thinkingthedivide-blog

[thinkingthedivide-blog]

Oppression and Perspective

In observing conversations and political communication through a new lens over the past few months, I’ve noticed something I now find rather remarkable: we humans really like to assert that our position is correct. This is not unique to any political party, gender, race or religion. We all want to “tell it how it is” and then determine that everyone who disagrees is “crazy.” But this just seems unlikely to me, so I’d like to explore it further.

Clearly, we all have different perspectives as noted in a previous blog post. No one is born knowing anything, and we slowly piece together how the world operates primarily based on experiences. If I write “dog,” you will likely picture a different breed of dog, from a different angle, in a different location than I will. Why? Well neither of us were born knowing what the sonic label “dog” means. We experienced a dog of some kind, and then repeatedly heard the acoustic pattern “dog” enough times in the presence of this delightful furry beast. Then later someone explained that the bizarre graphics “d-o-g” when strung together represented the sonic “dog” and now as I write “dog” you are both hearing that acoustic pattern and picturing said delightful furry beast. This is truly incredible.

If you tell me that you are picturing a yellow dog, and I inform you that you are picturing the wrong thing (because I am picturing a brown mutt, which to me is the correct interpretation of “dog”), then I would argue that I am being oppressive. Why? Because I am assuming that my perspective is somehow more correct. Why would it be more correct? I can’t think of any logical reason why it would be, it is simply different.

As humans, we also like to find patterns. How do I know this? Well, we really like math, fun ties, and mandala coloring books and that, to me, seems like ample evidence. Most of us like to look for patterns in human behavior as well and devise theories as to why certain humans and groups of humans behave the way that they do. Many of us were exposed to stories of “good guys versus bad guys” throughout childhood, and so this theme often plays into our thought processes. We develop theories in which certain people or groups are the “bad guys,” and we select evidence that supports these theories.

So let’s say that in the above example I am an academic and you are a farmer. You know on an innate level that your interpretation of “dog” is just as valid as my own (depending on your temperament you might think that my interpretation is in fact wrong). In your experience, academics are hoity-toity jackasses who think they know everything and look down upon farmers. My behavior regarding this dog conflict is (in your perspective) confirming this theory about academics. Now, as in any bell curve, there are probably some academics who think this way, but in all likelihood, my behavior probably has nothing to do with who you are. I am most likely just really attached to my understanding of the word “dog,” and you happen to be threatening this understanding.

So who is wrong in this scenario? Well, the word “wrong” implies that someone in the example is somehow lesser. Why establish who is lesser? How does that move us forward in a non-oppressive way? I don’t see how it does. I am more concerned with what is effective communication. What do I mean by effective? I mean that we each get a clear picture of what the other is picturing for the word “dog.” Am I effectively communicating with you if I assert that my perspective is more accurate? Are you effectively communicating with me if you are gathering evidence to support a theory about people like me? It seems to me that if we go down either of those rabbit holes, we will naturally engage emotions and lose sight of the purpose of communicating in the first place.

[thinkingthedivide-blog]

Emotions And The Mutual Benefit of Rebranding

In junior year of high school, the norovirus invaded our household. My sister and I were veritable vomitrons for nearly a fortnight, consuming next to nothing and losing somewhere around 30 pounds between the two of us. The night before our mother had prepared us a delicious chicken salad sandwich with cranberries and walnuts which we had consumed with relish (as in delight, not as in the pickled substance). Despite being cognitively aware that we most assuredly picked this virus up from a friend days before, we are, to this day, both reminded of Vomitfest 2006 when we see chicken salad. Yes, 12 years later, that experience sticks with us.

Why would this be the case? Why can we not move past this now instinctive revulsion? From an evolutionary standpoint, this reaction makes sense. I ate a specific substance and then had what would have likely been (at best) a near-death experience in caveman times (you know, those electrolytes being hard to come by). My brain, looking to protect me, is eager to remind me of this experience whenever my visual cortex and olfactory senses confirm that I am in the presence of this potentially death-inducing substance.

Now, with my advanced prefrontal cortex, I am able to identify this chain of events occurring in my own mind, and I can eat the chicken salad anyway, but I can’t prevent my brain from reminding me of my prior experience. Do I eat chicken salad with cranberries these days? If it is what’s available, of course! I am just as lazy/efficient as the next person. But if I have a choice, I will generally opt for something that doesn’t induce this emotional chain of events. Why? Because like most, I prefer to avoid unpleasant memories.

At this point you may be wondering how this chicken salad saga could possibly be related to politics, so let’s get to the point. The political bubbles being what they are, we have all grown up with positive and negative associations attached to certain terms and concepts.  For example, if we start to talk about “welfare” conservatives, who have spent many years (often lifetimes) associating this term with what they perceive to be an inefficient system, will have a nearly instantaneous negative reaction. To have built in emotional reactions is a part of our design, not a flaw. It doesn’t necessarily mean that conservatives don’t care about poor people, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that they cognitively would not be open to alternate solutions that lift people out of poverty. From the other side, liberals might hear the term “welfare-reform” and, since this has been the rallying cry of an obstinate and seemingly extreme Republican leadership for over two decades, they too will have an immediate and emotional reaction. It does not mean that they do not understand economics, and it does not mean that they would cognitively not be open to more efficient solutions.

I am a human as well, and as you can probably tell, of a liberal bent. The tone of the last paragraph clearly represents the bubble I have grown up in. While I can moderate my language to an extent to be more palatable to conservatives, my vocabulary (like everyone’s) is limited to my experience. Our dialects are a product of our social groups. Yes, we have some cognitive control, but there is a strong emotional impetus towards adopting group trends. Social rejection, for much of history, could have easily meant significant hardship or even death. It would make sense for us to be hardwired to adopt the behaviors, associations, terminology, and beliefs of those around us, so as not to make ourselves stand out and risk social rejection.

You may be thinking, “Yeah, there are a lot of people like that, but I have my own mind, and I think my own thoughts.” I know you are thinking this because I have thought this, so let me ask you this question: who would have been more likely to survive in ice-age conditions, those who pleased the group or those who tried to go it alone? That’s right. Hans Solo got eaten by a saber tooth. Who would have passed on their genes? Bingo, your sheeple ancestors, and mine. They survived because they instinctively understood the value of remaining within the fold.

This is all to say, let us not think of conformity as “good” nor “bad’ but merely an evolutionary design element that we have to acknowledge and manage. So why is this design element creating problems? Well, let’s think back to our welfare example. We have these specific and opposing narratives around particular issues and keywords within our political parties. We can’t discuss solutions, because we are continually triggering this genetically ingrained emotional reaction. (Quick reminder: *emotions served an essential purpose in our survival, and it is normal and ok for them to arise.) We need to acknowledge this response, however, so we can dissipate those feelings and communicate clearly. We don’t listen well when we are emotional. Anyone who has ever been in conflict with anyone else ought to be able to attest to that basic human fact. If we can’t listen well, then we can’t understand the other side, and it is impossible to propose ideas that will be appealing to both parties.

(Side question: do you think to call someone “emotional” or to say “you just can’t get control of your emotions” helps someone put aside their emotions or does it further trigger an emotional response? If your goal truly is communication, think about that carefully.)

This is where rebranding, as we move forward, may be a useful tool. Terms such as “welfare” are so so loaded with emotional baggage all over the spectrum that a new term/program could be a way to move forward together. New labels could give us some mental freedom to rethink the concepts in ways that may work better for everyone. Who knows? I think it’s fair to say we haven’t actually communicated in a long time. It seems to me that the only way for this to work would be for us as individuals to become aware of our personal emotional responses and be open to new suggestions (which may come from unlikely places).

Here is a sampling of some of the questions I will be asking myself to gauge my emotional response going forward.

-Do I feel an emotion such as anger, surprise, resentment, or even excitement? -No, am I sure? How does my chest feel? Does my head feel like it is buzzing? -If I am reacting negatively, then am I reacting negatively to the idea, to the person, or to the phrase being used? -If I am reacting negatively to the person, why? Is it something they are doing or is it a group they belong to? -If I am reacting negatively to a word or phrase, why? Do I have prior associations with this word or phrase? Does the person speaking think of this phrase in the same way? Are they from a different dialectical background? -Does my speaking partner think they are being passionate, or think they are being angry?

[thinkingthedivide-blog]

A Rational Case For Optimism

Those who know me will know that I have generally not been an optimist about most things. I wouldn’t categorically call myself a pessimist, but when it comes to macro issues such as industry, government, and organized religion, it has seemed as though the powerful bodies that be are always a disappointment. Given the assumption that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, it seemed logical to surmise that large groups of people (except for the ones I belonged to of course) would generally not act in a manner that benefits the greater good. This rationality, however, is flawed on many counts.

Now in some sense, the pessimist is correct: negative and painful things will most definitely occur. But by that logic, the optimist is also correct. People will always find things to be happy about. We always have. If we did not find moments of joy, even in dark times, then I’m not sure our species would have gotten this far. Given this fluctuation between subjectively good and bad experiences, both the pessimist and the optimist have ample “objective” evidence to support their claims. This makes building an argument based on fact and historical evidence a futile exercise, as both sides will be more than able to render a case that demonstrates the virtue of their worldview. So if easily manipulated facts cannot get us to the ideal schema, then we must depend on a bit of rationality.

Knowing that death is inevitable, it is highly improbable that I will escape pain (both physical and emotional). When people close to us die, it is an intensely painful experience. If everyone dies eventually, then this pain is ineluctable. Worrying about pain only causes me to suffer more now (when there is no apparent need for suffering). Drawing conclusions about the future that predict an adverse outcome (as pessimism dictates) seems only to cause worry in the present. Is such cynicism objectively incorrect? As previously established, no many “bad” things happen all the time. Yet by focusing on the potential for future “bad” (which is a given), pessimism only serves to provoke anxiety in the now.

Why are worry and anxiety in the now unfavorable? Here I will invoke some objective facts and subjective experiences as this is a verifiable point. While our acceptance of the importance of mental health is still in its nascency, we generally tend to agree that physical suffering is “bad.” Well, it turns out that anxiety is implicated in a range of physical maladies such as heart disease, gastrointestinal disorders, and respiratory disorders. If we are in agreement that physical suffering is bad, then logically we must conclude that anxiety (a potential cause of physical suffering) is also bad. (To my fellow anxious folk who are now spiraling at the thought of their anxiety causing a multitude of physical maladies, please read the italicized postscript at the bottom of this page, the point of which is: everything is ok.)

Speaking as someone who has lived something of an anxiety-ridden life, I can tell you that it is indeed physically uncomfortable. My partner and I lovingly refer to my amygdala as “Big Myg.” (The amygdala is associated with regulating emotion and anxiety is linked to large amygdalas.) This makes sense right? The brain generates emotions and is also responsible for coordinating muscle movements. If the brain is creating anxiety (regardless of whether or not there is an external cause), then fight-or-flight instincts would dictate that the brain must tell the body to tense and prepare for whatever threat is on the horizon. As no actual threat can be assessed and subsequently countered or dismissed, the body and mind remain tense. I can attest to the muscular tension, nausea, clicking jaw, and marinara-esque body odor (anyone else? no?)  that are attributable to anxiety. I consider these states to be less-than-optimal.

You might posit that my physical anxiety is a “first-world problem” and not something worth this magnitude of verbiage. This is a valid point. Is my physical discomfort resulting from anxiety such a terrible thing? Perhaps my anxiety comes as a natural cost to creating a more technologically developed world. Perhaps that technologically developed world, in turn, alleviates the more severe physical suffering of people in objectively more dire conditions. That is a fair position and one I would wholeheartedly agree with. But does that mean that I and my anxious brethren must live in an anxiety vortex (because it is one hell of a vortex) indefinitely for the sake of alleviating more severe physical suffering?

As a human, I am programmed to desire the most efficient course of action. We would not use tools or depend on agriculture if this were not the case. With this premise in mind, I ask whether anxious thoughts, not spurred by the present context, are efficient? Modern science is pretty clear on the fact that multitasking is a myth. The brain can only focus on one thing at a time. If you’re anything like me, worrying involves obsessing over scenarios yet-to-come (or ruminating on outcomes that were not to taste). If waking hours are limited, and if we can only focus on one thing at a time, then cycling through a series of possible adverse outcomes reduces the quantity of time that can be spent thinking about other things.

If pessimism induces worry and anxiety, then it must reduce the time and brain-space for potentially more constructive thought processes. The neuronal circuits devoted to worrying could instead be put to use creating strategies to empower the developing world. They could be used to invent technologies to address issues of climate change and sea level rise. They could be used to identify a neighbor’s needs and what resources you might possess to help them. They could be used to better understand a point of view you disagree with. There are infinite positive possibilities, big and small, for the use of those neurological networks. Remaining in a pessimistic state eliminates these possibilities by virtue of limited time, and must inherently create a less ideal world. Pessimism, at best, is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Optimism, on the other hand, is not anxiety-inducing. It may help now to clarify what I am not arguing for. I am not arguing for an optimistic view in which we ignore the present situation and simply believe against all odds that things will work out with no positive inputs from us. I am not arguing that people daydream of specific positive scenarios that may or may not come to fruition. That is akin to worrying about specific negative events the future may hold and is a similarly useless application of brain cells in the context of progress. Rather, I am suggesting that in our efforts to combat the ills of our society we take a more general optimistic view. This view is something to the tune of “If I do good, the world will be ok” or whatever mantra works for you. This leaves headspace to address specific strategies and present-day facts with a clarity that pessimism does not allow.

In order for me to take action, I must believe that my effort will yield a positive result, and action is undoubtedly needed in the face of our current political toxicity. Remembering that even the largest groups are comprised of individuals, we can rightly assume that individual actions and speech contribute to zeitgeists at large. If, like me, you need the promise of a result to inspire your own efforts, then keep that simple premise in mind. Poof! That, my friends, is optimism. Our actions and speech, positive and negative, do not exist in a vacuum. We may never know the impact of our deeds or ideas, but an impact will most definitely be felt. The question is, which way do we want to move the needle?

Activism is essential and an undeniable component of widespread change. But marches, elections, and phone-banks take but a small fraction of the time we have available to us every day. In each moment of our day-to-day lives, we have a choice about how to approach the tasks at hand. We can choose to be friendly or distant. We can choose to pick up the trash on the road or to leave it be. We can choose to check in on our neighbors or bunker down in our households. We can choose to be kind or harsh. But make no mistake, every action and inaction is a choice and has a consequence.

Imagine what the world would look like if every single individual were optimistic about what they could accomplish with a friendly smile and a conversation. Imagine the needs that could be met, the information that could be shared, and the human connections that would undoubtedly ensue. I think we would agree that that would be a positive thing in and of itself. Optimism, too, is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

*To my fellow anxiety tornadoes: I alluded to several physical ailments that can be the result of anxiety. Try to remember that we do not know what the future holds. If you are presently cycling through the "what-ifs" of those diseases, take a moment to think about it this way: if you are able to think about what might happen in the future, is there anything right now that is a threat to your safety or life? If you are reading this, then you are likely not in imminent danger.

I suggest the following only because it is the course I have taken, there are infinite paths you can choose to deal with anxiety (and it can be dealt with - that's the good news). If anything in this post made your stomach drop and sent your mind spinning on an "I am going to die/suffer because of___" spiral, then I recommend that you talk to a friend or therapist. My anxiety reducing cocktail consists of the following: therapy, friend-dates, exercise (any flavor), an SSRI, and an educated/conscious understanding of each of these ingredients. Your cocktail might look different. Ask yourself this: do you have anything to lose by tackling your anxiety head-on? What is the worst that could happen? If you are dying of one of these anxiety-induced diseases (which you are likely not), wouldn't it be more pleasant to not be anxious in the process?

[thinkingthedivide-blog]

Feelings Matter

In a previous post, I noted the importance of perception when attempting to engage in arguments that produce a higher level of understanding for both parties. If perception is essential, then it is necessary that we address the significance of emotions. Emotions (a.k.a. “feelings”) are inherent aspects of our point of view, and we should entertain arguments with this principle in mind.

Think about a time when you were having a dreadful day. Maybe something major happened early in the morning, and then nothing seemed to go right from that point on. You hit every red light on the way to work, spilled coffee on your brand-new shirt, and lost your only set of car keys. These minor inconveniences (in which physical harm was never a possibility) probably seemed like a cruel joke of the universe. But you had probably experienced similarly trivial difficulties on days when the major aspects of your life were going well. When you are generally happier, minor events don’t seem like such a big deal. Thus, our perception of objective events is heavily influenced by our emotional state.

There is a pernicious trend amongst otherwise highly rational individuals (myself included) to carry on as though emotions are not a part of the equation. We cite facts and argue to win as though everyone (ourselves included) is a rational automaton. But this myopic view of rationality is comically unaware of its own emotional basis. What drives us to make a case for the underserved or the unfairly judged? If we were merely viewing everything objectively, we would observe every situation dispassionately in an attempt to garner more information. It is emotions that drive us to engage in any debate or argument that might further the wellbeing of something or someone.

People do not rise up to demand change because of objective facts (which may or may not be in their favor). They rise because they perceive something to be dangerous or amiss in the world around them and generate an emotional response to this perception. Have you ever gotten upset over something trivial and proceeded to lash out at a loved one? If they told you that you were “being ridiculous” how would you respond? Would you suddenly change course and agree, or would you feel hurt and double-down? Whether or not there is a factual basis for an emotional response, it is imperative to react kindly as someone’s perception is, frankly, their reality. Kindness is more likely to result in mutual understanding and either an ability of the opposing party to view the current situation clearly or an environment in which change can be enacted.

So how does this play into debate on a practical/individual level? Well, if I am carrying on as if it were possible to remain unemotional, then I might say something harshly or cruelly as if you could simply ignore it (something I have most certainly done). But being human you will likely have an emotional reaction. This is not a terribly rational thing for me to do, because now your perception of my point is clouded by negative emotions. If my actual aim is for you to understand what I am saying, then I would be wise to avoid comments that unnecessarily incite negative feelings.

Likewise, it is also crucial for me to remember that I am just as subject to emotions. My debating partner might reference something they believe to be an objective fact, but I might have an adverse reaction to this piece of information based on previous experiences. This person may have no knowledge of the emotion they are potentially provoking. For example, if someone were to state, “well feminists don’t seem to like men” I would feel an immediate urge to shut them up in the snarkiest manner possible. Having immersed myself in feminist literature and thought for some time, I know that this is not the outlook of the vast majority of feminists. Having encountered the sentiment that feminists are man-haters many times before, I may be exasperated at hearing it again. I will be frustrated knowing that it is an oversimplification of a complicated movement of individuals. But if I respond with a snarky remark, I lose the opportunity to explain my experience of feminism. By remaining aware of my own emotional response, I might be able to direct the conversation in a manner that actually conveys what I know and think about feminism.

Having worked with many students on the autism spectrum, I have come to appreciate the utility of explicit directions and cues. Below is a list of emotions that are common when debating (especially online). I include these not to be tongue-in-cheek, but because I have found it useful to recognize when I am being overcome by one of these states.

Hurt pride (a.k.a. feeling insulted)

Sadness (perhaps at seeing something horrific in the news)

Frustration (when the other party is just “not getting it”)

Irritation (the facts are clear, why is this so hard to understand?)

Confusion (when someone does/says something that just doesn’t add up)

Anxiety (when the topic at hand may directly impact you)

Panic (when the discussion surrounds something you perceive to be time sensitive)

Additionally, I have found it helpful to observe and analyze my typical verbal responses when I encounter one of these emotions. If I am tempted to say any of the following, then I am likely speaking out of emotion rather than logic:

"But!”

“Well, I don’t know about that...”

“That’s insane.”

“That makes no sense.”

“What!” (with a certain tone of voice)

“Yeah, ok” (said like a teen)

[eye roll] (alright, this one isn’t verbal, but we all know what it means)

Why is it important to recognize these signs? Well if I can identify my own emotionally charged behaviors ahead of time, I can create alternative strategies and “scripts” that are more likely to de-escalate arguments and engender successful communication. After all, if we aren’t trying to understand each other, then what is the point of communicating in the first place?

[thinkingthedivide-blog]

Arguing to Win is Arguing to Lose

via GIPHY

As alluded to in the previous post, there appears to be a cultural propensity (particularly online) towards a combative style of argumentation. The goal of this flavor of discourse is, to me, unclear. It seems that we are out to determine winners and losers, yet despite a plethora of well-documented tit-for-tats I’m not sure who the champions are. After half a lifetime of informal data-collection (compliments of social media), I can safely ascertain that this is not working. Arguing to win benefits no one.

For example, I could make a case outlining the absurdity of an unwavering belief in a deity (this is not, by the way, what I believe). I could point out a general lack of scientific evidence to the existence of such a being, the quantities of undue suffering that continue without intervention, and the fact that the holy books, such as the Bible, were undoubtedly authored by humans. (Again, I could also make the opposite case, that is not the point of this essay.) If I am arguing to win, then what is my goal? Presumably, either I must gain something, the defeated must lose something or both.

So what do I stand to gain from dispelling another of beliefs they hold dear? If their views are not particularly dogmatic, I do not see how this could improve my life beyond the fleeting conquest-induced testosterone rush itself. “Winning,” therefore, must be defined as the defeated “losing” something. What could they lose? Perhaps they must cease practicing their now debunked rituals and dedicate themselves to a lifetime of rational, if depressing, rumination.

An end-result in which only the opponent is forced to change something fundamental about their state of being is eerily reminiscent of the thinking that led to such horrors as the Holocaust and Maoism. People generally do not change their faith in response to such tactics. They either die for their cause or go into hiding, surviving on the very beliefs that threaten to destroy them. It seems that the potential victory we hold vaguely in our minds as we argue to win is not so victorious after all.

Generally, however, genocidal dystopia is something of a stretch from living room quarrels. The more likely result is a doubling-down on aspects of our arguments that even we have less confidence in. Were my opponent to insist on the existence of a human-like god with a proclivity for smiting, I might be tempted to turn my argument for the lack of such a god into a case for the lack of anything awe-inspiring at all. Such a stance would not sit particularly well with me, but in my unwillingness to lose ground I would defend it to the last.

The product of our more likely scenario is two individuals pushing themselves and each other into extremes that they do not actually believe. They simultaneously appear and become dogmatic as the interaction unfolds. Each comes to view the other as irrational, and I would hypothesize that our assessment of each other’s rationality is intimately intertwined with our evaluation of their humanity. A sense of otherness takes hold, and we inevitably polarize. While less horrifying than genocide, this does not seem terribly productive.

[thinkingthedivide-blog]

The Importance Of Perception

via GIPHY

As I have begun to converse with people I disagree with, I have noticed a particular trend on the micro and macro scales that seems to be causing a great deal of the current unrest. This has to do with perception. We debate concepts on the premise that only one point of view can actually be correct. I would argue that this strategy, from interpersonal relations to international relations, is fundamentally flawed.

We are approaching the situation with a false dichotomy of objectivity versus subjectivity. Now, this is not to say that facts do not exist, rather that we all come at facts through a lens highly specific to our experiences. For example, I typically treat trips to the grocery store like high stakes scavenger hunts. With list in hand, I speed through the aisles dodging the grocery carts of the elderly in a slow-motion game of frogger. The other day I was reaching for my usual egg carton when I noticed the woman next me holding a dozen jumbo eggs. As a lover of eggs, I proclaimed with excitement, “Are those new!?” and with a raised eyebrow and an incredulous tone she replied, “Jumbo eggs?”

What happened in this exchange? Well, while I am generally aware of the existence of jumbo eggs, I was not aware that they were available in this particular (small) store. In my view, jumbo eggs were not available to me. In my day-to-day existence, I had ignored the jumbo eggs to focus on the cage-free brand (get your laughs in now) to which I am particular. Now you might argue that in hyper-focusing on my preferred egg brand, I had missed the entire objective picture that my new friend had apparently taken in. But if we follow that logic all the way out, you would then have to argue that I should become familiar with every item in that grocery store, then every item in every grocery store in the metro-Boston area and so on and so on. At that point, I will be dedicating my life to a comprehensive knowledge of all the products of all the food suppliers on the planet. This does not seem like an effective use of my talents.

What if we go the other way, and argue that we should focus on only a tiny portion of the picture? I could maintain that people should only ever know about one brand of each item they purchase for the purposes of efficiency. If we follow that logic, then you should only know about the brands that you first learned about as a child (because looking at other brands is now off limits). If that were the case, we’d all still be subsisting on breast milk (or formula). If that were the case, we’d still be using mercury thermometers and encasing our homes in asbestos (if we even got that far).

So what are we to do? I would argue that our differing perspectives actually served us quite well. I maintained the level of efficiency that I aspire to, but because I spoke with this new person I now know that I can incorporate jumbo eggs into my daily routine (which to me, is desirable). I could argue that because I saved time in learning about a preferable egg product, my life was measurably improved. Because she saved me time, I was able to dedicate more time to studying effective communication. While she may not see the direct effects of this, it is likely (given our residence in the same town) that if I communicate with enough people around me, they may, in turn, communicate with more people, and one day with her. I suppose we could compare that to Karma. I suppose we could compare that to the free market.

So how does this apply to our current predicament? Much of the rhetoric used to debate topics on social media indicates that people are treating arguments like contests. We could blame social media for this attitude, but is that not how classic high school debates are structured? Nothing comes to being in a vacuum. I recall hearing a similar style of discourse as a child before the internet was even commonplace. It’s useful in a courtroom. It’s not useful when you are trying to fix something.

I gave this example in a recent social media conversation, and I am inserting it here because I think it conveys the concept well. I am an incredibly messy person. I like to make coffee in a mug, and bring it with me to work. I then like to leave the coffee cup in my car, and we are generally out of cups in the cupboard by Wednesday. My partner finds this annoying (because it is). If there are many other stressors in our lives, he finds this habit even more annoying. Now has my habit changed at all from the non-stressful to the stressful times? No. Has his perception of how annoying it is changed? Yes. In times of stress, it is more important that I become attuned to his perception of my coffee mug habit and generally work to remedy it. Why? Because otherwise the relationship is doomed. I could argue that he is blowing it out of proportion when he is stressed, and I wouldn't be wrong, but where does that get me? I certainly don't win if a relationship I value becomes toxic.

You'll note, however, that I didn't say I have ever fixed my coffee cup problem. It is a recurring issue. My partner is generally pretty tolerant of what seems to be an inability on my part to recognize total chaos. He could argue that when I perceive a disaster zone to be “just fine” that my point of view is entirely wrong. He could make that case, but will that benefit our relationship? My stubborn self would most likely respond by consciously refusing to ameliorate any issues surrounding cleanliness, and that would undoubtedly place the relationship in peril.

Why do we not want the relationship to dissolve? There is the obvious answer: we provide each other with stable emotional support. There is also the less romantic answer: we are more financially stable as a couple than we are as individuals. We are an insurance system for each other when one falls on hard times or is pursuing a goal. The relationship provides us with improved well being on multiple fronts that simply outweighs any potential suffering that it causes.

So, with the bigger picture in mind, it seems imperative that we put our judgments of who is deserving, or who has the most “correct” point of view aside and start listening to the perspectives of others (especially those of people with whom we do not already sympathize). Just as my partner and I work to be flexible without fundamentally changing, there may be room for solutions to grievances that don’t cause harm to the “opposing” parties. Just as my encounter with a fellow grocery store patron marginally improved several lives, a range of views just might bring about the betterment of all. We cannot find those solutions or be creative if we do not truly understand the root of the issues.