Yeah, nothing like being all hopped up on cold medicine to get a guy blogging. Or having weird thoughts. Or both.
So, this morning, I had a second sentence flashing through my head like a neon sign.
You cannot force another person to perception.
Now, let me explain that. I'm not saying that "my blue may not be your blue, who's to say what blue is". I'm a firm believer in objective reality. And the color analogy I've heard fails for the simple reason that color can be described in mathematical terms. "Blue" describes a range of colors around a certain frequency of light. I can't see that what you're seeing is what I'm seeing so we're both seeing the same thing. Wow that's circular (but it was so much fun to write). I can describe Beethoven the same way - sounds of various frequencies and tenors played for x amount of time.
Having said that, the Psychology B.Sc. rears its ugly head at this time. "Yes, you can describe those kinds of things in that manner, but for someone to "see" or "hear" those things, the signals have to be received and interpreted by the brain.
To which I say... exactly my point. I believe that there is an objective reality. But I can't say for certain that anyone's perception of reality actually corresponds to it. I think a lot of our current polarization in our lives (in so many different arenas) lies in the fact that people are interpreting and processing reality in fundamentally different ways. And if someone doesn't see the the world the way *I* see it, then that person must be... stupid... evil... inhuman... crazy... other... etc.
Perception is filtered by the brain so that the person makes sense of the inputs they're getting. It's one of the reasons why I never argue when someone hears something other than what I actually said. I figure, that's how their brain interpreted the sounds coming out of my mouth.
So, what to do? As much as possible, listen to what those you perceive as your opponents are saying. Ask questions. It's all right to challenge assumptions, but be willing to have your own challenged, and be able to explain them as well. Like one of my favorite radio guys says, and I'm paraphrasing horribly, I value clarity over agreement. Agreement means nothing if we're not clear on what we're agreeing on. If you can understand the viewpoint of the other person, you will find the things you have in common. Grab on to those and hold on tight, and build from there.
Politics, like many things, is an exercise in finding a compromise you can live with. (That is, something that you can agree with on principle, even if it's not implemented the way you would prefer.) Sometimes, you may be dealing with people who refuse to work with you on anything - who refuse to give you any ground, but insist you give all of yours. In those cases, feel free to walk away.
I was fascinated by this article that talks, among other things, about seeing things from new perspectives.
So, when I come to a disagreement, the question is twofold - 1. What in the other person's perspective am I missing? And 2. Can I explain my perspective to this person in a way in which they will understand it? Because language is the only tool we have to work with. We can find ways of talking to each other and build understanding. We can reach out and find areas where we agree. In most cases, those areas of agreement are much larger than the areas of disagreement.
I guess that's my question here - Am I missing something? And if so... what is it?
So, this morning, I had a second sentence flashing through my head like a neon sign.
You cannot force another person to perception.
Now, let me explain that. I'm not saying that "my blue may not be your blue, who's to say what blue is". I'm a firm believer in objective reality. And the color analogy I've heard fails for the simple reason that color can be described in mathematical terms. "Blue" describes a range of colors around a certain frequency of light. I can't see that what you're seeing is what I'm seeing so we're both seeing the same thing. Wow that's circular (but it was so much fun to write). I can describe Beethoven the same way - sounds of various frequencies and tenors played for x amount of time.
Having said that, the Psychology B.Sc. rears its ugly head at this time. "Yes, you can describe those kinds of things in that manner, but for someone to "see" or "hear" those things, the signals have to be received and interpreted by the brain.
To which I say... exactly my point. I believe that there is an objective reality. But I can't say for certain that anyone's perception of reality actually corresponds to it. I think a lot of our current polarization in our lives (in so many different arenas) lies in the fact that people are interpreting and processing reality in fundamentally different ways. And if someone doesn't see the the world the way *I* see it, then that person must be... stupid... evil... inhuman... crazy... other... etc.
Perception is filtered by the brain so that the person makes sense of the inputs they're getting. It's one of the reasons why I never argue when someone hears something other than what I actually said. I figure, that's how their brain interpreted the sounds coming out of my mouth.
So, what to do? As much as possible, listen to what those you perceive as your opponents are saying. Ask questions. It's all right to challenge assumptions, but be willing to have your own challenged, and be able to explain them as well. Like one of my favorite radio guys says, and I'm paraphrasing horribly, I value clarity over agreement. Agreement means nothing if we're not clear on what we're agreeing on. If you can understand the viewpoint of the other person, you will find the things you have in common. Grab on to those and hold on tight, and build from there.
Politics, like many things, is an exercise in finding a compromise you can live with. (That is, something that you can agree with on principle, even if it's not implemented the way you would prefer.) Sometimes, you may be dealing with people who refuse to work with you on anything - who refuse to give you any ground, but insist you give all of yours. In those cases, feel free to walk away.
I was fascinated by this article that talks, among other things, about seeing things from new perspectives.
So, when I come to a disagreement, the question is twofold - 1. What in the other person's perspective am I missing? And 2. Can I explain my perspective to this person in a way in which they will understand it? Because language is the only tool we have to work with. We can find ways of talking to each other and build understanding. We can reach out and find areas where we agree. In most cases, those areas of agreement are much larger than the areas of disagreement.
I guess that's my question here - Am I missing something? And if so... what is it?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment