Concerning Respectful Disagreement
I think we all know that feeling. When you’re in a group of people who don’t dislike you, but who never seem to understand why you hold the opinions you do that differ from theirs—if you weren’t too nervous to reveal them in the first place. As you’re talking or listening to them talk, one of them makes a joke about “people like you”, never suspecting that someone “like that” could be nearby. The joke—perhaps genuinely funny, perhaps just rude and inaccurate—is met first by a chorus of laughter, then a series of complaints. “Why would anyone believe that?” they ask, but they don’t actually want to know. They make fun of the reasons they apparently know you have for your concerns, they make fun of the way “those people” dress or act, repeating largely inaccurate stereotypes and believing all of them. Maybe you like debating ideas—but you know for sure that now, you won’t be debating or discussing anything with these people. If they refuse to increase understanding between your groups, you’ll probably just be hurt for trying.
Modify this scenario slightly for each situation, and it becomes disappointingly common. Somehow, political polarization seems to have led to increased feelings of superiority between certain groups. Many people never bring up someone or something they disagree with in order to carefully dismantle its arguments—only to make fun of members of other groups because “only an idiot would believe that”. The problem, of course, is that idiots and intelligent people both believe all sorts of things—anyone can make a mistake, anyone can be deceived, and anyone can stumble on the right answer. When we childishly put down other people’s arguments, it’s not only disrespectful and hypocritical—it also discourages us from creating convincing arguments, and prevents them from behaving any better than our expectations already suggest.
People always seem to be doing this: complaining that no one disagrees respectfully nowadays—then laughing off, shutting down, or emotionally blowing up at opposing voices before hearing them out. We tend to automatically assume that most of the ideas we disagree with aren’t as smart as our own, but this mindset clearly won’t get us anywhere with regards to debate, simply leading to more disrespect on all sides. When you encounter a different opinion, it’s best, instead, to assume the person’s intelligence (not synonymous with correctness) until they truly prove you wrong. They might always seem stupid to us, but we should recall the high chance that this is only because, as humans, we are more sympathetic to views we already hold, while we’re much quicker to brush off opposing views as silly and falsely motivated, even having an immediate negative reaction to words which remind us of certain ideas that go against the mindset of our group.
Because we know the possibility of our own bias, we should understand that even though we can’t (and probably shouldn’t) eliminate it, we can and should get around it somewhat by assuming the best about other people’s intelligence and reasons for believing what they do, seeing them as a fellow logic-user who used at least as reasonable a thought process as we did in coming to their conclusions, and perhaps made a mistake along the way. This attitude is truthful. It says, “I understand that just because you’re wrong doesn’t mean you’re stupid. I may have things to learn from you, and even if I conclude that I don’t (in this situation) I respect you as a debate partner.” It causes people to listen who would have already pushed us away, and dispels stereotypes about being hysterical and overreacting (stereotypes that are interestingly applied to both sides of the political divide. Perhaps it’s just a human thing?). It gives us a chance to truly prove our case, and demonstrates respect for human beings.
But treating people this way doesn’t only make your side look good. It also inspires the person you’re talking to to live up to your higher expectations. Most people are motivated in part by respect—a respected person’s high expectations inspire them to do better. If we are respectful—and reasonable ourselves—we will be respected, and if we then expect the same behavior of others (I don’t mean expressing disappointment with strangers if they don’t live up to that, I just mean assuming they will; they’ll get the point), they’ll try to deliver it. Even if, in the end, this doesn’t help bring them around to your side—or even help them become more logical—it will make you a happier person, being happy with the people you share the world with and being less self-focused. But if they were less reasonable, but are willing to improve, there’s a good chance that your expectations will incite the change they want to make, leaving the world a more logical and respectful place.
All this makes sense, you might be saying, but aren’t we supposed to laugh at people? Some views are genuinely dumb; aren’t there situations where we should laugh—at least just to keep from crying? The Devil and all the views he spreads are fit for ridicule, simply as another tactic.
Well, none of that is wrong. And it is good to laugh at some views—or even people—sometimes. But we need to understand that holding a view that’s dumb doesn’t mean the person is dumb (Remember those studies I talked about earlier?), and that we as humans aren’t the best judge of whether a view is dumb or not. I’m not saying we should always listen for the opinion’s sake—that’s a different argument I’m still figuring out—I’m saying we should listen out of respect for the person’s intelligence and ability to make bad decisions for themselves. We should assume they’re a smart person who made a dumb mistake (or perhaps a smarter mistake, depending on the situation), not a dumb or gullible person who fell into an easy trap. (And that’s if they’re wrong and we’re right—sometimes they made no mistake at all.)
So yeah, it’s good to laugh. But we do have to be good sports. If you don’t laugh along when people ridicule your “side”, you have no right to laugh at the other side yourself.
Most humans have similar intelligence and ability to interpret evidence—so why don’t we just assume other people are as smart as we are? It would make for a healthier, more respectful, and more truthful environment—and it only prevents discussion to call our opponents dummies instead of engaging with them. Respect and understanding is an attitude I’m sure most of us wish we received—and if we start giving it, we probably will.
