I Say, They Say

Difference of opinion? How does it happen and how do you handle it?

I Say, They Say

We know that your internal commitment is more valid to you than someone else’s internal commitment because you understand your internal convictions. You cannot as easily understand other’s basis for their commitment.

Your personal internal convictions are prioritized because they are yours. You are personally committed to them. Your interpretation of your internal introspection is biased and not necessarily reliable or complete. Preconceived biases predetermine conclusions.

Just because you have personally reviewed a concept does not necessarily make it above reproach. This tendency to skew reflection toward a preconceived conclusion is called an introspective illusion. Many of us operate on this basis. But we are confident in our beliefs...mostly because they are our beliefs.

We react to those who do not share our beliefs. We believe what we believe and have a bias toward those beliefs because we consider them to be truth.

Based on this preconception, we react in the following ways:

1.We assume the opposing view and person holding it is ignorant. They just don’t know! The facts necessary to form the same opinion you hold have not been made clear to them.

We see this play out in arguments and discussions where both parties try to convince each other of their ignorance by stating the facts as they know them. Statements are made. Opinions are stated. Interpretations are given.

This is a typical encounter around a controversial subject. Politicians, religions, environmental positions are often engaged in this form of interaction. The goal of these confrontations is to educate the opposition about the facts of the issue.

Facts are facts. Interpretations vary!

2. Once the enlightenment or education process has been attempted, both parties might still stand their ground and endorse the same belief or position they had held previously. At this point, one or both parties essentially “write off” the other’s mental ability. They assume that exposure to the ‘facts’ has been ineffective because the opposition lacks the mental acuity to absorb the information. If they had, they would change their position. In short, they are idiots, morons, and are mentally inadequate.

We see this position in politicians, religions, environmentalists and more recently, in those who subscribe to a diet or way of life. To each, their position is obviously the correct one. Any other position has flaws which are not grasped.

3. The next reaction between persons holding diverse views is a divisive one. Each party decides that someone holding an opposing view is malignant. Information has been given. Lack of capacity to change is obvious. The reason for that is now interpreted as intentional and deliberate. An agenda is suspected that is confrontational.

Politicians convince themselves and their constituents that the opposition is not only wrong, but also intentionally trying to undermine the status quo or oppose change. Change can be frightening. Both sides become entrenched. Divisiveness ensues. Often nothing is accomplished by those holding either position.

Religions firmly stand on their tenants. If they are right, all other positions are wrong. Being wrong, they then become a subversive force in the search for love and communion. Through divisiveness, ultimate goals are cast aside in the defense of strongly held biases.

Environmentalists and diet adherents make strong, data-driven cases for their positions. When unable to convince someone holding another view of the error of their position, they are written off as an unconscious tool of either self-destruction or planetary decline. Obvious differences of opinion surface and communication breaks down.

And so It goes.

We are a country of 320 million people with differing opinions. We can remember Benjamin Franklin’s statement: “We must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” Without consensus or compromise, no shared vision and little acceptance of others with differing interpretations of reality occurs. There is no “hanging together” and no common foundation to stand on.

When considering any strongly held opinion, and its representative group, the underlying value is critical to both sides. Politicians may believe in individual rights, without realizing that rejection of someone with a differing opinion is in direct conflict with the right to have an opinion. Violent difference of opinion shuts down any dialogue when self-defense becomes paramount.

Religious differences run rough shod over basic tenants of all faiths. Rejecting another for their beliefs fails to be an opportunity to extend the love that supports all faiths. Violent rejection assumes that God as you know him is small and angry and vindictive. Rather than holding and extending their faith, reactive elitism limits the limitlessness of the belief they are based on.

Environmentalists and diet proponents obviously have a large best interest in mind. A healthy planet benefits all. Healthy lifestyles benefit individuals and then the larger society. Opposition to those with different biases does little to promote the perceived benefits. Defensiveness is the usual outcome and with it comes an increased inability to even consider a different opinion.

As in all other cases, divisiveness is promoted. Consensus and compromise are defeated. Progress is negligible and underlying tenants are eroded.

The solution to the discussion of internal illusions is the open mind and open heart. Understanding and applying the tenants of any position is critical. Each of us is entitled to our opinion. Let us repeat that. Each of us is entitled to our opinion. That is the golden rule in action.

Let’s live with that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your reaction and opinion? Karenmac1999@hotmail.com

Want to do more research on the subject? Email and I will send you references and texts that are pertinent to the text.