Three Rules for Meaningful Discussions in a Polarized World
I believe that at the core of modern humanity's relationship with religion is a fundamental flaw, a flaw that largely discredits the entity as a whole.
Religion vs. Ethnicity
People widely mistake religion for ethnicity when it’s far from it.
Religion is a choice of beliefs, a personal choice that each individual either chooses to follow or not, to apply a sense of meaning, understanding, and guidance to their lives.
Your ethnic identity is not a choice; it is predicated on your origin, where you are born, who your parents are, etc.
Yet people strongly identify with their religion, often as if it’s their ethnic identity imposed on them since birth rather than a decision they made among many other options.
A Belief Needs Comparison
For a belief or choice to hold any merit or credibility, it must be compared against other beliefs and choices; otherwise, it isn’t concrete.
It’s like if you were to ask someone, "Hey, what’s your favorite movie of all time?" and they tell you it’s "Shrek 2." Then you ask, "Oh really? How many movies have you seen in your life?" and they respond, "Oh, I’ve only seen 'Shrek 2.'" You would think that's strange. Their choice to have "Shrek 2" as their favorite movie isn’t invalid, but how do you perceive that person?
Historical Context
This may not just be a modern issue but a human issue, something deep in our psychological worldview of belief, faith, and tribalistic entities.
If you were born in the Persian Empire in 500 BCE, you would most likely be a Zoroastrian. During the time of the Ottoman Empire, you would follow Islam. If you were a Viking, you would believe in Valhalla and gods like Odin. Ancient Greeks believed in gods such as Zeus, Indians in Hinduism, Japanese in Shintoism, and in Alabama, Christianity.
The same is true for political ideologies. We’re born into households where we automatically inherit certain focal points and ways of looking at the world.
Locked into Belief Systems
What interests me is how locked into these belief systems we become, to the point that they become markers of our individualized personality. It becomes almost frowned upon to discuss said beliefs because people may interpret it as an insult to their character.
Growing up, we always heard the same thing, whether at dinner, in class, or at social events: never discuss politics and never discuss religion. But why? Is the issue really the topics we are discussing, or is it more about how we go about talking about them? We often express our ideologies with vitriol and villainize any counterargument.
The Purpose of Discussion
I believe the lack of discussing hot-button topics in a productive manner leaves us worse off. We are then forever stuck with whatever innate biases we have out of fear of offending somebody or being wrong ourselves.
People often say, "I don't talk about politics" or "I don't talk about religion," as if they are on some higher plane where none of that matters. The reality is, it does matter. It matters more than you think; it's really what makes you who you are. The impact of cultures and their ideologies is fundamental to who you are as a person.
With everything going on in the world today and the extreme polarization we have found ourselves in, everywhere we look, there is some sort of debate or discussion happening; it’s a constant presence. Many of these debates seem to be fueled by two things: emotion and ego. This got me thinking, what is the purpose of even having a discussion with someone you disagree with?
The whole point of a discussion is to figure out the objective truth of something by using whatever knowledge each person possesses about the topic. It’s not to double down on your own personal beliefs just because you love the sound of your own voice.
Three Rules for Meaningful Discussions
That being said, a discussion of any sort should be seen as its own game, and in order for a game to be conducted optimally, there have to be some clear guidelines. The same should be apparent when having any kind of discourse. So what should those rules be? Well, in order for a discussion to truly pursue the purpose of learning an ultimate truth, two things need to be considered:
Be transparent about the extent of your knowledge.
Be conscientious enough to identify any and all biases you may have. Without identifying this variable, no argument holds any merit because it’s predicated on your own subjective experience.
Acknowledge that whoever you're talking about, whether a group or an individual, operates in a way that is identical to you. It's important to recognize that we are all human, each one of us extremely complex and nuanced. We're all just different versions of the same thing.
That’s it. That’s all you have to do in order to have a true and honest dialogue. But you’ll find that people hate doing that; it strays away from their intuitive nature. It forces them outside their own ego, into a realm where they are no longer the main character of their stories.
Next time you’re about to get into some geopolitical argument, try it and see how it changes things.