The FINANCIAL — In a 2010 study of blog readers, three political scientists from George Washington University found that 94% of people only read blogs from one side of the political spectrum, meaning Republicans or Democrats in the United States.
The FINANCIAL — In a 2010 study of blog readers, three political scientists from George Washington University found that 94% of people only read blogs from one side of the political spectrum, meaning Republicans or Democrats in the United States.
Only the remaining 6% of blog readers read blogs from both sides of the political spectrum. As the authors put it, “most political blog readers (..) read political blogs that provide ideological comfort.”
This points to a broader human tendency: often, people don’t seek others’ opinions to revise and change their own vision, but to confirm an opinion they already hold. This is a common tendency for scientists too: when doing research they, often inadvertently, ignore evidence that contradicts their hypothesis while focusing on data that confirms what they believe to be true.
People like people who are like them — In fact, anyone who has ever dealt with people from a different cultural background knows that it can be quite uncomfortable to interact with others who hold different opinions about things that matter to you. People like people who are like them, and actively seek out those people, a tendency that is often called homophily in the social sciences. Dozens of studies have shown that people are more likely to become friends with people with the same interests, with the same skin color, with the same gender, and with other attributes that are similar.
If we mapped out social networks, we would see different clusters of people, mostly having very similar attributes. Think about your own close friends. How many of them hold radically different opinions about things that are very important to you? How many of them come from very different socio-economic backgrounds? If you are like most people, the answer is probably very few.
Hidden in this homophily however, are some looming threats. The biggest problem is that you are unlikely to learn very much from people who are similar to you and who think in the same way. They probably have access to the same information as you, and are unlikely to change your views.
Often people report that they only find what really matters to them when traveling: meeting people from a different culture forces a traveler to decide what part of his culture and personality he can easily give up, and what is truly part of himself. For example, a Western visitor to Georgia might not have a problem with eating some of the local foods with his hands, or adapting to Georgian time management practices, but might find it more difficult to deal with the different way in which Georgian men treat their women. This means that this aspect of his cultural upbringing is essential to his being and very difficult to let go of, and that the other things that he was able to change are not essential to his being, and that they may even be better than the cultural practices he used to have before.
Seek out people who are different from you — However, you don’t have to travel to meet and interact with people who are different from you. It is quite likely that you’ll be able to find them in your own country, in your own city, in your own community, and most probably even within the organizations that you are a part of. Engage with them and learn from them.
The point that I am trying to make here is not that we are all the same, and part of one big happy family. However people who are different from us do have something to teach us.
Seek tension, and seek subtle conflict. Most people are conflict-avoidant: if possible, they would rather not create any conflicts. The same goes for the majority of the Georgian population. Feedback is often given indirectly rather than directly, and it is a cultural faux-pas to criticize your boss. However, conflict can be an extremely productive tool, and you shouldn’t avoid it.
Before proceeding, let me be very clear about what conflict is. I am not talking about conflict of the armed or violent kind, or personal feuds, or intense screaming matches. I am talking about differences of opinion about things that matter, and about talking about controversial topics that are often left undiscussed. There can be no conflict about things that do not matter: a discussion about whether I should wear dark blue or light blue jeans is not a conflict, but a mere waste of time over a petty issue: conflict involves both reason and emotion.
Why would you want this kind of conflict? The answer is very simple: it puts all the arguments on the table, and it forces you to reconsider you own arguments and points of view. It is essential to take the other person’s arguments seriously, if he or she makes a serious effort to put together a valid argument. You might learn things that you would normally never know, because they are often left unsaid. This can be an eye-opening experience: if you push people a little bit, they will tell you things that they would normally keep to themselves. Emotions open people up, and you will get a better understanding of what people really think, instead of what they politely tell you.
Useful Conflict — There are two ways to arrive at what I would call useful conflict: engage with people you don’t normally engage with, for example people with different convictions than yours, or push the people who you normally only interact with on a polite basis. If, at work, you notice that someone doesn’t fully agree with you, but they don’t pursue it further, push him or her: try to get that person to explain their reasoning. It is fine if this is a little uncomfortable: it is supposed to be.
When you do this, it is very important that you don’t rush to premature judgment, which is incredibly difficult, because we are preprogrammed to make very quick split-second judgments. Often people don’t take the time to listen to the other party’s arguments if they know what the conclusion is going to be. I listen to everyone’s arguments but I am always right is not a very useful attitude.
Avoid judgments based on status or background — Another pitfall to avoid is judging other people’s viewpoints based on that person’s background. “Oh, she is just an intern,” “he is from a poor country, so he doesn’t know anything about democracy,” or “he is the CEO, so he must be right,” are often-heard statements that rely on the assumption that someone’s status or background makes his arguments more credible. While this assumption may be right in some cases – I would definitely trust a licensed doctor more than my grandmother when trying to solicit medical advice – in most cases it is counterproductive, because it ends up forcing an opinion on other people, without learning from their viewpoints.
Try to interact with people from different backgrounds, and actively seek out opposing viewpoints. Don’t shy away from tension and useful conflict to arrive at a better opinion or conclusion. If you are afraid to listen to people with opposing viewpoints, your arguments are probably not that strong in the first place. Some people are afraid that their values and opinions will change as a result of interaction with others. Don’t be one of those people: learn from those around you, and actively seek out opposing viewpoints.
Discussion about this post