Hacker News Reader

Comment by zzalpha | Hacker News Reader

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!

View on HN

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.

>>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.

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.

>you are in a position to use the force with sadness rather than hatred

That's a very wise thought.

>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.

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.

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.

>> 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.

> Just look at how much the majority opinion on dozens of topics has changed over the past few decades

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.

My experience is different. Anecdotally, in New York City, I know dozens of people who used to be uncomfortable with same-sex-marriage who now consider it a great thing and a right.

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.

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.

> 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.

I think that, had Lincoln lived, Reconstruction would have looked very different. Arguably, Lincoln's assassins destroyed the South for 100+ years by trying to save it.

Since you raise it as an example: in the UK opposition to gay marriage (and a few years earlier, more basic gay issues) didn't melt away through empathetic discussion or addressing their concerns but simply from the government going ahead and doing it (I doubt they'd have gone to war for it if it were necessary, but that underlines the point about might being more significant than right in the debate). Public opinion tended to shift more when decisions were made and the debate stopped.

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.

I think this is right. Societal change makes it feel safer to hold the new opinion than the old one. A lot of people who have "changed their minds" about gay people are actually just making a pragmatic adaptation to the realities of modern life (consciously or subconsciously).

Nearly everywhere else in the world, slavery ended peacefully. A deeper understanding would have stopped the sad loss of more than 600 thousand lives, nearly half the death toll of all U.S. conflicts.

What I see frequently is that people vehemently disagree in an emotional debate. After exchanging a few arguments everyone sticks to their original position and nothing seems to have changed.

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.).

It cost more than half a million lives to end slavery at that particular time.

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.

> if [...] 20 years of peaceful compromise would have ended slavery

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).

>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.

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.

A more concise and convincing presentation than the article itself. Thanks!

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.. :)

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.

I'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.

It 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?

Both 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.

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.

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?

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?

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...

>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.

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.

>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?

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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

So hey, why bother trying, right?

Or you could provide a counter-argument so we can have a discussion.

Kinda making my point for me. :)

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.

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.

"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.

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.

> I said her beliefs are her beliefs and that they are unlikely to be shaken purely because someone listened to her.

Less likely than because someone didn't?

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

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.

"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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com