Crossing Streams

Have you ever talked to someone who in your opinion knows so little about a topic yet, is adamant they are correct? It could be that they have researched it from a very narrow band of sources, they are siloed and echo-chambered or perhaps, they have been raised in an environment that has driven various positions.

Have you ever attempted to get them to consider a differing view point, whether it be yours or another's theory only to have it fall on deaf ears? There are of course many reasons why someone will avoid or reject information that does not gel with their worldviews, but at what point does one walk away?

I like to argue in the walking world with a whole range of people but mostly, with people that are more highly skilled than myself. The ones that are able to pull apart my position and explain why or why not an alternative should be considered. As hard as it is to find out I am wrong, it is my responsibility to do so and, it is on me at that point to shift or ignore.

But, some people I have argued with are not interested in the discussion, not interested in the consideration or even to find out if there is personal value for themselves. All they want is to get their message across, like a religious zealot who preaches their book without ever having read another.

I am always in two minds though, as to walk away somehow justifies their behaviour and perspective which means that without change, they will likely find similar minds to echochamber themselves with and there will be a ramping up of views until they are pushed further toward extremes. To me, it isn't a fight against a person, it is a support of good or tearing down of bad ideas or at least having a chance.

People say that everyone is entitled to their opinion but, if their opinion is harmful, should it be tolerated, especially if without consideration of alternatives, they teach their children to follow suit?

But, there is a point where no good can come from the discussion or at least, my energy could be better spent somewhere else or with someone else. A point where a poor position in one must be left that way even though the future ramifications may be very negative for everyone.

There are many examples of ideas that if questioned early enough could have stopped them from snowballing into atrocities or well-intentioned social movements that have spiralled into tyranny and violence, often against the thing they initially supported.

Personally, I am an advocate for freedom of the individual and responsibility of action but too often I see that the individual is hacked into thinking they are acting independently while following a group movement. They do not see the manipulations at play or the harm they may cause as everyone walking beside them is travelling in the same direction. They cannot see the leader so assume there is none.

It is very difficult to go against the stream of such a crowd when friends, family and people one admires are all within and make one feel included and part of the community. It is easy to lose sight of alternatives, easy to flood out differing views and ostracise those who begin to change course.

If we do not step back from our streams, do not introduce dissonance, do not examine our lives, where does it lead or, where are we led?

Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]