No, it’s not inflation. Not immigration, discrimination or any other ā-SHən either.
In this current event blogger’s semi-humble opinion, our current biggest weakness is our lack of viewpoint diversity. In fact, it is such a weakness, that we won’t even entertain the idea of imprudence. We refuse to examine any wisdom in expanding our perspective. There exists, too, this encouraging pressure to join the public, forte chorus, asserting the “I’m-right-you’re-wrong/time-to-wash-my-hands-of-you” perspective. My concern is the blindness of our foolishness. And this from intelligent people.
Behind this, no less, is the existence of the binary choice. As recently discussed, when we conclude that a choice is solely between two alternatives (good/bad, right/wrong, tastes great/less filling), we blur the lines of preference, opinion and conviction and we negate the perspective of the one who thinks differently than we. This is indeed easier than employing the time, patience and humility necessary to fully comprehend manifold frames of mind. Easier, but also errant.
Here’s the key… admitting this need not threaten what we already believe. But the unwillingness to even examine the legitimacy of varied viewpoint is a glaring flaw in our national existence. We’ve taken this so far, in fact — maybe because people know it sounds surly and shallow to not even entertain alternate perspective — that we’ve concluded that another’s perspective is so dangerous, it should not be heard… It needs to be silenced at all costs… I will not pay attention to them.
And sadly, the blindness to our foolishness increases… and the weakness in our civil society only swells.
So let’s see if we can help each other out today. Let us see if we can fill some of those gaping schisms giving one another a bit of a way out. We don’t have to drastically move, contemplating major errors in our own thinking. We can even conclude we’re more right than the other if such is comforting. Hear then how such is vocalized by author and AllSides contributor Stephanie Lepp…
“Throughout history, thinkers from Ancient Greece to China have practiced the art of contemplating different perspectives, in order to find a more comprehensive view. But in America today, we can hardly interact with different perspectives, let alone integrate them. Our viewpoint diversity has become seen as a weakness, rather than a strength.
The internet often gives us binary choices: pro-vax or anti-vax. Pro-choice or pro-life. Woke or anti-woke. Choosing one or the other leaves insights off the table. Vaccines shouldn’t be taken always, nor should they be taken never, so the question isn’t ‘pro-vax or anti-vax?’ but ‘under what circumstances should vaccines be taken?’ With respect to abortion, most Americans don’t identify as purely ‘pro-choice’ or ‘pro-life,’ and instead favor abortion rights with limits. And with respect to wokeness, the oppressor-oppressed frame is critical and overdue, but not always the most relevant.
In response to binary thinking, there can be a reflexive both-sides-ism — which presents different perspectives as equally relevant or valuable, regardless of the evidence or ethical considerations. American media should be more balanced, but not in a way that creates false equivalence or obscures truth. The best solutions are not always halfway between extremes…
Ultimately, it’s unlikely that one side is entirely right. It’s also unlikely that all sides are equally right. It’s more likely that most of us are partially right, but some of us are more right than others. That doesn’t make for a great tagline, but it avoids the pitfalls of tribalism and both-sides-ism in pursuit of the most comprehensive view. Our view will always be partial, and we can always strive to see more faces of reality.”
That last sentence strikes me: “our view will always be partial.” That’s why the binary choice is a fallacy… and why, too, our lack of viewpoint diversity is our current, biggest weakness.
Our lack of viewpoint diversity paves the way for tribalism, meaning it prompts strong feelings of loyalty to a specific political or social group. Tribalism is dangerous because it erodes our discernment, and often, we are completely clueless to the erosion. No longer does it matter who the leader of the group is; we’re loyal solely because they’re from the same tribe. We are ignorant to their nonexistent competency. That weakness is therefore more than current and big. It’s glaring, too.
Respectfully…
AR