting away with something. It did not really change a lot but it did seem like she softened a little perhaps just being able to bitch at me about it helped I guess. I am not convinced the listening approach actually changes much, but it certainly can be interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication got me started. Everything in it is super obvious... but also hard to remember in the moment.
We have been somewhat culturally conditioned by the common tropes of storytelling that biography excuses, and in fact makes acceptable, any ideology. We are expected to love characters who are even downright evil, just because they suffered a personal loss. In other cases, we're expected to grant special allowances to people just because they are very offended.
A bad idea is a bad idea. Making it immune to criticism on account of the personal circumstances of the person expressing that idea is a really destructive mechanism, especially when that idea affects other people.
I actually had a conversation kind of like this with my Dad recently. We tend to agree on most things, but we were discussing a question from the political compass[1] - one of the few we disagreed strongly on. It asked, essentially, whether a person should be required to work, if able, in order to receive support from society. Our initial positions were pretty strongly opposite, and we were both surprised by the other's thoughts. We each sort of explained our thinking, and listened to the other's. I understood where he was coming from, but still disagreed with his conclusions, and that's where we left it. The next day he called me up and said that he'd been thinking a lot about what I'd said, and that he'd come to change his opinion nearly 180 degrees. What's funny was that I'd been thinking about the conversation too, and had actually moderated my opinion a bit too (although not as much), and came to agree with a couple of his points. It was really cool, because neither of us changed the other's mind; we changed our own minds after the fact. Now sure, we have a good relationship to begin with, and were having a good-natured discussion. It's going to be more difficult when you vehemently disagree with someone about nearly everything. But at least by listening it's possible that you'll accomplish something.
I remember an episode of The Spirit Of Things, where they were talking to an atheist who used to be very christian, and was going to an adult Sunday School. She turned herself atheist by simply asking a lot of questions, like "wasn't it wrong of God to ask Isaac to slay his son in the first place". The more questions she had, the more she said the answers sounded more like evasion than solid moral grounding; that the priest was only able to excuse biblical actions rather than explain a real moral lesson from them. So she asked more questions and grew more and more dissatisfied with the lack of internal consistency.
Long story short, it means I see a point in asking people of their histories, and getting them to think about why they're where they are today; why they do the things they do today. I don't think that that means biography excuses bad actions, but that getting someone to give something deeper about themselves rather than just rote talking points... it brings something else to the table. It can also be interesting in and of itself.
TL;DR: You're more likely to win people over by inviting them than by opposing them. :)
If you are faced with a world that is hostile to your worldview, and you want to move people closer to it, do you think you'll be more effective by disregarding their motivations and telling them how wrong they are? Or by coming to understand what motivates them and having a conversation as peers?
While ideologies may propel any number of evils, by and large people are not themselves evil. They're just complicated and conflicted and sometimes ignorant, with a lot of motivations and incentives that are not always immediately obvious, and a ton of baggage.
Humble empathy isn't the same as immunizing bad ideas from criticism. Communication doesn't have to be combat.
The article says:
> people who have them should be arrested for murder
Also, this is said by someone who considers abortion to be murder, so isn't surprising.
> Also, this is said by someone who considers abortion to be murder, so isn't surprising.
The article actually does a pretty good job of convincing me that she doesn't consider it to be murder as such, she just wants people who do it to get the same punishment, because she feels they are throwing something away that is unattainable to her.
Right, and the point is that the writer would likely never have found this out in the course of normal argument because the discussion would have got caught up in the rights and wrongs of jailing people for making choices about procreation.
There's the expression "love the sinner, hate the sin" that surely applies to more than just religious sins. It is possible to disagree with someone but not hate them for it, even if their ideas might be hateful to you.
I'm not sure how this is a response to my comment. If you read my other comment, that's pretty much my point. I'm sorry if that was not clear.
I was really just pointing out that understanding the reasons why can better lead you to what their opinion really is. That's all. The 'love the sinner' stuff was kind of irrelevant.
She expressed a desire to have those people locked up and arrested for murder. That is not literally killing someone.
> Making it immune to criticism
I don't think anybody suggested doing this. You can love someone while disagreeing with them, even if you disagree with them really hard. You can criticize someone's opinions in some forums, and leave them other forums where they can vent safely.
Can you define this? Just asking.
The output from that question can be very interesting sometimes.
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!
Kinda making my point for me. :)
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.
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.
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.
Less likely than because someone didn't?
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
More verbosely, your complaints are correct and fair, but they aren't altogether a rejection of attempting to find compromise.
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.
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.
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 a very wise thought.
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.
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.
Makes more sense now.
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.
The new majority opinion is held by a largely different set of people than the one from a few decades ago. People born in the 19th century still mostly think what they thought before, they're just too dead for it to matter.
Joeboy beat me to it, but I'll reiterate: that's not compromise. It's just change. Don't confuse the two.
And for those on the "losing" side of that change, there's an incredible amount of consternation.
I think that depends very much on the topic. For instance - there was once a point in my life where I was opposed to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. My reasons for this were complex, and not based on a fear or hatred of homosexuals. Over time I came around on it, and by the time SCOTUS ruled on it I was supportive of it (though not of the legal reasoning they cited).
On the other hand, my views on gun rights have not changed, and I cannot envision a point where they would. If Heller were to be overturned I would not "accepting" of it in even the smallest way.
In other words some issues are core beliefs and some issues are secondary. Peoples views on secondary beliefs change over time, but core beliefs are not something that I have often seen changed.
One of the first things to realise about people's apparently very strong views is that often they're simply echoing what they think is the majority view (but they generally really won't like you pointing that out). A second is that often they change quite swiftly when people stop talking about it. Not only are they not constantly being reminded that X is bad by people and sources they trust, but they also don't feel obliged to keep defending a position they held a couple of years ago when not regularly prompted to justify it.
However, when the topic gets brought up again a while later, they have shifted their position closer to mine, but also insist that they've always thought that.
I really wonder what is going on there, but I can see the aggregate opinion shifting by talking while nobody thinks they 'lost' the debate (for all those who identify far too strongly with their opinions.).
What is the appropriate life per slavery-year exchange rate? Because if for one less year of slavery you would spend 10,000 human lives, and 20 years of peaceful compromise would have ended slavery, then your war was a mistake.
There's no way to even estimate such things beforehand, so the calculation you propose is pretty useless.
I'm not saying that the decision for the war was right or wrong, but that you can't answer the question with a seemingly objective multiplication of numbers (it's the garbage-in-garbage-out principle in action).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Often, but not always, that understanding can illuminate an acceptable compromise.
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.. :)
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.
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.
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?
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.
Will it always work? No. But I think it gets you closer.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
* = What I mean is summarised nicely here: http://www.dailydot.com/unclick/woke-fake-kids-repudiate-don... - stuff like 'my 3 year old daughter caught a glimpse of todays trump rally shut down and starting crying "daddy why do they want free speech to die?"'
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
The authors uses the term "Learning conversation" which I really liked. To highlight that you're there to first and foremost, understand them, before judging or criticizing or whatever else.
'''
"I don't blame you one iota for feeling as you do. If I were you I would undoubtedly feel just as you do."
An answer like that will soften the most cantankerous old cuss alive.
And you can say that and be 100 percent sincere, because if you were the other person you, of course, would feel just as he does.
Take Al Capone, for example. Suppose you had inherited the same body and temperament and mind that Al Capone had. Suppose you had had his environment and experiences. You would then be precisely what he was - and where he was. For it is those things - and only those things - that made him what he was. The only reason, for example, that you are not a rattlesnake is that your mother and father weren't rattlesnakes.
'''
Once you say this and mean it, you are no longer thinking about how wrong or stupid the other person is. You are no longer frustrated by someone else's apparent incompetence. Instead you start thinking how to share with the other person, the influential thoughts and experiences which you have already had.
The sooner you are successful in letting the other person experience the same thoughts and experiences that you already have, the better the chances that the other person can now see your point of view.
I establish first the common ground,not even touching on hot button topics. I find anything we can agree upon "those are cool shoes" and start up a normal conversation void of any intent. If people have their guard up "convincing" is never gonna happen. Too many want to try and force their opinion on others through weight of logic and debate. I find that very lacking and unfruitful. I get to know them,make them laugh,listen to them,ask questions,actually care to get to know them. The little personality traits they display will help establish a raport and know your angle of approach. They will see I am funny and want to make them laugh and have things in common. No rush to convince them of anything. Its like you dont rush trying to get someone to sleep with you by pressuring them. You make the experience pleasant and make them want to engage while you pick up little things about them that will help you get your point across. Its easier to convince a friend to do something than an enemy.
Rush nothing and let things play out, if the correct opportunity doesnt arrive then let it pass. When or if you see them again they will remember you in a positive light and you can continue in that way. When the time is right start with the smallest of things to get them to agree with you. Something or anything you know they will like "those are cool shoes arent they?". Them agreeing with you on the smallest of things primes the pump for them to agree on larger. Their mind is already agreeing with you and sees you as friendly. Then ever so slowly start to build on that, all while being content to walk away having "proved" nothing yet always building towards it.
As some would say, be wise as a serpent.
1. https://www.amazon.com/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Lif...
The woman was unable herself to have children, so she latches onto the view that those who are able but choose termination are unethical killers. She manufactures further rationalization: "it's not right to go out and sleep with whoever, then just vacuum away the result like it never happened." This is just word salad. She openly throws out, "it's just not right! it's just wrong!" like that's somehow sufficient. Her view is driven by a preadolescent's petulant self-absorption and she takes no responsibility for self-correction.
I reject wholesale the idea that personal suffering gives people an excuse, a warrant, to hold petty, juvenile views that inhibit the freedom of others. Life itself consists largely of suffering. People who insist on throwing an eight year old's intellectual tantrum don't need the megaphone they're already given.
If the author's merely saying that open listening and compassion, in and of themselves, are valuable, then certainly: it's important to be open to foreign views. But petulant self-absorption isn't a view. It's not a window into any meaningful aspect of the universe. It's outright condescending to extend it sympathy.
I too reject all manner of irrational and harmful views, but I'm concerned with why so many of those views prevail. Understanding why people come to hurt one another is at the center of my attention, because I think that understanding is ammunition in reducing those tendencies.
Simply demilitarizing disagreement can go a long way toward reducing the kinds of friction that prevent people from learning and growing when they're wrong.
And more importantly, being correct is not the same as not being subject to personal growth. It's a tremendous waste to go through life knowing information that could be valuable to others and to be unable or unwilling to communicate that information to others who don't share it.
Empathy is how politics and people move together.
> Simply demilitarizing disagreement can go a long way toward reducing the kinds of friction that prevent people from learning and growing when they're wrong.
Here's my attempt at reconciliation. I would support all of the following: withholding hostility; understanding that understanding something is not the same as condoning it; having empathy for everyone; understanding that everyone has their own reason for how they are; and making atmospheres seem less threatening to encourage more people to come forward.
But I remain slightly suspicious of the feeling of sympathy toward the world view described in the article. Empathy, certainly. But I still say it's condescending to pity someone like that before they've taken the slightest steps toward self-correction.
I also have to admit that I haven't always been self aware enough to make healthy corrections for my own beliefs and attitudes. 100% of those times, I've grown more with the support of people who showed care and compassion despite the flaws in my reaction to the world I find myself in.
I have to constantly remind myself that we're all in a wilderness. Nothing of importance comes easy to everyone. Nearly every person can grow, given the right conditions. And working toward making those conditions available to more people is worthwhile.
It takes a lot of forgiveness, compassion, patience,
and courage to listen in the face of disagreement.
Part of a triplet of loosely related novels along with The Sheep Look Up and Stand on Zanzibar. Many accurate predictions of the last 15 years, 25 years before.
It was a lovely article by the way. I used to work on a crisis line and I was surprised how many people simply needed someone to talk to.
What if this woman didn't have a compelling personal narrative (infertility) driving her viewpoint, but had instead just copied the advice from a culture with only 2 kyr of success? I'm guessing the author would have likely concluded something less empathetic like the woman was just a victim of backwards thinking.
I think this phase we're going through is mainly people who rely on peer-scoped emotional reasoning having to come to terms with a wider communication scope and get used to the left-brain verbal communication engendered by the Internet. In order to truly understand something, your intellectual gamut must be able to describe it. If you wish to understand a different point a view, you must work at expanding your own logical framework to be able to express the new idea simultaneously with what you already believe. This is not a skill most people have developed, so instead of working to understand, they give in to their gut and treat the differing idea as a threat.
Peter Boghossian calls this technique "street epistemology".
I do the same with arguments. I try very hard to 'steel man' opposing views in total sincerity.
This doesn't take any kind of kindness or humility at all, just a desire to actually be right and not delude oneself.
This is of course true in any professional setting like advertising, PR etc.
But in a debate between two parties this insistence and demand is killing most possibilities of actually having a debate.
The first problem is that if someone is arguing from a position we have predujize against we will be interpreting the worst possible intent of what is being said while if it's something we agree with we are much more forgiving when interpreting.
So we are biased either against hearing the argument or from hearing the flaws depending on whether we agree with the original stance of the argument.
So much potential for actually learning something is lost because of the idea that it's only up to the communicator to make sure they are understood. So many insights are lost from demanding other people make themselves understandable rather than trying to understand what they are trying to say.
When you disagree, listen harder, past the point you find yourself in disagreement, to the underlying agreement you share.
This is the place where your mutual understanding will let you engage in real dialogue, and not just taking turns listening.
We don't need to be always right or prove others wrong, choose carefully the battles and aim for compromise, you don't have to agree to a solution, you just have to approve it.
If you go on long enough, the points do start sinking in.
Too many people assume that acrimony means that the discussion must end immediately. But that's not true at all. It's exceptionally hard, sometimes, to meet clashing beliefs with entirely soft voices and polite manners. You don't have to suppress everything you want to say. You can let it out. So can the other person. It's good. (Obviously it shouldn't raise to a degree where people are screaming continuously or acting violent).
Maturity doesn't just mean always speaking softly. It can also mean being able to make and reject points forcefully, and not wilt like a delicate flower if the other person does the same.
The real key is that people need to not be so delicate. Accept the natural difficulties of clashing belief systems. Just stick in there, let the acrimony happen, don't give up. Eventually - 10 or 20 or 30 minutes later - you'll get to something meaningful simply because there's no way to talk that long without both people having a lot of time to make real points.
Or god forbid: https://youtu.be/TChRv8m79zs
I have to admit to frequently doing the latter.
Sadly, many people are in the "chance to talk" side with a rather large sprinkling of "people who disagree with them never get to talk".
I recall someone's rule for argument (though I don't remember whose rule it was): Once you can restate someone's position to their satisfaction, then you can disagree with them as much as you please - but not before. This rule eliminates the disputes that are a total waste, because one side is arguing against a position that the other side doesn't actually hold.
But on the off chance that you aren't, no, that's not what the commenter is saying. You don't put words in their mouth, you put your interpretation of their words in their ears.
Active listening, and reflecting back what the speaker says to you in your own words is the human equivalent of an ACK and checksum in networking. It gives them an opportunity to validate that you correctly understood what they were trying to tell you.
In practice it goes beyond that. Often, even though all you're trying to do is say the same thing in your words, the unintended color of your own perspective is enough to give them a new way of looking at their own situation. It can be a powerful tool to change someone's thinking.
Doing this exercise has three huge benefits:
1. Being listened to in this way is often an emotional release for the speaker. Which takes a lot of emotion out of whatever comes next.
2. As a listener, it is common to add a layer of color on what was said without realizing that this happened. This gets past that tendency so you hear what was actually said.
3. The process tends to bring out details that the speaker didn't present clearly, but are crucial to whatever they believe.
All of this sets the stage for a much better future round of responses.
Try it. It is hard, but worthwhile.
So the idea is the other person says something, and you say back what you think they are saying. If you got it right, they see you understand them and can move on to the next point they want to say. If you got it wrong, they can correct you.
I think this process or something like it is essential for good communication when emotions are high or ideas are complicated.
EDIT: Frankly, I'm fine with being down-voted, that's to be expected when trying to engage in a logical meta-example, in a touchy-feely thread about being nice in an argument. But I'm a bit put-off by an official HN mod detaching the thread. That's inappropriate. Obviously.