No, it\u2019s not inflation. Not immigration, discrimination or any other \u0101-SH\u0259n either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this current event blogger\u2019s semi-humble opinion, our current biggest weakness is our lack of viewpoint diversity. In fact, it is such a weakness, that we won\u2019t even entertain<\/em> 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 \u201cI\u2019m-right-you\u2019re-wrong\/time-to-wash-my-hands-of-you\u201d<\/em> perspective. My concern is the blindness of our foolishness. And this from intelligent people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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), <\/em>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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Here\u2019s the key\u2026 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\u2019ve taken this so far, in fact \u2014 maybe because people know<\/em> it sounds surly and shallow to not even entertain alternate perspective \u2014 that we\u2019ve concluded that another\u2019s perspective is so dangerous, it should not be heard\u2026 It needs to be silenced at all costs\u2026 I will <\/em>not <\/em><\/strong>pay attention to them.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n And sadly, the blindness to our foolishness increases\u2026 and the weakness in our civil society only swells.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So let\u2019s 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\u2019t have to drastically move, contemplating major errors in our own thinking. We can even conclude we\u2019re more right than the other if such is comforting. Hear then how such is vocalized by author and AllSides<\/em> contributor Stephanie Lepp\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThroughout 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. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019t be taken always, nor should they be taken never, so the question isn\u2019t \u2018pro-vax or anti-vax?\u2019 but \u2018under what circumstances should vaccines be taken?\u2019 With respect to abortion, most Americans don\u2019t identify as purely \u2018pro-choice\u2019 or \u2018pro-life,\u2019 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.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n In response to binary thinking, there can be a reflexive both-sides-ism \u2014 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\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ultimately, it\u2019s unlikely that one side is entirely right. It\u2019s also unlikely that all sides are equally right. It\u2019s more likely that <\/em>most of us are partially right, but some of us are more right than others. <\/em><\/strong>That doesn\u2019t 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n That last sentence strikes me: \u201cour view will always be partial.\u201d That\u2019s why the binary choice is a fallacy\u2026 and why, too, our lack of viewpoint diversity is our current, biggest weakness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019re loyal solely because they\u2019re from the same tribe. We are ignorant to their nonexistent competency. That weakness is therefore more than current and big. It\u2019s glaring, too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Respectfully\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n AR<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" No, it\u2019s not inflation. Not immigration, discrimination or any other \u0101-SH\u0259n either. In this current event blogger\u2019s semi-humble opinion, our current biggest weakness is our lack of viewpoint diversity. In fact, it is such a weakness, that we won\u2019t even entertain the idea of imprudence. We refuse to examine any wisdom in expanding our perspective. … <\/p>\n