One of my intentions for 2011 is to be less political, and more focused on positive actions and positive solutions. A positive action I took to assist me in this intention was to stop listening to talk radio. Another is to not write about politics on this blog. So I won't.
Instead, I want to have you think about what "close minded" means, and how labels impact the ability to participate in a discussion. I was talking politics with an acquaintance, and as soon as he realized I disagreed with him, he said "you are close minded, so we can't even have this discussion". My heart rate jumped a little, but I inhaled slowly a few times using ujai breathing, and formulated my response. "How can you call someone who disagrees with you 'close minded'? Isn't that part of 'heated rhetoric', where we call people we disagree with names?" I asked. (I also pondered how calling someone else's comments "heated rhetoric" did anything to help a discussion.) This brought our political discussion back to the present, and we found common ground to continue and end the conversation. As we parted, I made it clear I respected the other person's opinion, and was thankful for the discussion.
If we can't have a discussion around an issue we disagree on, how can we learn? If we can't learn, then how can we teach? I truly enjoy a passioned discussion around politics. I learn from the exchange, and in some small way each of these discussions changes me, and I know the discussions change the other person. It is to everyone's benefit to debate an issue they disagree on.
Society ends up with polarization of people around ideas because of closed minds. If we can't tolerate someone else's opinion, why should they tolerate ours? So the close minded people find each other, and swap the one-liners they rely on to keep themselves fed with anger. No one questions the other person's thought processes, or the downside of their beliefs. When two groups of close minded people disagree with each other and end up in the same place, we end up with big shouting matches, increased TV ratings, and the dumbing-down of society. Debates go underground, or inner thoughts are suppressed so we don't offend others.
Demonizing those we disagree with is a very human characteristic. We come up with names for our enemies - "Sadam Insane", "Iranian president Imanutjob", and countless other labels to further alienate our human
impressions of others from our minds. It makes it easier to dislike someone if we have a derogatory name associated with them. I have done this, and sometimes still do. I bet the rare reader of this blog also does this.
America was recently subjected to 8 years of "somewhere in Texas a village is missing their idiot" bumper stickers, followed by a newer version of this theme, where a Kenyan village is missing their idiot. Both of these presidents had ivy league educations, and one was a jet pilot. Were they idiots? Maybe. But who has the right to label them an idiot for the rest of us?
Do people display these slogans because they want a discussion? Do they display these slogans thinking it will change someone's opposing point of view? My guess is that they display these slogans to taunt those who disagree with them.
Taunting has its place in discussions, and can make a disagreement more fun. But the people involved in this type of a discussion need to already have a level of familiarity and respect for each other in order to participate without causing harm. Making derogatory comments about someone else's opinion may not end well if the person doesn't practice self-control, or you are a suspected Yankee fan in Boston's territory.
I for one don't want our politicians to find common ground. I want the parties to have true debates about their ideologies, in public, with their opposition present to hear it. I want the other side to open their minds and listen. And then I want them to stand up and say why their own ideas are better, as the other side listens with open minds. No one wants old people to die, no one wants the poor to remain poor, no one wants grandma to eat cat food. The debate should be over how to best address these and other issues, and not around rhetorical sound bites aimed at the close minded among us.
To understand, we must open our minds. To listen, we must open our minds. When we do this, we will find that the person on the other side of the debate will open their mind. Like most things in life that are fun, we must practice if we want to improve. Practicing requires us to work hard and focus on the outcome we want, which in this case is to learn what the other person's point of view is based on. As we learn, we are better able to teach.
Are you open minded? If you are speaking to someone who is close minded, do you open your mind, or close your mind? Have you debated someone where you actually thought they wanted bad things to happen so they could do what they consider good things?
Instead, I want to have you think about what "close minded" means, and how labels impact the ability to participate in a discussion. I was talking politics with an acquaintance, and as soon as he realized I disagreed with him, he said "you are close minded, so we can't even have this discussion". My heart rate jumped a little, but I inhaled slowly a few times using ujai breathing, and formulated my response. "How can you call someone who disagrees with you 'close minded'? Isn't that part of 'heated rhetoric', where we call people we disagree with names?" I asked. (I also pondered how calling someone else's comments "heated rhetoric" did anything to help a discussion.) This brought our political discussion back to the present, and we found common ground to continue and end the conversation. As we parted, I made it clear I respected the other person's opinion, and was thankful for the discussion.
If we can't have a discussion around an issue we disagree on, how can we learn? If we can't learn, then how can we teach? I truly enjoy a passioned discussion around politics. I learn from the exchange, and in some small way each of these discussions changes me, and I know the discussions change the other person. It is to everyone's benefit to debate an issue they disagree on.
Society ends up with polarization of people around ideas because of closed minds. If we can't tolerate someone else's opinion, why should they tolerate ours? So the close minded people find each other, and swap the one-liners they rely on to keep themselves fed with anger. No one questions the other person's thought processes, or the downside of their beliefs. When two groups of close minded people disagree with each other and end up in the same place, we end up with big shouting matches, increased TV ratings, and the dumbing-down of society. Debates go underground, or inner thoughts are suppressed so we don't offend others.
Demonizing those we disagree with is a very human characteristic. We come up with names for our enemies - "Sadam Insane", "Iranian president Imanutjob", and countless other labels to further alienate our human
impressions of others from our minds. It makes it easier to dislike someone if we have a derogatory name associated with them. I have done this, and sometimes still do. I bet the rare reader of this blog also does this.
America was recently subjected to 8 years of "somewhere in Texas a village is missing their idiot" bumper stickers, followed by a newer version of this theme, where a Kenyan village is missing their idiot. Both of these presidents had ivy league educations, and one was a jet pilot. Were they idiots? Maybe. But who has the right to label them an idiot for the rest of us?
Do people display these slogans because they want a discussion? Do they display these slogans thinking it will change someone's opposing point of view? My guess is that they display these slogans to taunt those who disagree with them.
Taunting has its place in discussions, and can make a disagreement more fun. But the people involved in this type of a discussion need to already have a level of familiarity and respect for each other in order to participate without causing harm. Making derogatory comments about someone else's opinion may not end well if the person doesn't practice self-control, or you are a suspected Yankee fan in Boston's territory.
I for one don't want our politicians to find common ground. I want the parties to have true debates about their ideologies, in public, with their opposition present to hear it. I want the other side to open their minds and listen. And then I want them to stand up and say why their own ideas are better, as the other side listens with open minds. No one wants old people to die, no one wants the poor to remain poor, no one wants grandma to eat cat food. The debate should be over how to best address these and other issues, and not around rhetorical sound bites aimed at the close minded among us.
To understand, we must open our minds. To listen, we must open our minds. When we do this, we will find that the person on the other side of the debate will open their mind. Like most things in life that are fun, we must practice if we want to improve. Practicing requires us to work hard and focus on the outcome we want, which in this case is to learn what the other person's point of view is based on. As we learn, we are better able to teach.
Are you open minded? If you are speaking to someone who is close minded, do you open your mind, or close your mind? Have you debated someone where you actually thought they wanted bad things to happen so they could do what they consider good things?
I'm willing to listen to anyone's opinion, only if it isn't so freakin' STUPID!
ReplyDeleteI used to argue, now I just ask questions that have no answer. Like "please provide one example where "name withheld to protect the clueless from embarrassment" reached their hand across the aisle to work on legislation". An answer is usually an obfuscation, so I just keep asking the same question...
ReplyDelete