Looking down from the mountain [part 2 of 4]

​This is the second post in a series on understanding others. You can read the first one here.
​
According to Pew Research, “Republicans and Democrats are further apart ideologically than at any point in recent history”. People today are becoming further separated in their views from one another. Generally, we mostly socialize with people who share our views. Mainly, we think that people who believe differently on major issues are stupid.

As you probably know, I compete in academic speech and debate. Debate is a very interesting activity; whatever the topic is, there is always a team (or person, depending on the format) opposing the action the other team (or person) is proposing. That brings up one of the biggest lessons debate has taught me: there are always (at least) two sides. No matter how firm the evidence is on our side, someone disagrees, often for good reasons.

Now, of course, not all sides are equal; one of the teams wins the debate and the other loses. But that doesn't negate the fact that there are always two sides. Stealing is wrong, but the thief might need that money to feed his family. Does that make it right? No, but he still had a reason to do it. Once again, not all sides are equal, but there is still always another side.

And yet, we still brush off the other side and assume it’s believers are idiots. Why?

Pride. I could go on for a while here, but I will just quote one verse: Proverbs 13:10 says “Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom.”

See, many times, when we get into an argument, it is because we don’t understand the other person. It was a miscommunication. It could have been easily resolved, but we didn’t want to understand the other person, so we assumed they were wrong.

And then there are the times when we get into arguments that don’t get anywhere. Back and forth it goes, but, in the end, both of you still disagree. This is, once again, often a lack of understanding. In a debate, if I don’t understand the other team’s argument, I will probably respond with a Straw Man (a logical fallacy). This might sound good to the judge, but the other team will just get annoyed that I didn’t even know what I was responding to.

And then are the times when you understand the other argument, but not the other person. Perhaps you understand that they are saying they should be friends with a particular person, who you know would be a bad influence. And so you say that they should not do that. The problem is a that you see only the WHAT, and not the WHY. Maybe they have virtually no friends. Instead of simply saying no, tell them why you say no, and offer some other friend suggestions. And, most of all, be a better friend to them yourself.
​
If we ever want to persuade those “stupid” people to believe the truth, then we must see their side. Otherwise, we will never know what to respond to in order to persuade them, or, we will respond to things they don’t even believe (that’s pretty useless!). If we misrepresent their side, they will just get annoyed. However weak their side is, we must understand them and start from the foundation of their beliefs.