That Guy Is So Wrong, He Can't Get Any Wronger

Do you ever look at somebody who seems to have so much in common with you--maybe you're neighbors, or co-workers, or even related--and wonder how they can look at the same world and same facts you do and understand them so differently?  Clearly, they're wrong.  That just goes without saying.  They just seem so sensible in so many other ways, and then they go and get this thing wrong.  It's enough to drive a person nutty.  Maybe even a whole country.  Come to think of it, nuttiness would explain a lot of what we've seen in the last few years.  

When we disagree with somebody about something that is actually debatable--tax policy is debatable; whether the Earth is flat or round is not (sorry Flat Earth-ers)--we usually think of that disagreement in terms of the facts or interpretations on the surface of the argument.  We should or should not legalize marijuana.  We should or should not place greater controls on gun ownership.  The ref was right or wrong when he made that game-winning call.  We don't usually think in terms of the bigger ideas or perspectives that underlie the facts in dispute, although maybe we should.  Maybe understanding the bigger framework that surrounds and nurtures our beliefs would help us explain them better and understand more fully what the other guy is trying to say.  I'm not naive enough to suggest that that kind of understanding would make our disagreements go away.  In some cases, seeing clearly just how far apart our worldview can be from that of our friends might just make it obvious that we will never agree on some things.  But at least it might help us understand that the people who we don't see eye-to-eye with are arguing in good faith and that even our disagreements can be less disagreeable.

So let's take a look at one of those different worldviews, one of those single divergent beliefs that make so many other ideas skew so far apart.  Answer this question in your head: What is a society?  Or a culture, or a country, or a community, or any other unit of human gathering?  Did you answer something along the lines of it's a big group of people living in the same area, sharing the same set of laws, or cooperating in some form of means of keeping the peace and encouraging prosperity?  Or was your answer closer to the idea of society as a collection of systems, norms, and structures that shape the direction of that society and its members?

Both are valid.  Just like atoms, humans are the smallest discrete component part of a society.  But a society isn't just a group of humans living alongside each other.  Without systems and structures shaping how those humans interact, that group of humans will be in a state of Hobbesian perpetual war.  The way you answer this question is going to shape the way you answer a lot of others.  It will shape what you consider a problem and where you look for an answer, and, if you're not aware of it, it will leave you utterly baffled about where other people are coming from when they suggest other ideas.

For example, consider the question of sexual harassment and the slew of stories coming out about Harvey Weinstein.  When trying to pinpoint the cause of sexual harassment and its potential solutions, someone who sees the individual as the primary component of society will say that solving this problem requires teaching individuals about accepted standards of behavior, establishing legal deterrents to bad behavior, and teaching potential victims how to confidently stand up for themselves.  Meanwhile, those suggestions might horrify someone drawn more to a systems interpretation of society, who would see the real cause of sexual harassment and assault not as the actions of individual perpetrators but a culture that has not established an equal power dynamic between men and women and might consider a better solution to be broad-based policies to empower women and better represent them in all aspects of life.

You can see that there would be a lot of other areas in which this one divide could manifest itself.  In most cases, people involved in the debate wouldn't ever think to discuss how they understand the fundamental building blocks of society, but that doesn't mean that's not what they're actually arguing about.  Understanding that fact and looking for the deeper issues underneath a disagreement might help you win a few, probably will help you realize when you don't care as much about winning as you thought, and is almost guaranteed to help you appreciate others' ideas and perspectives a little more.  We'll look at a few other such debates in future posts.  In the meantime, be on the lookout for this issue or similar big ideas driving the personal and political debates you encounter, and see if understanding that big-picture framework changes the way you see the specific argument at hand.