How to listen when you disagree

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!)

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.

> 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.

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.

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.