If listening and understanding other people isn't the first step to working through these problems, nothing is. And I am unwilling to just call the problems unfixable, throw my hands up, and resign myself to a world full of such misunderstanding, recrimination, and pain.

I make a serious effort to nurture relationships with people who hold beliefs very different from mine, some of these beliefs I even consider ethically flawed, or counterfactual.

And yet I get so much out of talking and especially listening to these people explain their beliefs to me. I feel grateful to have the opportunity to see the world through other lenses, and I have learned and grown as a result.

If more people did this, I like to imagine that the timbre of discussion would change from default contempt to something far better.

So I'll make a counter-point: let's say we're back in the old slavery days. I'm sure Abe did his fair share of listening and talking with folks from the South.

But eventually, there just ain't no compromising and something had to be done.

And so it was done.

Ultimately, I think, for some issues, there is simply no room for compromise. At that point, it's simply a question of who has the power to push their agenda. That or there's gridlock and nothing happens at all (see: climate change).

Now, on a one-on-one basis, I think this post is full of excellent lessons. Active listening, empathic connection, these are great tools when dealing with individuals, whether that be in a personal or professional setting.

But in the large? To me, history demonstrates that it's simply idealism to believe that people can, in aggregate, come together on complex, polarizing issues.

Just look at how much the majority opinion on dozens of topics has changed over the past few decades. Marijuana legalization. Gay marriage. Mass incarceration.

Lots and lots of change happens in the hearts and minds of lots and lots of people without force being involved. People often change their views very gradually, over time, as they realize aspects of things which weren't apparent to them before. A big part of this is often empathetic discussions with the people around them.

I think you, and other commenters in this thread, seem to imply that the assumptive goal is to change someone's mind RIGHT NOW, or else just force them to do what you know is right, and ignore their wrongheadedness.

The civil war was a serious net benefit to humanity by outlawing slavery. But the underlying concerns of Southerners, which was the dismantling of their economy, was never addressed. This has led to generational poverty in the south which has never been fully undone, and created a fertile field for the southern strategy and Jim Crow, which are arguably continuing to affect us in the form of the current presidential campaign.

Force may have been necessary, but a deeper understanding might have made the aftermath of force far better.

One of the first things to realise about people's apparently very strong views is that often they're simply echoing what they think is the majority view (but they generally really won't like you pointing that out). A second is that often they change quite swiftly when people stop talking about it. Not only are they not constantly being reminded that X is bad by people and sources they trust, but they also don't feel obliged to keep defending a position they held a couple of years ago when not regularly prompted to justify it.

The new majority opinion is held by a largely different set of people than the one from a few decades ago. People born in the 19th century still mostly think what they thought before, they're just too dead for it to matter.

Joeboy beat me to it, but I'll reiterate: that's not compromise. It's just change. Don't confuse the two.

And for those on the "losing" side of that change, there's an incredible amount of consternation.

I think that depends very much on the topic. For instance - there was once a point in my life where I was opposed to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. My reasons for this were complex, and not based on a fear or hatred of homosexuals. Over time I came around on it, and by the time SCOTUS ruled on it I was supportive of it (though not of the legal reasoning they cited).

On the other hand, my views on gun rights have not changed, and I cannot envision a point where they would. If Heller were to be overturned I would not "accepting" of it in even the smallest way.

In other words some issues are core beliefs and some issues are secondary. Peoples views on secondary beliefs change over time, but core beliefs are not something that I have often seen changed.

However, when the topic gets brought up again a while later, they have shifted their position closer to mine, but also insist that they've always thought that.

I really wonder what is going on there, but I can see the aggregate opinion shifting by talking while nobody thinks they 'lost' the debate (for all those who identify far too strongly with their opinions.).

What is the appropriate life per slavery-year exchange rate? Because if for one less year of slavery you would spend 10,000 human lives, and 20 years of peaceful compromise would have ended slavery, then your war was a mistake.

There's no way to even estimate such things beforehand, so the calculation you propose is pretty useless.

I'm not saying that the decision for the war was right or wrong, but that you can't answer the question with a seemingly objective multiplication of numbers (it's the garbage-in-garbage-out principle in action).

Makes more sense now.

Honest question -- exactly what do you get out of talking and listening to people explain 'ethically flawed' or 'counterfactual' beliefs to you? What have you learned? How better to deal with people of that sort? I realize this sounds sarcastic, but whenever I've been in that situation I've only come to the sinking realization that the discussion I am trying to have with this person is fruitless at best and damaging to us both at worst.

I can articulate many viewpoints extremely clearly which I don't happen to hold, which means if I am in a debating mood I can much more precisely debate someone, rather than simply dismissing them.

I repeatedly realize my own opinions are sometimes based on unexamined assumptions, which no matter how many times I realize it and try to root it out, keeps coming to my attention over and over.

I repeatedly am reminded that almost everyone believes they are acting morally, and it is humbling to try to understand the morals of the person who seems so "immoral."

I often am floored when I realize just how different my lived experience is from the person who has formed such a puzzling belief, and it massively broadens my perspective to learn about those narratives.

These are just a few things off the top of my head, I bet I could think of many more.

It is the first step, but it only works if the other side is also willing to take it with you. If you are the only one changing your position, it is not a mutual compromise, by definition.

That's a very wise thought.

That's true. However, once the other person feels well understood, they often get more interested in trying to understand your side. And then, once you and the other person side each have a better understanding of what the other wants, it may be possible to come up with some third alternative that makes both of you happy.

Well, you did a good job of actually living out what you are saying, by not downvoting, and instead responding with a calm and reasonable reply.

You don't have to agree with something to be willing to support it. (I've lost track of the number of times I've said "I'm not sure this is the best option here, but doing nothing would be worse, so let's try your plan." Or vice versa.)

Not every decision needs to be based on consensus, but that doesn't mean the only other option is to ignore everyone else.

And it's healthy. So much of the hate and anger around, say, politics today is predicated on not understanding and actively refusing to change that situation. We dismiss and actively insult those who we disagree with: idiot, racist, bigot, naive, liar, insane, greedy.

You may never compromise on a polarizing issue because any middle ground is either non-existent or functionally equivalent to full capitulation. That's life. But if you shut down, ignore, or insult those who disagree with you on one issue, they're not even going to show up to the table on the next issue where compromise is more feasible.

You're probably able to use a technical definition of "belief" along the lines of "falsifiable assertation". Most people don't see it that way; being conditioned to equate "belief" with "opinion that is factually wrong". Even for those of us that know the technical definition, we have to make a conscious effort to no fall back to the casual definion on our day to day lives. And from there, there's a slipery slope that goes down to "opinion I do not agree with".

It is much more productive to see this issue in terms of values. If is not that this person cannot see the facts, but that she assigns a moral meaning to those same facts that is different from the one you would prefer.

From there, it is Politics 101. If you want her to withdraw her opposition to abortion, you have to find some other issue X that is of comparable value to her, and either offer your support to make X happen or threaten to block her from achieving X.

This is not pretty, but in a democratic society, it leaves everybody more or less equaly frustrated with the compromise; while at the same time nobody's deepest needs and wants get ignored.

I think you are right that understanding is really far away from compromise, especially if your conversational counterpart is obviously having a very non-rational standpoint. But isn't it still better to "understand" them and wouldn't it be easier for you to work out something if you don't think the person you are talking to is actually just crazy or unintelligent? In the given example: would you say the situation was "better" before the unexpected question or afterwards? And is there really another question to ask that could provide a more positive outcome? I would personally not think so, but maybe I'm just not understanding you completely.. :)

The situation is better in that the listener has a more empathic, more thorough understanding of the speaker.

In that sense there was a positive exchange of information and understanding, which is great.

Beyond that, though, what has been accomplished?

I know that sounds hopelessly utilitarian, but in the end, when it comes to issues like, say, abortion, I fail to see how this kind of understanding is valuable unless it further leads to a coming together of minds to form agreement or compromise.

Now, you mention that "wouldn't it be easier for you to work out something if you don't think the person you are talking to is actually just crazy or unintelligent"?

My claim is that it doesn't matter. That whether or not I understand the other person, the very nature of the disagreement and the very fundamental principles upon which the two positions rest, makes compromise impossible.

After all, how do you compromise with someone who believes, run down to their toes, that abortion is equivalent to the murder of a child? You can't. That belief system doesn't make room for even entertaining the idea of compromise.

And the clever thing about modern politics and rhetoric is that they've taken issues that you wouldn't think would be wedge issues, and transformed them into wedge issues by building entire moral edifices around them.

The result is that when you debate someone about something as dull as, say, tax policy, it's no longer about debating facts and ideas, but rather debating values and culture and beliefs. And when you debate those values and beliefs, what you're actually doing is attacking the very things that define who that person is.

A pro-life person could say, "I believe that life begins at conception (or when the heart starts, or when the brainwaves start), and after that, abortion is murder. But I also understand what a horrible position that puts many women in, and the real pain it causes in real lives. I still can't compromise - I believe abortion should be illegal - but I can understand why people are on the other side, and I don't hate them for being there."

And a pro-choice person could say, "I care about womens' ability to choose what they want for their own lives. But I can see how, if you genuinely believe that abortion is murder, you simply can't support it in good conscience. I can't agree with you, and we can't compromise. But I can respect you for standing for what you think is morally right, even when I think you're wrong on what is actually moral in this situation."

Wouldn't that be better? It's still an unresolvable issue. But if we could remove the hatred on both sides, wouldn't that be better?

This might not always be possible for disagreements, but sometimes it can help to step back and consider the issue and it's implications for society from other angles.

So even if compromise is indeed impossible, understanding where they are coming from is usually vital to beating them. Whoever "they" are.

There is also the personal growth angle, but sadly, that doesn't seem to be compelling to a significant fraction of folks.

Clearly, there is in fact room for compromise with her. At that point, the author could probably have shared his story about women he knew who'd had abortions, for whom it was a painful decision that wasn't thoughtless and casual and spiteful, and wasn't an indictment of her worth. Done carefully, she probably would have acknowledged that it's properly a deeply personal decision and she's not really that committed to her own feelings.

Actually, we don't know that either way.

We understand where her philosophical position takes root. That's it.

On its own that's certainly interesting.

Whether or not there's flexibility in that position, though, is a question that remains unanswered.

Clearly, there is in fact room for compromise with her.

I'm curious, what, in the post, leads you to that conclusion?

Room for compromise comes from the fairly obvious approach of disassociating abortion from her personal circumstances... likely by sharing the author's stories about women he knows for whom abortion was a difficult but justified personal choice, not a spiteful act directed at the woman to shame her for being barren. With some empathetic discussion, this doesn't seem an unreasonable outcome. What more do you want, to believe that there is room for compromise?

You might call someone who deny evolution a thickhead or a zealot, ignore, and that's the end of it. Or you can try to ask "why do you think so", and turns out they only heard about evolution from their pastor, who spoke about some nonsense like "monkeys gave birth to human babies". From there, it might be possible to point that out in a way that would make them read a wiki article about it, for example. That is, make one real step towards changing the opinion.

Assuming the other side would care to answer the "why", however...

That's quite true. But what is often going on in this sort of a situation is a self-perpetuating pattern in which poor listening, anger, fear, attacking the other side, and rigidly clinging to extreme positions all reinforce each other.

What mutual listening can do in many cases is change this into a much better self-reinforcing pattern in which people calm down, become more understanding, and become more fact-oriented and realistic in their thinking, and this in turn makes it possible to reach a good agreement such as on governmental policy.

I am not saying this always works, but I think it should be one of our standard approaches, and everyone ought to know and practice it, as appropriate.

When I am in good mood I just try to understand their position and store it as piece of information. Trying to convince someone is pretty hopeless.

I think this very similar to how people view the act of murder. This is nothing special about abortion. They just view it as a crime.

>There is no room for compromise in a belief system like that.

Exactly. That is why, listening does nothing. In the article, the author felt very warm and fuzzy but look at the result of that encounter. The woman went on believing what she already believed and the author went on believing what he already believed. So what's the point?

Will it always work? No. But I think it gets you closer.

Often, but not always, that understanding can illuminate an acceptable compromise.

This would be less of a thing if we all listened more, instead of hearing the first few words from across the aisle, tuning them out, and preparing to retort back. I think your conclusion is begging the question.

This is why some arguments are dismissed. If group A has to accept group B's point of view as fact then they also must give merit to group B's solution.

If everyone spoke honestly and plainly we can finally see these opposing sides are enemies on this instead of each pretending to have the high ground.

Kinda making my point for me. :)

edit: thanks for your response to 'zzalpha, helped me understand your position, and my response above seems a bit harsh in light of that. That said, I'll leave it up because the expository rant came afterward :P

I read the author's post. I digested it. I provided my counterpoint.

Your initial response was essentially dismissal.

I prompted you to provide a more substantial response (admittedly rather sarcastic, though I hope it wasn't viewed as hostility... probably a bad decision, that), and you once again come back with a pithy response.

It's almost as though you feel I've offended you by providing my viewpoint, which I find odd since I haven't personally attacked anyone, certainly not you, whom I don't know from Adam.

The really infuriating thing is how close to it you come, and again, I see this all the time. "The viewpoints are so polarized that no compromise is possible," you say. But that's not true. Having read and digested the article, you (have no excuse not to) understand where this individual woman's objection to abortion originates: in deep, lifelong personal pain. You talk about compassion, but only so you can dismiss it offhand on your way to a multi-paragraph denunciation of the way she and people like her are just so unreasonable. And it's amazing how the other guy is the only one who ever has that problem.

That's why I talk about contempt. I mean, in the example we're looking at here, there's every reason to imagine that a show of compassion, from someone who's able to put basic human integrity ahead of mere ideological disagreement, might help give this woman some perspective that'd make it possible for her to understand the issue of abortion from a point of view outside the one that she's used to, because it comes along with the pain that her condition has inflicted upon her. Even if it doesn't, easing another person's suffering is a bedrock tenet of almost any scheme of ethics or morals. But that doesn't even occur to you, because you're so caught up in the question of whether you can make someone else think like you that nothing else has a chance to get a look in.

Perhaps it's unjust of me to react to this kind of heartlessness with contempt. Perhaps it's even cruel. I know for damn sure it doesn't help anything or convince anyone. At the moment, I find the urge insuperable. I mean, how high-minded can you really imagine yourself to be if the only people for whom you are capable of empathy are those who already believe substantially what you do? Does that not at some level of your psyche stimulate a certain degree of unease? I'd really like to hope so.

I denounced nothing.

I said her beliefs are her beliefs and that they are unlikely to be shaken purely because someone listened to her.

You read malice into a comment where none was present.

You read judgement into a comment where none was given.

You're failing, right now, at the very kind of compassionate listening you feel is so very important.

Even if it doesn't, easing another person's suffering is a bedrock tenet of almost any scheme of ethics or morals. But that doesn't even occur to you, because you're so caught up in the question of whether you can make someone else think like you that nothing else has a chance to get a look in.

How do you know that it didn't?

Once again, you're reading into my post values and motivations I never espoused, I presume based on past experiences with others who disagree with you.

In fact, in my other comments, I agree that, on an individual, one-on-one basis, this post contains immensely valuable moral and personal lessons.

My comment, rather, is about whether a small act like this might change how we debate and decide upon issues in the large (my claim is that it is idealistic but unlikely to have value in the large).

I apologize if my comment wasn't clear, that I was not disagreeing with the compassionate act of listening, but rather questioning it's value in improving the way we hold forth on discourse in broader society.

Hopefully I've made that clearer here.

Perhaps it's unjust of me to react to this kind of heartlessness with contempt.

And now you're making it personal.

I'd thank you for the discussion, but I'm not sure much of value has come out of this. It's a shame, but so be it.

Less likely than because someone didn't?

More verbosely, your complaints are correct and fair, but they aren't altogether a rejection of attempting to find compromise.