As a basic approach this has obvious benefits and attractions. Understanding the 'other side of the fence' has long been a personal mantra. But it is exhausting, and not everyone is able to take that leap.
Could it be that 'others are wrong' dynamic we see is simply one of the many short-cuts humans have developed over time in the way they think. For much of human history, this type of short-cut would have had significant advantages. Most humans lived within an 'in group' bubble where mutual reliance reinforced a set of common beliefs. Engagement with out-groups was relatively rare and mostly resolved via a power contest with clear winners and losers.
Things are very different today. Few humans live within a clear in-group bubble, and are far more exposed to a huge number of out-groups as part of day to day living. Individuals have much less sense of being mutually reliant. Common belief making in this context becomes much harder.
Implicit in your post is a need to be able to peacefully agree to disagree. Being open to another perspective is, I agree part of this, but I also think that it takes a clear set of rules about what is and what is not tolerable across all groups. And a generosity of spirit about the acceptance of difference outside these rules, whether or not you have taken to time to understand the true basis of those differences.
Finally, I suspect that for the above to work all groups need to have confidence that the commonly-agreed set of rules are being upheld diligently and fairly. No easy task given the above dynamics.
Agree as I don't think this is going to catch on soon. But I suspect, or at least hope, that appealing to people's imaginations will be more effective than asking them to 'do the right thing' and consider the other side of the argument.
If you suggest to someone that their imagination is limited if they can't see what the other person is saying, that may well motivate them to try harder than telling them they need to walk a mile in the other person's shoes. It's more of an appeal to ego than to altruism.
For sure, the online experience is a contemporary context. Mass education in urban societies is still a pretty new experience in terms of generational history, and current individualisation fostered by the modern phone seems to make for a disturbed mix. (To add to the disturbance I saw a couple of flaws perhaps in our species social cognition flagged up recently elsewhere: the propensity for 'addiction' and 'in-group v out-group' distinction'.
Another subject I guess might be 'the wisdom of crowds': Galton's original statistical observation and the matter of 'collective intelligence'?
Good point. The challenge with the 'wisdom of crowds' in modern times is that the mechanism Galton identified only works if individuals in the crowd are making (largely) independent judgements. Mass online experience tends to get people thinking in herds, which undermines the effectiveness of the wisdom of crowds.
As a basic approach this has obvious benefits and attractions. Understanding the 'other side of the fence' has long been a personal mantra. But it is exhausting, and not everyone is able to take that leap.
Could it be that 'others are wrong' dynamic we see is simply one of the many short-cuts humans have developed over time in the way they think. For much of human history, this type of short-cut would have had significant advantages. Most humans lived within an 'in group' bubble where mutual reliance reinforced a set of common beliefs. Engagement with out-groups was relatively rare and mostly resolved via a power contest with clear winners and losers.
Things are very different today. Few humans live within a clear in-group bubble, and are far more exposed to a huge number of out-groups as part of day to day living. Individuals have much less sense of being mutually reliant. Common belief making in this context becomes much harder.
Implicit in your post is a need to be able to peacefully agree to disagree. Being open to another perspective is, I agree part of this, but I also think that it takes a clear set of rules about what is and what is not tolerable across all groups. And a generosity of spirit about the acceptance of difference outside these rules, whether or not you have taken to time to understand the true basis of those differences.
Finally, I suspect that for the above to work all groups need to have confidence that the commonly-agreed set of rules are being upheld diligently and fairly. No easy task given the above dynamics.
Agree as I don't think this is going to catch on soon. But I suspect, or at least hope, that appealing to people's imaginations will be more effective than asking them to 'do the right thing' and consider the other side of the argument.
If you suggest to someone that their imagination is limited if they can't see what the other person is saying, that may well motivate them to try harder than telling them they need to walk a mile in the other person's shoes. It's more of an appeal to ego than to altruism.
For sure, the online experience is a contemporary context. Mass education in urban societies is still a pretty new experience in terms of generational history, and current individualisation fostered by the modern phone seems to make for a disturbed mix. (To add to the disturbance I saw a couple of flaws perhaps in our species social cognition flagged up recently elsewhere: the propensity for 'addiction' and 'in-group v out-group' distinction'.
Another subject I guess might be 'the wisdom of crowds': Galton's original statistical observation and the matter of 'collective intelligence'?
Good point. The challenge with the 'wisdom of crowds' in modern times is that the mechanism Galton identified only works if individuals in the crowd are making (largely) independent judgements. Mass online experience tends to get people thinking in herds, which undermines the effectiveness of the wisdom of crowds.