"Being right is a form of violence," says Eckhardt Tolle, author of "The Power of Now." An interesting idea, no? From Tolle's perspective, our need to be right is an effort to protect a self-identity which is reactive, defensive and controlling.
What does being right imply about our relationship with others? If a person is right then the person on the opposite side of the argument is"wrong." In an argument between two people, the person who claims to be right is asserting he speaks truth and the other person is propounding a falsehood. This is a form of black and white thinking. "Being right" is both exclusive and exclusionary. There is no middle ground, no point of compromise. Probably for this reason, a marriage counselor once told me I needed to choose between being right or being married.
We have many ways of expressing our belief that the person who is "wrong" is the one who must give way. we use sayings like, "It's my way or the highway," or"If you don't toe the (meaning "my") line, there will be serious consequences," or "You are either with me or against me," etc.
Truth equates to wisdom. Being wrong is "stupid." We shouldn't listen to stupid people, should we?
There is also a moral dimension to right/wrong thinking. Right is good. Wrong is bad. God is on the side of the righteous; Satan is on the side of sinners.
If God is on our side, should we not eliminate the sinner? How many wars have been fought and justified by both sides believing they were "righteous?" How many people have died because they were on the "wrong" side?
Let us see how this form of black and white thinking contributes to the deplorable state of civic and political dialogue in our country today. We are a politically-polarized nation. Our citizens and our politicians easily stray from respectful discussion of issues to trashing their opponent on personal grounds. We call those who disagree with us "stupid," "irrational," "incompetent and "immoral." Gone is the recognition that people can and will disagree on issues without being bad people. Tolerance has become a character defect rather than a civic virtue. Seeking compromise now is seen as evidence of lack of commitment to truth rather than a necessary means of resolving differences of opinion
Resolution of important complex and intractable conflicts is unlikely to be peaceably achieved using only right/wrong thinking. Differences of opinion usually mean differences of perspective and such differences should be resolved by respectful discussion rather than back and forth name-calling.
I do not wish to imply there is something wrong with holding passionate opinions. Nor am I calling for a kind of moral relativism. Facts do matter. Truth supported by facts is important. Passionate, hard-fought arguments are much better than ignorance and silence.
As I look around the articles and comments posted on gather, however, I see a lot of simplistic I'm right/you're wrong analysis and comments, a lot of name-calling and even some mean-spiritedness. Tolle is correct, I think, when he labels such behavior as violent. Indeed, it seems to me that many of the people who are most passionate in their opposition to violence occurring around the world are frequently the quickest to demean gatherites espousing differing views.
The lack of articulate, respectful dialogue on gather between people having strong differences of opinion on important issues of the day merely reflects what is going on in our society as a whole. Let us commit to doing better. Let us provide an example to others as to how to be both respectful and passionate proponents of our opinions. Let us write in a non-violent manner from now on.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 60
For me, the most mind-bending awareness around this came when I realized that your correctness about an aspect of a subject does not negate my correctness. Once I could understand that, it was possible to hold and tolerate different opinoins, even dramatically different ones. I don't feel that I have to be "right" in order to be okay.
Magi
Either way, Chris, you have done an excellent job of analyzing the situation.
We all have a right to our own perceptions of life and the living of it. Our perceptions are based on our, individual, life experiences and how we filter (explain) our experiences that includes some clarity of truth and some discolouing of truth within one's point of view. It is inherent in our perfectly-imperfect humanity.
Who can prove absolute truth?
Mean-spirited self-righteous demands polarize any stated view. Choosing to honour and respect another's view, however passionate and seemingly contrary to ours, concedes nothing. It does allows us all to express freely, thus leaving the fluidity to potentially add to our life's well of learning while remaining self-empowered.
Respectfully expression what appears to be a contrary view, is healthy. A mean-spirited expression for the need to be right and make someone else wrong is a dead-end of often, violent expression.
I do not believe that any one of us has the so-called right answer, yet I do believe we all have the right to our own perceptions without the need to violate (violence) someone who believes differently or perhaps, has merely interpreted the same point with a slightly differing lense.
Chris, as you stated, "The lack of articulate, respectful dialogue on gather between people having strong differences of opinion on important issues of the day merely reflects what is going on in our society as a whole. Let us commit to doing better. Let us provide an example to others as to how to be both respectful and passionate proponents of our opinions."
The commitment that I hold for myself is to remain non-violent in my expression as I am committed to honouring myself. In so doing, I honour others. It is a commitment to our self and only has true meaning to our self, yet affects the whole. What we gain is unlimited self-empowerment toward a gentler, kinder, more empowered world.
The discovery of our common thread(s) is the real challenge and the only worthy one in my opinion. (perception)
Chris, thank you for creating an article that speaks to what my mind and heart has been considering, lately. When we have a need to be 'right,' we war against our self far more than we war against another. This is dis-empowering of all and diminishes our ability to grow, expand, learn and live.
Well done, Chris. Thank you!
It makes a difference whether one is discussing fact or opinion. If the leaders of Iran say that the Holocaust never occurred, the statement needs to be argued. The Holocaust is a matter of historical fact and can be proved.
On the other hand, matters of opinion may be discussed, but not argued, because they can not be proved. I can listen respectfully to your opinion, and I can agree or disagree with you, but I can not determine if your opinion is "right" or "wrong" if it is not supported by fact.
A person can be entitled to their own opinions, but they can not be entitled to their own facts.
It is only necessary to leave off the name calling. However recently I called a conservative dumb, I do tire of the attitude that "to be intelligent and successful, one must be a hard right conservative or at least agree with them."
I just don't understand why anyone gets upset about different opinions.
I will disagree with Nicola, while the word "truth" is so abused and accepted for use for things for which there is no proof. I would hope we can keep the use of the word fact for what is verifiable.
Of course 5 people can view the same fact and have 5 differing opinions about it. That is not the same as the fact being unverifiable.
If you want to listen to some great "discussions/debates" catch some of what goes on in the British Parliament. Our politicians seem like spineless wussies compared to how the Brits attack and counter attack, they are not very concerned about politeness during debates.
Of course when a political person here in the U.S. does dare voice a controversial statement or opinion, our news organizations jump all over them.
As I read it, the "need to be right" that you are talking about is not a question of facts, or even opinions, it is a state of mind. It is possible (I've actually seen other people do it here!) to be correct about facts, or be so convinced about the validity of one's opinion that you argue it passionately, without needing to be "right" and make the other person "wrong." It's a very crucial distinction, and one that I think gets really muddied here at gather, to the detriment of everyone's peace of mind.
I guess, having hung around with academics for the past thirty years or so, I have an appreciation for passionate debate. I have seen people go at each other intellectually, with fire in their eyes, only to happily go out to lunch together when the debate is ended. These are people who love the interplay of ideas, but who never lose sight of the distinction between debate and human relations.
It really depends not so much on what you say but where you're coming from. I work with a professor of physics who is also a well-known author on science and nature. He knew me to be a believer of certain things, how shall we say, beyond the realm of science, like esp and auras and reiki and stuff like that. He used to argue with me ENDLESSLY about it, and he would not give an inch. Sometimes he frustrated the hell out of me, but over time, and with some additional thinking and reading, I started to come around, see his point of view, even agree with him on many, many things. What was present to allow that to happen was my absolute certainty that while he was definitely convinced about his facts and unwilling to budge on them, he was not trying to be "right" with me -- not trying to put me in the box marked stupid, wrong, below him, whatever -- he was just trying to convince me of a point of view. The other thing present was my willingness to not be right, to be convinced, to alter my point of view when I thought it warranted by the facts presented. Without those two elements, no real debate can occur. Without those two elements, it will inevitably devolve into a "who's right" debate with no one winning, really.
I also think your observation is very astute, that it is often the people who promote "non-violence" who are the most "violent" in their need to be right, so that there is really very little difference, fundamentally, between the "far-left" (for lack of a better term) and the "far-right" (ditto). While there are always exceptions, it is pretty much a given that the more deeply entrenched you are in your opinion, the less likely you are to see the value in the opposing opinion, and so true discourse is dead.
You're pointing to a really tricky area, because this whole right/wrong thing often gets confused with morals, often seems to be arguing for moral relativism or uncritical tolerance of all opinions, no matter how stupid or even dangerous. But it's really more about where you're coming from in life. As your marriage counselor said, you can be "right" or you can be married. I did a seminar once with a person who asserted that women would rather be right than happy. Boy, you should have seen the room boil over with THAT one! LOL
Good job, Chris.
And our interpretations are subject to our frames of reference, which are based on what we believe and what we want to be 'true'. We will perceive what we want to see, gathering all the witnesses to the reality of it and discounting or denying those witnesses which point to the reverse. The same applies to constructs. For example, the only way you can believe in both time and eternity is to dissociate the two. When you bring them together, one or the other must go because they deny and exclude each other. Eternity means that there is no time - always has no direction. The closest time reference is to say that eternity means this instant constantly. Conversely, if time exists, eternity does not.
Oh, what fun this is! We're all right and all wrong, depending upon how we want to look at it.
Magi
Unfortunately, I also have an frustratingly literal mind quite prone to black and white thinking. I almost always have to force myself out of that trap. Usually my black and white thinking arises when I am frustrated or angry, exactly the moment at which being more open-minded is far more helpful! Thanks for your comment. chris
I noticed that gather is not a forum for provocative or controversial issues, no matter who may be right, wrong, or "toeing the line"
Ive noticed respectful dialogue on subjects limited to "great article", "I see your back on gather (name one of your gather friends) or "insert your won humorous quip for this quote, unrelated to the topic at hand, and just commenting on one of your friends' comments"
The "It's my way or the highway" attitude is a prevalent and underlying attitude exhibited by a vast number of members claiming to have an heir of impartially on issues here on gather.
I was particularly impressed with your following lines
'Our citizens and our politicians easily stray from respectful discussion of issues to trashing their opponent on personal grounds"
"Let us provide an example to others as to how to be both respectful and passionate proponents of our opinions. Let us write in a non-violent manner from now on"
Ive experienced this very such situation here on gather myself, having an entire article dedicated to "trashing" my name by Lisa West. (Gather has apparently since removed the article for its personal attacks and mean-spiritedness)
Another member commented quote "We should get John, his wife,Jake and the troops and send this guy a message, Iam serious" (some apparent attempt to intimidate and inspire additional personal attacks)
Christopher, I appreciate this article and hope others take your example and read your article carefully.
Thank You
I do not like it when one gather member attacks another gather member in ann article no matter the identity of the attacker or victim. I view such attacks as harmmful to gather.com's reputation and a diversion from what I think this site is all about, namely, writing fiction, non-fiction, poetry or in any other way expressing our passions, thoughts and feelings on legitimate topics.
My 12-step program teaches that if someone is angry because of something another person claims I have done or not done, I am obliged to look at my own behavior with rigorous honesty to ascertain whether or not I have played a part in the dispute. Given the number of gather members who have expressed frustration at your articles, comments or lack thereof, etc., I recommend this same approach to you. Of course, whether or not you wish to engage in this form of rigorous self-examination is entirely up to you. I express no opinion one way or another about the merits of either side's complaints.
You indicated in your comment you believe gather.com management removed Lisa West's article. Lisa West had expressed her intention to delete the article in several of her comments yesterday. Do you have any evidence supporting your claim that her article was deleted by gather.com management? If not, you might consider whether it is accurate and in your best interest to make a comment of this nature. Good Luck! Chris
Thanks for the support
Yes, I cant say all of gather is at fault, just the group of 5 or so who feel its necessary to get together and pat each other on the back while degrading others (The personal attacks against my character for commenting on some of the hypocrisy here at gather was certainly as you say, out of "mean-spiritedness" and a "lack of articulate, respectful dialogue")
As far as gather taking action, I was not speaking for gather management, rather from my own personal opinion, my comments being (Gather has apparently since removed the article for its personal attacks and mean-spiritedness) I did not have time (nor the desire) to follow Lisa West's article and watch her try to explain how attacking others was just or proper
And yes, I do agree that it may be in the best interest of gather to encourage its members to refrain with ad hominem attacks on others.
To me, there is a trememdous difference between saying "Steven, your ideas are based on a fallacious argument" to "Steven, did you eat paint chips as a child (actual comment from John A 2.0 on my Gather Etiquette Article - since removed by him)"
Steven Abbas..............i quote from a bove "Steven , your ideas are based on a fallacious argument"......is a wonderful and nice way of saying "hey man did you eat paint chips as a child?".........sometimes people use slang and street expressions in print because thats how they write.......when some one kids someone it`s usually because they like or are trying to like them.....if you take it with a grain of salt and not so personal...you `d be better off for it ...and the kidding would kinder in the end.........
Yes, I think that would be a great approach, I will try to adopt this way of dealing with "inappropriate" comments (even if I would rather have that person attack the argument or idea, rather than my character or the way I think)
Thanks
I have certain political and religious beliefs. When I express them, it makes some people here on Gather realllly mad. When I stick to my beliefs, this makes them even more mad, because somehow they think that because they've posited another opinion, I suddenly should change my belief.
Yet - have they changed their beliefs?
People need to chill out and let people have differing opinions. It's not the end of the world.
Great comment! I am especially enamored with your "People need to chill out and let people have differing opinions. It's not the end of the world."
That is in the spirit of reverent debate!
Sandy -
I see your still "attacking" me even when I trying to give positive comments, trying to contribute to those articles I find interesting and inspiring (yes, with my personal experiences here on gather)
BTW - Which argument of mine are you attacking here - Ive argued:
1) Great article Christopher (In agreement with his entire article)
2) Great approach John (In agreement with his entire approach)
3) Great comments Stephanie (in agreement with her point of view)
Which one Sandy? If none, dont try to nibble on my irascible side and "heat up this kettle" and argue "just to argue" (completely inspired by "The Pot cant call the Kettle Black')
Please read Christopher's article again
Look over his section dealing with "We call those who disagree with us "stupid," "irrational," "incompetent and "immoral." I believe calling my "game lame" would fit into the above nicely (I can respectively see "lame argument", no problem, but lame game? which equates to saying my way of thinking is lame HINT HINT SANDY - that IS a personal attack)
She is also someone who won't hold a grudge against you here (unlike some people might). If you give her some credit, she'll give you some credit.
Out of all the people on Gather, she's not someone you need to have as an enemy here.
Though I am curious about this "gang of 5" that Steven Abbas mentioned. I don't understand what he was referring to.
A few impt things other peeps have said that I felt needed to be repeated:
What Randy said above is really important to consider as well:
> "It makes a difference whether one is discussing fact or opinion."
And what Ann B. said:
> "it is possible to hold and tolerate different opinoins, even dramatically different ones."
And what Sandy said:
> Wrong is sometimes just wrong, and an intelligent person admits being wrong without feeling stupid or being evil, but I agree that passionate debate is necessary and much better than silence and ignorance."
And Magi:
> "...a big part of the problem is that both 'truth' and 'facts' are not fixed and self-evident. The 'truth' for one person is not the truth for another and similarly so for 'facts'. It is because interpretations differ that truth and facts also differ - good and evil are in the eye of the beholder. "
And Randy again:
> "It makes a difference whether one is discussing fact or opinion. If the leaders of Iran say that the Holocaust never occurred, the statement needs to be argued. The Holocaust is a matter of historical fact and can be proved."
I did not come to gather to battle other individuals on personal grounds, I came to gather for other reasons....
Digital Dogs-
Iam sorry I brought that up, I just opened myself up for more persoanl attacks
Sorry
Steven, I apprecitate that the last few days have shown you have an ability to particpate more in the community. Surely this article alone indicates that there can be intellectual discourse on Gather. I was the one who pulled my article because I believe I made my point and there was no further reason to harp on it (I imagine that Gather management has a lot more on their plate than worrying about what either you or I write). Do not fear this 'gang' you believe is out to get you. If you consider me a member allow me to add, like Gather management, I have other issues on our plate.
I could not have agreed more.
We all want to be right always. Hence are defensive of what we say. Maybe we should give other perceptions a thought too...
I am convinced that most of the unhappiness in conversations here at Gather are the result of a confusion between these two very different understandings of the word "right." There is right = correct, and right = righteousness. One is a statement of fact (even if it's an arguable "fact") and one is more of an attitude. It seems to me that a confusion of these two definitions is the source of much misery.
Christopher, I'm convinced that this problem you describe is the source of most (if not all) the personal conflict on Gather. This must be the explanation why people get so crazy when their opinions are challenged. There are many people who treat that as a personal assault and respond accordingly, and chaos ensues. When you are not "attached" to your opinions -- have them, but are not run by a need to validate them -- then you're able to hear criticism/critique without experiencing it as a personal assault.
(and there's no way I'm going to say if I think you're right or wrong even if I DID like "The Power of Now")
:-)
"I love your article, and I often wondered why people cannot accept a difference of opinion,"
I think it all comes down to EGOS plain and simple:) I like this ariticle... the "Being right" is apart of everyones mental abilities to think they are the only opinion yet we sometimes forget to keep an open mind to others points well meant but at times taken wrong.
I think that different perspectives make the world a great place to live and challenges made to help us be on our toes. I personally think we all need to right in one form or another yet we are wrong at times and believe it to be right regardless:)
Egos play a big part in our lives regardless of choices and opinions because we Have To Be Right:) excellent article!!