Where do you encounter opposing viewpoints?

[Lorizael]

Inspired by a podcast I listened to recently. Do you most often get opposing viewpoints from family or friends, at work, online (FB, comment sections, blogs)? What fraction of the information you encounter is oppositional in this way? Do you seek out opposing points of view? How do you usually deal with them?

I encounter opposing viewpoints here and in social media (comments on news articles, friends of friends' FB posts, Twitter stuff that gets reshared). I almost never encounter (diametrically) opposing views from my family, friends,or otherwise IRL. It's definitely the case that most of what I read is more or less aligned with me politically, as long as I'm pretending to be some stripe of liberal rather than a transhumanist weirdo. I do come to Apolyton specifically to talk to people not from my corner of the world, even though Poly isn't exactly a bastion of diversity. I am occasionally tempted into comment sections to confirm that the people there are horrible, and I'm almost never disappointed in that respect (surprise).

How I respond to opposing points of view largely depends on the tone. I roll my eyes and move on very quickly whenever I encounter (opposing or otherwise) writers/speakers who focus on lashing out at others rather than constructing their own arguments. I'm probably biased about my interpretation of that tone, but seeing that leads me to believe the individual doesn't really care about thoughtful discussion and is therefore not worth my time.

Your turn. Go!

[Bereta_Eder]

I'd say mostly at work, but that is completely by accident. I could be doing the same thing in the same place and have completely different people with completely different opinions.

I get different opinions from the SO (she likes trump for example but in a childish girlish way, sort of fun not a big deal here, no info etc) from my family (they don't very much like the present greek government) from friends (they are more socialist than me) and from all over the place.

Different opinions I relish I want them.

I don't want them in only three cases:

when it's done as a provocation and not in the spirit of a genuine dialogue. when one is trying to "impose" his/her views on me (usually can't be done if I'm in the right mood, one on one etc)

when the other person is stupid and what they say is trite. That sounds bad but it's true. I just get bored

when it's done in a provocative demeening manner. That is something for example that dinner has. He has some good ideas. He does get some good information (not always of course and not on all things) But he does see things from a different perspective. If he could tone down on the offensive I could probably enjoy more the conversation.

[BeBMan]

Inspired by a podcast I listened to recently.

That's not true!!! /opposing

Do you most often get opposing viewpoints from family or friends, at work, online (FB, comment sections, blogs)? What fraction of the information you encounter is oppositional in this way? Do you seek out opposing points of view? How do you usually deal with them?

I encounter opposing viewpoints here and in social media (comments on news articles, friends of friends' FB posts, Twitter stuff that gets reshared). I almost never encounter (diametrically) opposing views from my family, friends,or otherwise IRL. It's definitely the case that most of what I read is more or less aligned with me politically, as long as I'm pretending to be some stripe of liberal rather than a transhumanist weirdo. I do come to Apolyton specifically to talk to people not from my corner of the world, even though Poly isn't exactly a bastion of diversity. I am occasionally tempted into comment sections to confirm that the people there are horrible, and I'm almost never disappointed in that respect (surprise).

How I respond to opposing points of view largely depends on the tone. I roll my eyes and move on very quickly whenever I encounter (opposing or otherwise) writers/speakers who focus on lashing out at others rather than constructing their own arguments. I'm probably biased about my interpretation of that tone, but seeing that leads me to believe the individual doesn't really care about thoughtful discussion and is therefore not worth my time.

You turn. Go!

Seriously:

In the media: yes - I regularly do read stuff I disagree with. Reading stuff you agree with is nice from time to time, reading *only* stuff you agree with is boring and tends to promote intellectual laziness. When reading stuff I disagree with *fundamentally* I see if I can debunk it - good training. Years ago I made a sport out of it to check party programs of extremist parties that hide their stuff under lotsa pseudo-democratic rhetorics to attract voters to see where there are points that reveal what they're on about.

I also check regularly English language media as they have often a diff. angle on certain things when reporting about Germany, Europe or whatever.

In the family - sometimes, but usually don't push so hard for such discussions to keep the peace.

How do I respond? I view nukevids in my head

[Bereta_Eder]

that's very wise


Another thing that I have noticed is that the intensity of my disagreement is adjusted by the "bien dans ta peau" thing. If I'm feeling nice and I listen to some bull**** I could in theory smile like I just smelled roses.
When I'm not, then I do smell the **** with an amplifier.

It would seem that the core values do not change but what changes is the intensity of responce.(which can be, according to circumstances, internalized)
It's only human

[Lorizael]

When reading stuff I disagree with *fundamentally* I see if I can debunk it - good training.

Respectfully, I disagree. It's very easy to think you've debunked positions you fundamentally disagree with, because of all our various cognitive biases. Much more difficult (and probably useful) is attempting to debunk information from sources you're receptive to.

[BeBMan]

It's very easy to think you've debunked positions you fundamentally disagree with, because of all our various cognitive biases. Much more difficult (and probably useful) is attempting to debunk information from sources you're receptive to.

I'd say if "debunked" means that you considered those opposing views and found holes in those views - that's a valid way to form you own POV. If you're honest about it it also requires you to put your own views into question if you find that you can't debunk some other POV.

("debunking" as opposed to simply declaring it bad because you disagree)

[Proteus_MST]

Internet forums, definitely.
Among RL friends and family there surely sometimes exist different viewpoints (for example with regards to religion or politics),
but we usually know the others standpoint and often enough choose not to engage in talks that require us to discuss each others viewpoint
(no good would come from it ... and it would very likely end in each other staying with his viewpoint)

[Bereta_Eder]

I've been reading camus' the fall (nobel prize literature - only 3 euros weeeeeeeeeeee book bazar)

In it there some passages on Greece which I liked. The protagonist and his friend were on a boat on the dutch sea out on the atlantic. and he was saying, there's nothing here the sea goes on and on and on and only the seagulls keep us company. In the greek sea it's different, there is a point of reference anywhere you look, islands and islets, come in and out of the view their borderlines are looming in and out of the horizon, you always have a sense of moving and where you go.

I thought that was good. He also said some things about how women stay at home (it was 1940) and how geniuine happiness is in the air in greece and you can't fake it as a tourist. anyway


In the book camus describes a person who is changing. I mean, he was completely sure of who he was. He thought he was smarter than anyone, he was VERY kind, considerate, he took life as a game. Nothing serious and he basically used this kindness in order to feel good about himself.

He would walk blind people across the road, he would defend the most destitute people (he was a lawer). He thought he was handosme, smarter than anyone else, took life as a game, (he kind of used women, not honest) and he was genuinely full of himself BUT

you couldn't blame him because he was kind. Geniounly kind by his actions.


Then an event happens.

when walking at night next to the seine in paris, he hears a voice and he ignores it.

Basically a woman was about to cimmit suicide and he jsut walked on. He didn't even try to help her.

From that point on, like a worm, the guilt eats his brain.
He becomes erratic and he vomits like poison all his previous stance on life.

He finds god just to piss off his friends (dammit, 1940's were very similar to today) he is rude, his profession suffers as a result and he engages in a life of "depravity" (sic) (hookers, drinks, staying up late)
Then he gets bored of it as well.
anyway that's where I am at

But every sentence is very though off and very heavy. it's a very compact book.

Would like to see what happens in the end

[Jon Miller]

I saw some of my family over Christmas that I hadn't seen since 2010 or earlier (in many cases 2008 or earlier).

I was shocked by them.

Many of them were racist (really racist, not just mildly racist or with implicit biases). Many of them were incredibly mis-informed. Many of them were not prospering. Many of them were crude/rude/etc.

JM

[loinburger]

My family and I fundamentally disagree about religion (they're all Catholic, I'm not), but with the exception of my niece we've learned to live and let live. My niece (8 years old) will sometimes ask why I'm not Catholic, to which the easiest answer is "I don't know" - in a few years I might give her a more in-depth answer.

[Dinner]

I saw some of my family over Christmas that I hadn't seen since 2010 or earlier (in many cases 2008 or earlier).

I was shocked by them.

Many of them were racist (really racist, not just mildly racist or with implicit biases). Many of them were incredibly mis-informed. Many of them were not prospering. Many of them were crude/rude/etc.

JM

Examples otherwise I am inclined to believe you are saying you disagree with me therefore you are -ist or -phobe. All to many people think simply discussing a topic is -ist, etc..., or worse deliberately want to shut down conversations by using name calling.

Here is another truth: If a person genuinely is -ist, which is rare, calling them that almost never convinces them to change their mind. Engaging in a fact based debate often does though. This is where the modern left usually fails. They think calling people -ist or -phobe changes anything other than convincing them to vote for the other guy. If you want to change minds then don't do that as it is entirely counterproductive.

[Lorizael]

If a person genuinely is -ist, which is rare, calling them that almost never convinces them to change their mind. Engaging in a fact based debate often does though.

A good deal of evidence says otherwise. Facts almost never change minds if the person is emotionally invested in the belief. (And rare is the racist that is so dispassionately.)

[ZEE]

I farted lol.

[Elok]

Why the hell are comments enabled for non-mods, anyways? This forum didn't need more visual clutter.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

I am a nerd.

[Elok]

Mostly here or on FB. My wife and I have somewhat overlapping outlooks on life, quite different ones on politics, but we generally avoid argument because we know by now that neither will convert the other. I'm rather conflict-averse (for a guy, at least), and generally only start arguments if I'm fairly certain they'll be interesting and won't lead to bad blood or weird social complications for me or others. Which is why I try not to argue on FB.

[ZEE]

Elok is a nerd.

[Lorizael]

Weird. Forum says there are 2 comments on my post but only displays one.

[Aeson]

I would guess you are ignoring AAHZ?