Why disagreements happen
There’s an ancient Indian parable about three blind men an elephant. The story goes like this:
A group of three blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had been brought to the town, but none of them was aware of its shape and form. Out of curiosity, they want to inspect and know what the elephant is by touch, of which they are capable.
They sought it out, and when they found it they groped about it.
- The first person, whose hand landed on the trunk, said an elephant is like a thick snake.
- The second person whose hand reached its ear, said it’s like a fan.
- The third person who felt its tail described it as a rope.
And they fought. They fought because each of them wanted to say their description of how an elephant is, is the right one.
As you could’ve guessed, all of them were right. But, all of them were also wrong.
They were all right in their own way. And they were all wrong because they think their version is the only truth.
Our perspectives are limited
The first reason why disagreements happen is that our perspectives are limited. Disagreements come from the clash of opinions. And opinions come from perspectives.
“We don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are.”
- Anaïs Nin
When we look at a particular issue, the way we brought up, the way view things, the way we interact with our loved ones, the way our society is wired, where we go to school, all of those will affect how we look.
If you were born with a silver spoon, a welfare state might not make sense to you, even though helping the poor will increase the nation’s economic growth and it’s a win for everyone.
If you were brought up by homeless parents, tax reliefs on investments for the upper class might sound bullshit to you, even though it will increase more jobs for everyone.
Because we see things as we are, not as they are.
One thing that we should often remind ourselves is our perspectives are limited. And every time we hear a different one, do not dismiss it at once.
To become a better person, every time you hear a different perspective, always try to understand it first. You don’t have to agree with it (yet), but you must try to understand it.
One thing I learned in acting was, regardless of your personal philosophy and principles, whenever you want to play a character, you must understand them even if their values are the antithesis of your values. Understanding and agreeing are two different stages.
Truth, like the elephant, is always the accumulation of different perspectives. We are all “blind” in some ways, and if we choose to only view truth as the one that we perceive, we will always non-constructively argue.
The mistake is when we indulge in absolutism
Like the three men, the second reason why they argue is that they indulge in absolutism.
Absolutism is when we hold of absolute principles in political, philosophical, or theological matters.
Absolutism is when we believe in something, and we are not open to anything else other than the belief that we hold.
“The elephant is like a snake! And you’re wrong if you say the elephant is like a fan!”
Sounds familiar?
“Malaysian economy is bad because of Socialism! And you’re wrong if you disagree!”
“Malaysians are poor because they are victims of Capitalism! And you’re wrong if you disagree!”
Absolutism is the precursor to confirmation bias. If you’re a radical atheist, you don’t google “Islam”. You google “Why Islam is a bad religion”. If you’re a radical Muslim, you don’t google “Women in Islam”, you google “Why Islam respect women”.
You don’t want to learn. You just want to confirm. You’re a follower of X and you want to confirm whatever X has stated.
Don’t get me wrong, healthy disagreements are the bedrock of our democracy. But the key word here is healthy.
When two people resort to personal attacks in social media debates, it’s no longer healthy. It’s no longer watching two people playing chess according to the rules. It has resorted to two people throwing chess pieces at each other. And it’s fucking pointless.
In case you want to argue against something that I didn’t say, here are some clarifications:
- There is, of course, a single objective truth. In a debate, there will be a situation where one of the persons arguing is actually 100% right. But most of the pointless debate on social media are not arguments for finding the truth. They are mostly arguments to support a narrative. To support an interpretation of the truth. Not the truth itself.
- Therin Alrik wrote a beautiful piece on why most debates on social media are pointless. Read it here.
- Most of the debates are intended for character assassinations, not for improving the situation or to change the minds of those who oppose us. It’s like if you engage in a thoughtful response, you get 1 point but if you successfully mock your opponent, you get 1000 points.
- There is, of course, perspectives that we should not consider at all, like racism. If you call for racial harmony and the next available opinion is racism, you shouldn’t entertain that.
“Intolerance should never be tolerated, except if it’s intolerance for the original intolerance.”
— Jon Stewart
