Be Right in the Right Way
Everyone thinks he or she is right. As long as facts are correct, information given is true, and reasoning is logical, most people will possess accurate knowledge to the level of their age, experience, education, and abilities. Of course, none of that controls the opinions people may hold. Children believe what their parents tell them, whether it is the existence of Santa Claus or their assurance of love. Adolescents may refuse, for a time, to believe anything their parents say. Some hold ideological or religious opinions uncritically, but wise adults usually learn never to assume that any person, organization, or party may be trusted unconditionally. An ideology or system of thought is only as good as the mind or minds that create it, and a wise person takes care even with one’s own beliefs. Since nobody is perfect, no one’s system of beliefs is perfect either. While Christians may be confident that that God and His Word are perfect, none of us sinners can be trusted always to interpret His message perfectly.
Even so, interpersonal communication requires people holding varied and imperfect views, for the above reasons and more, to interact about their diverse opinions. As a result, disagreement is a normal and inevitable part of life. Men and women see the world differently. The young question the ideas of their elders, and the experienced mistrust the rashness of youth. Some reason to their conclusions, but many react instinctively. Most share the opinions of their circle of friends, family, or associates, to some degree, because it is natural to seek comfort in shared beliefs. Many, who dislike contention, prefer to avoid subjects like religion and politics. Others thrive on arguments and debate or enjoy watching others engaged in hostilities.
Small town coffee shops have always been places where voices disputing matters great and small might be heard. Big city coffee and espresso bars serve a similar purpose. At some tables, people with similar viewpoints vigorously agree with each other; at others, raised voices punctuate sharp disagreements. Talk shows on radio and television and bloggers on the Internet bring the same sort of exchanges into cars and homes. Whether in agreement or not, people participate for one reason; they want to demonstrate the rightness of their own opinions. Some prefer to hear parties who express opinions like their own without opposition; others like those who defend the superiority of their ideas, even if it takes raised voices and insults directed toward opponents.
We need a better way. If truth is truth, then ideas that are valid, correct, and useful should be able to win over those whose ideas are invalid, incorrect, and ineffective, without nastiness. Winning an argument or debate is not much better than winning a war, if opposing ideas remain and people still disagree. Enemies will fight again and again, thinking that the power to defeat holds the answer. That’s why many matters from elections to sports competitions to international conflicts often remain heated and ugly. Defeating an adversary, either in battle or by argument, is not the same as winning over an opponent.
The Proverbs say, “He that wins souls is wise.” Jesus said, “Come, let us reason together.” He also said, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Together these suggest a more fruitful approach--something less adversarial, something more engaging. People don’t really listen to, “Let me tell you what I think.” After all, since it’s normal to think one is right, we just don’t care about the “wrong” opinions of others. Why listen to them? However, ask people what they think, and they will usually be happy to do so. That’s a strategy of constructive engagement.
An official from San Francisco was on Sean Hannity’s show. He admitted that he was in favor of abolishing the American military, a pretty amazing opinion to hold while the country is fighting a war on terror, following the first attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor! Hannity asked questions, but they were confrontational questions designed to demonstrate the superiority of his conservative beliefs. I basically agreed with him, but I did not agree with his approach. The tone was unpleasant, and I quickly turned off my radio. Like those coffee shop discussions, this interchange either garnered agreement with Hannity or agreement with the San Franciscan official, but I doubt it changed anybody’s mind. I suppose when one is in the radio business and host of his own show, the object must be gaining audience. However, though sometimes we must win a war, even then we must also win the peace.
Whether you are a conservative or a liberal, a Christian or an atheist, a proud American patriot or someone who questions American values, you probably would like to see more people agree with you. If so, is your desire just to feel better about the opinions you hold? Or do you hope to see those ideas implemented in law and by more people living according to those values? Arguments generally don’t work, very well. They may help people feel superior, but the process actually cements opponents’ views. When I was a high school student, I used to argue with a couple of my favorite teachers. It was fun! I would take any position that allowed me to argue. Then later, I would realize that I actually agreed with my teacher. Most of us have had someone challenge us on some point and taken a contrary position, even though we didn’t really believe it. It is natural to take a challenge personally and defend a position merely because we have been attacked. If we were more secure, perhaps we would see the personal nature of arguments, bring the volume down, and find our way to agreement more often. Sadly the trend is toward anger, polarization, alienation, and character assassination. I don’t like it. I prefer courtesy, civility, kindness, and informative interaction. I would like to hear a bit more honesty about the weaker aspects of a position. I would like to participate in processes that require mutual respect and creative thinking that rises above “My way is the right way!”
I would rather reason with people. I spent a major part of a drive between Chicago and Grand Rapids, one time, discussing the “unchristian behavior” of drivers who refused to pick up hitchhikers…with a hitchhiker, of course! I listened to his complaints, sympathized with his frustrations, and attempted to offer reasonable explanations for those seemingly uncaring Christian drivers (who identified themselves with bumper stickers). Our conversation expanded into the question of absolutes, which my rider doubted, until he announced that he had figured out that I must be a Christian. Since I was in seminary training for the ministry, he was plainly correct, although I had never mentioned it. I hadn’t accused him of sin or attacked him with Bible verses. In my experience, all of those things quickly lead to discomfort and silence. This way, we had the opportunity to discuss fundamental ideas in a calm, thoughtful manner.
On another occasion, I was with friends in a restaurant near a Right to Life conference. A young man, who was working there as a waiter, joined us and began to criticize all the “rich, white women” pro-lifers. My friends, pro-life Catholics, quickly defended those who oppose abortion. The lines were drawn, but no one changed their opinion. I said nothing. Later, when the conversation had moved on, I quietly told the young man that I was bothered by the apparent inconsistency of pro-choice people. I said I thought it was odd that people who usually oppose big business had no trouble with the hugely profitable abortion business. He had never thought about it, but he agreed that it was puzzling. I’m sure I didn’t completely change his mind, but I planted a seed of doubt. That’s more than my friends’ argument accomplished.
The future of Western civilization is in great jeopardy whether from the war on terror, the culture wars, or simply the loss of civility. Unless we win the war on terror, many could die and our very way of life could disappear. Yet, unless we intend to kill millions of Muslims, we must win their hearts, not just defeat them militarily. Likewise, winning elections alone will not win the culture wars. In fact, the nature of this war shows how much time and effort many so-called liberals have invested to win hearts and minds to their point of view. Schools, the entertainment industry, courts, and media have become an effective propaganda coalition. As such, they have been indoctrinating younger generations for half a century or more. Head to head confrontation will not usually “deprogram” them, but gentle, reasonable conversation can edify and persuade them. Personally, I would prefer to live in “kinder, gentler” kind of world. I don’t mind the strong, forceful sharing of opinions, but I object to unpleasantness. Honest, thoughtful people will disagree, but I believe the can disagree more agreeably than most of what we hear today.
I am not suggesting it will be easy. I often express disgust verbally when I hear some of the more outrageous attacks, lies, and distortions, but I am usually alone in my car or with just a few close friends. I can generally restrain myself in more public situations. As things are now, it is difficult to get “the other side” to follow civilized rules of engagement. It’s not enough to say, “That’s a lie!” Character assassination is devastating, and people often assume guilt when they hear denials. Besides practicing the calm, rational approach described briefly here, we must also learn to seek truth in eyewitnesses and primary sources. We need to understand our history, our constitution, and how our government actually works. We also must simply turn off and refuse to read propaganda from any source, especially the dominant media; if we do, they will be forced to return to presenting news more impartially, featuring programs with less anger and hostility, and allowing diverse ideas to be shared, and shared reasonably.
Like most people, I want to be right, and I think am right, most of the time. My opinions generally fall on the “right” end of the political and religious spectrum. However, I think many are right in the wrong way, and I urge you, reader, to consider the right way to be right. Then, instead of merely feeling good about your opinions, you may enjoy the experience of winning others over to your point of view and perhaps, on occasion, find yourself won over to better ways of thinking, too.
By J. Roger Wilson, ©February, 2005, revised and completed on 3/16/06
Even so, interpersonal communication requires people holding varied and imperfect views, for the above reasons and more, to interact about their diverse opinions. As a result, disagreement is a normal and inevitable part of life. Men and women see the world differently. The young question the ideas of their elders, and the experienced mistrust the rashness of youth. Some reason to their conclusions, but many react instinctively. Most share the opinions of their circle of friends, family, or associates, to some degree, because it is natural to seek comfort in shared beliefs. Many, who dislike contention, prefer to avoid subjects like religion and politics. Others thrive on arguments and debate or enjoy watching others engaged in hostilities.
Small town coffee shops have always been places where voices disputing matters great and small might be heard. Big city coffee and espresso bars serve a similar purpose. At some tables, people with similar viewpoints vigorously agree with each other; at others, raised voices punctuate sharp disagreements. Talk shows on radio and television and bloggers on the Internet bring the same sort of exchanges into cars and homes. Whether in agreement or not, people participate for one reason; they want to demonstrate the rightness of their own opinions. Some prefer to hear parties who express opinions like their own without opposition; others like those who defend the superiority of their ideas, even if it takes raised voices and insults directed toward opponents.
We need a better way. If truth is truth, then ideas that are valid, correct, and useful should be able to win over those whose ideas are invalid, incorrect, and ineffective, without nastiness. Winning an argument or debate is not much better than winning a war, if opposing ideas remain and people still disagree. Enemies will fight again and again, thinking that the power to defeat holds the answer. That’s why many matters from elections to sports competitions to international conflicts often remain heated and ugly. Defeating an adversary, either in battle or by argument, is not the same as winning over an opponent.
The Proverbs say, “He that wins souls is wise.” Jesus said, “Come, let us reason together.” He also said, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” Together these suggest a more fruitful approach--something less adversarial, something more engaging. People don’t really listen to, “Let me tell you what I think.” After all, since it’s normal to think one is right, we just don’t care about the “wrong” opinions of others. Why listen to them? However, ask people what they think, and they will usually be happy to do so. That’s a strategy of constructive engagement.
An official from San Francisco was on Sean Hannity’s show. He admitted that he was in favor of abolishing the American military, a pretty amazing opinion to hold while the country is fighting a war on terror, following the first attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor! Hannity asked questions, but they were confrontational questions designed to demonstrate the superiority of his conservative beliefs. I basically agreed with him, but I did not agree with his approach. The tone was unpleasant, and I quickly turned off my radio. Like those coffee shop discussions, this interchange either garnered agreement with Hannity or agreement with the San Franciscan official, but I doubt it changed anybody’s mind. I suppose when one is in the radio business and host of his own show, the object must be gaining audience. However, though sometimes we must win a war, even then we must also win the peace.
Whether you are a conservative or a liberal, a Christian or an atheist, a proud American patriot or someone who questions American values, you probably would like to see more people agree with you. If so, is your desire just to feel better about the opinions you hold? Or do you hope to see those ideas implemented in law and by more people living according to those values? Arguments generally don’t work, very well. They may help people feel superior, but the process actually cements opponents’ views. When I was a high school student, I used to argue with a couple of my favorite teachers. It was fun! I would take any position that allowed me to argue. Then later, I would realize that I actually agreed with my teacher. Most of us have had someone challenge us on some point and taken a contrary position, even though we didn’t really believe it. It is natural to take a challenge personally and defend a position merely because we have been attacked. If we were more secure, perhaps we would see the personal nature of arguments, bring the volume down, and find our way to agreement more often. Sadly the trend is toward anger, polarization, alienation, and character assassination. I don’t like it. I prefer courtesy, civility, kindness, and informative interaction. I would like to hear a bit more honesty about the weaker aspects of a position. I would like to participate in processes that require mutual respect and creative thinking that rises above “My way is the right way!”
I would rather reason with people. I spent a major part of a drive between Chicago and Grand Rapids, one time, discussing the “unchristian behavior” of drivers who refused to pick up hitchhikers…with a hitchhiker, of course! I listened to his complaints, sympathized with his frustrations, and attempted to offer reasonable explanations for those seemingly uncaring Christian drivers (who identified themselves with bumper stickers). Our conversation expanded into the question of absolutes, which my rider doubted, until he announced that he had figured out that I must be a Christian. Since I was in seminary training for the ministry, he was plainly correct, although I had never mentioned it. I hadn’t accused him of sin or attacked him with Bible verses. In my experience, all of those things quickly lead to discomfort and silence. This way, we had the opportunity to discuss fundamental ideas in a calm, thoughtful manner.
On another occasion, I was with friends in a restaurant near a Right to Life conference. A young man, who was working there as a waiter, joined us and began to criticize all the “rich, white women” pro-lifers. My friends, pro-life Catholics, quickly defended those who oppose abortion. The lines were drawn, but no one changed their opinion. I said nothing. Later, when the conversation had moved on, I quietly told the young man that I was bothered by the apparent inconsistency of pro-choice people. I said I thought it was odd that people who usually oppose big business had no trouble with the hugely profitable abortion business. He had never thought about it, but he agreed that it was puzzling. I’m sure I didn’t completely change his mind, but I planted a seed of doubt. That’s more than my friends’ argument accomplished.
The future of Western civilization is in great jeopardy whether from the war on terror, the culture wars, or simply the loss of civility. Unless we win the war on terror, many could die and our very way of life could disappear. Yet, unless we intend to kill millions of Muslims, we must win their hearts, not just defeat them militarily. Likewise, winning elections alone will not win the culture wars. In fact, the nature of this war shows how much time and effort many so-called liberals have invested to win hearts and minds to their point of view. Schools, the entertainment industry, courts, and media have become an effective propaganda coalition. As such, they have been indoctrinating younger generations for half a century or more. Head to head confrontation will not usually “deprogram” them, but gentle, reasonable conversation can edify and persuade them. Personally, I would prefer to live in “kinder, gentler” kind of world. I don’t mind the strong, forceful sharing of opinions, but I object to unpleasantness. Honest, thoughtful people will disagree, but I believe the can disagree more agreeably than most of what we hear today.
I am not suggesting it will be easy. I often express disgust verbally when I hear some of the more outrageous attacks, lies, and distortions, but I am usually alone in my car or with just a few close friends. I can generally restrain myself in more public situations. As things are now, it is difficult to get “the other side” to follow civilized rules of engagement. It’s not enough to say, “That’s a lie!” Character assassination is devastating, and people often assume guilt when they hear denials. Besides practicing the calm, rational approach described briefly here, we must also learn to seek truth in eyewitnesses and primary sources. We need to understand our history, our constitution, and how our government actually works. We also must simply turn off and refuse to read propaganda from any source, especially the dominant media; if we do, they will be forced to return to presenting news more impartially, featuring programs with less anger and hostility, and allowing diverse ideas to be shared, and shared reasonably.
Like most people, I want to be right, and I think am right, most of the time. My opinions generally fall on the “right” end of the political and religious spectrum. However, I think many are right in the wrong way, and I urge you, reader, to consider the right way to be right. Then, instead of merely feeling good about your opinions, you may enjoy the experience of winning others over to your point of view and perhaps, on occasion, find yourself won over to better ways of thinking, too.
By J. Roger Wilson, ©February, 2005, revised and completed on 3/16/06
Comments