Pop quiz. Who in the last, say, 12 months, has changed their opinion on Covid? Who has gone from pro-vax to anti-vax or vice-versa?
Anyone? Bueller?
Next question: how many people have seen an argument go by from someone on the opposite side of the debate, and thought “that is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard”?
Okay, yes, you. You don’t have to jump up and down. I see you.
I recently listened to communication expert Misha Glouberman talk about how we think we communicate vs how we actually communicate, and how we fail to say what is really important.
The discussion was framed around a role-play between two actors playing mother and son.
In the first run through, each actor basically argued their points back and forth. It ended with everything falling apart, and both people, who ultimately love each other, ending with ultimatums. “You can’t see your grandkids.” “You get out of my house.”
It was a painfully accurate representation of the way many communications have been happening these days. We try to accomplish something, but in our attempt we fail, and possibly even drive the person we are trying to convince further away from out position.
Because we look at them as having a different position than us, we frame the discussion around that. We look at them as “other.”
That doesn’t bode well for the success of the conversation. We want to tell people that we love them, that their opinions matter, but then we wind up trivializing those positions. At best, we create hard feelings. At worst we destroy friendships and family relations.
And yet we are almost pathologically drawn into these conversations, no matter how bad they might end.
We wind up causing harm to the people we love, and to our own positions, when we prioritize our politics and our positions over people.
Back in October, a survey showed that at least one in seven people—that’s about 14 percent— had ended a relationship in the last two years due to their stance on Covid.
Actually, 14 percent of people had ended at least three relationships they had with other people due to Covid beliefs.
Over the same time frame, only politics was more divisive, with 16 percent of respondents saying they had ended a relationship over political views.
I’ve found that I’ve stopped paying attention to various Facebook groups due to the stupid and never-ending arguments about, well, politics or Covid (and sometimes politics and Covid). I’ve found myself snoozing and sometimes unfollowing people on social media because I don’t want to get drawn into stupid arguments but they keep saying stupid things. (No, the CEO of Moderna didn’t just dump $400-million in stocks; I’ve seen the SEC filing. It was less than $3-million).
Sorry, sorry. But that’s how it goes. As someone who works as a journalist, I try and keep things factual and accurate. (Which is ironic, because I am the least accurate person you ever did meet. Colour inside the lines? There are lines? The operative word there was try.)
Recently, there have been a number of studies that have proposed that we actually are genetically predisposed to certain actions which have historically been considered a function of the way a person was raised. Specifically, political ideology.
In the age old question of nature vs nurture, nature seems to have the upper hand.
The gene doesn’t actually cause a person to vote for Trudeau or … um, whomever the Conservative party finds to climb up into the shooting gallery for the next couple years. No, the gene seems to be encoded for how adventurous a person is.
And, of course, there’s not just one gene that does one thing and boom! We’ve got ourselves a raving liberal! It’s far more nuanced than that.
But it does lead to some interesting implications. That person on the other side of the political divide? Can’t actually help being a libtard commie snowflake. That outspoken anti-vaxxer? Is just following their genetic programming.
This should free us from these endless and pointless discussions—turns out Lady Gaga was right; she was born that way—but instead it makes our arguments more breathless. More intense.
“I’m sorry, but Raul doesn’t speak English.”
“That’s okay, I’ll just speak slower and louder and he’ll figure it out.”
That isn’t the way it works, and if you’ve managed to convince me of anything with your increasingly hysterical arguments it’s that you don’t know what you’re talking about. By trying so hard to come up with an argument that works on me, all you’ve done is hurt your own argument.
So, what can we do? Remember Misha Glouberman who I talked about earlier? He says one of the keys is listening, and showing your listening not by making a counterargument, but by restating the person’s argument back to them.
Another important element? Is respect. You know the golden rule: treat others like you would have them treat you? Turns out its not just a biblical command. It, too, is a genetic imperative. We have these things called mirror neurons that cause us to want to emulate others. When we see someone crying, we feel sad. When someone laughs at our jokes, it’s like helium to our souls. So if you treat someone with respect, if you listen to them, it will (usually) cause them to treat you with the same respect.
And even if you are unable to win them over to your side with your air-tight arguments? There’s a good chance that you will be able to maintain that relationship. And we are social creatures, which means in the end? Being connected to others is more important than being right.
Trent is the publisher of Tumbler RidgeLines.
