Unveiling the Magnification: How Minor Disagreements Become Moral Divides
How a quote from a podcast led to learning about applied positions and fundamental moral beliefs.
I recently stumbled upon a profound quote from a Chris Williamson podcast that sparked a moment of introspection. It took a few listens for the idea to resonate truly. The notion had been lingering in my mind, frustratingly elusive until then. The quote delves into the realm of Strawman's arguments, prompting a fundamental question: Are these misinterpretations innocent mistakes or deliberate acts of deception?
Consider this quote from Destiny, a prominent YouTube channel with a substantial following. Although I need to become more familiar with Destiny, I remain open-minded to insights from Chris Williamson's podcast. The context revolves around the tendency for people to extrapolate beliefs that don't align with your expressed views.
"A slight difference in applied position will be interpreted as a huge difference in fundamental moral belief."
This tendency manifests in various scenarios.
For instance, suggesting that some men face obstacles in career advancement is erroneously interpreted as advocating for the exclusion of women from the workforce.
Similarly, questioning the use of puberty blockers in children is misconstrued as harboring hatred towards the transgender community.
Rather than engaging in the nuanced discussions surrounding these topics, interlocutors often reduce them to litmus tests for moral alignment. This tactic, akin to straw-manning, involves exaggerating beliefs to absurd extents, attributing them to individuals, and subsequently vilifying them.
So, why do people employ such tactics in discourse?
One charitable interpretation suggests they might need more awareness or parrot arguments with genuine comprehension. Alternatively, some may prioritize 'winning' arguments over honest dialogue, failing to recognize that such tactics only lead to polarization and disengagement.
However, another, more insidious motivation is the instinct to safeguard our beliefs from scrutiny or challenge. We often engage in mental gymnastics, making illogical leaps to maintain the illusion of consistency and shield ourselves from the discomfort of being proven wrong.
Our amygdala, the primal center of our brain, reacts similarly to perceived physical or intellectual threats. When confronted with danger, the fear of being publicly proven wrong triggers a response akin to our ancestors' fight-or-flight instincts.
We must cultivate active listening and genuine curiosity toward opposing viewpoints to overcome these cognitive pitfalls. Instead of seeking to discredit others, we should strive to understand their perspectives through open-ended questions. Though it may incite discomfort, patience, and empathy can ultimately bridge the divide.
Of course, unless we're so entrenched in our own certainty, we've closed ourselves off to alternative narratives. That, of course, may be the story you are telling yourself.