Originally published on Jan 8, 2023
In my introduction, I argued the importance of relationships and that humanity exists because of the relationships we have with others and ourselves. Meaningful relationships determine who we are and to make meaningful relationships we must practice good communication. On average, we speak nearly 10,000 words per day, and we write and text even more. We communicate because of our relationships, either in effort to sustain or further them. The quality of our communication can determine the quality of our relationships. Yet to achieve successful communication, we must overcome an array of obstacles that are the results of the differences between us. From varying ways of interpretation to, more objectively, differences in languages, age, and customs, these obstacles increase the cost of communication and limit the effectiveness of communication. Despite the challenges that these objective and palpable factors pose, it is our perception and response, our own understanding of people and relationship, that ultimately steer the direction of our communication. We can either choose to understand our differences and facilitate mutual understanding, or we can engage in mindless and unwarranted hostility that solidifies false assumptions and damages relations.
Seeing increasingly contentious political discussions in recent years, I wonder how we should evaluate the validity of an argument or a claim, especially when it comes from a perspective that is non-compatible with ours. Should we dismiss opposing perspectives and unconditionally support agreeing ones? Or more to the core of this question, how should we understand our differences in perspective and how should we evaluate arguments? Here, I will share some of my thoughts and observations on communication, particularly on how we should approach different perspectives.
Disclaimer: this post consists of numerous related ideas that may or may not be most suitably structured. Please forgive me if I seem to “jump around.”
General thoughts about perspectives
Communication consists of two components: expression and difference in perspective. Consider relations like underground pipes that connect us: expression is the substance and differences among us, specifically differences in perspectives, are what drives the substance. Through communication we are delivering our expression (ideas, thoughts, and arguments) to others and if no one expresses then nothing passes through the pipe. Difference in perspective is force that drives expression. Communication is an engagement in our differences, either to explain or to settle them. If we are all completely the same, like robots, then there would be no need for communication.
Every single one of us possesses a unique perspective that is informed by our innate personality (more specifically, interpretation of reality) and our environment (our time, our location, our experiences). Every habit, every thought, and every one of our values are our interpretation of the world we live in — it is a certain interpretation plus a certain reality. Let’s suppose Sam dislikes confrontation. This dislike may originate from his anxiety or a simple preference; either way, he has a negative interpretation on confrontation. Unfortunately, the reality is that many of his friends often unknowingly offend him, but, because of his personality, he only tries to hint at his friends about his discomfort, but he does not speak up about his frustration. After decades living in this combination of personality and reality, the perspective that may result from this could be that he assumes that he is always at fault, or he believes that nobody truly understands him.
It is important to understand that, while perspectives may vary in scope and width (individual vs. group, local vs. international), no perspective can be all encompassing. Perspective is the particular angle from which the object is observed. Imagine that we are observing a box. Looking at the front side automatically excludes you from simultaneously examining the back side. You may certainly move to the top corner angle where you can see three sides at once, but that means the far ends of every side is less observable. You may see three more sides if you add a mirror on the opposite side, but then the bottom still remains obscured. From this example, two principles of perspectives emerge. Firstly, all perspectives focus on certain information, but excludes other information. It is important to understand what our perspective of choice focuses on and excludes. Secondly, interacting with a mirror, which is a perspective different from ours, allows us to widen and include more information into our perspective. An interaction with a different perspective requires an openness to different perspectives and a genuine desire to understand that perspective. It is not as simple as and a more intentional act than “just look at the mirror.”
Moving on, I must point out a significant difference between perspective and argument. While all perspectives are inherently valid and none inherently unreasonable, the arguments that a perspective produces are not born with that status and should be subject to the evaluation of logic and reason. Continuing the previous example, Sam’s perspective may lead him to argue that if someone cannot understand his subtle hints about his discomfort, then they are not people smart. The strength of his argument is entirely dependent on his evidence and supporting arguments, but not on the validity of his perspective.
While accepting other perspectives is conducive to constructive discussions, we must make good use of our time by going beyond immediately criticizing radical or unreasonable arguments and try to understand that they come from perspectives are the products of personalities and experiences. We should always focus more on the factors that constructed one’s argument, rather than the argument itself.
Understanding other perspectives
When our opinions clash, it is a clash between different interpretation and experiences. Consider of some of your strongest, most unwavering, and never-questioned beliefs — perhaps it’s how often we should shower, milk or cereal first, gay rights, animal rights, or even something as fundamentally American as democracy — and imagine a part of the world that is in complete opposition of you. As frustrated as you may be, their experience isn’t any more or less narcissistic, or selfish, or experienced, or valid, or human as yours is. The general premise that we should all bear when approaching an unfamiliar perspective/opinion is that all perspectives are ultimately the product of certain environments, and they are valid, to different extents, because of this.
But why does understanding other people’s perspective matter? It seems like we are doing a great deal of work for those who are just terrible at putting together reasonable arguments. After all, it’s not our fault that their opinions are uneasy to be accepted. However, it is important to note that communication is often persuasive in nature, meaning that a successful communication depends on a successful connection and understanding between two different perspectives. We are persuading the other side to connect with our beliefs to the extent that we desire. To negotiate or preach, we are pushing for an acceptance of out ideologies on the opposing side. In the building of a relationship, we are persuading the other side to empathize with us. it is not solely for the benefits of others that we strive for healthy and mature communications. While this often entails concession and sacrifice on our end, this makes our arguments more acceptable and others more likely to accept our beliefs. By understanding other people’s perspective, we can not only tailor our arguments to be more appealing to our subject, but understanding a perspective usually means understanding their underlying interest, which, in a negotiation, means more negotiating power on our side.
In our communication, we should also be wary of other pitfalls that can harm our relationships. There are many logical fallacies that can inundate and jam up our communication and lead to misunderstanding. These fallacies usually only appeal to our emotions but in no way benefit, and sometimes actually impair, the relationship. Generalization is one such presumption, in which we assume a certain part of the world to share similarities. Generalizing the world helps in our comprehension of the world; we simplify information because we can’t know or understand everything at once. The consequence of generalization can come in the forms of stereotypes and prejudices against certain groups. A subtype of generalization, one that is very convenient and habitually employed by most of us, is that our audiences share similar interest with us.
For example, my mom is trying very hard to convince me to add exercise to my daily routine, while I’m satisfied with my current lifestyle. My concern is that I don’t like sweating, but she assumes that I’m not working out because I don’t know how to get started — and I do want to workout. So her method of persuasion is recommending me short workout routines, while she should have been convincing me that sweating won’t kill me.
Here, the difference comes from our difference in point of interests. I am interested in maintaining a sweat-less body, but she assumes otherwise. This misunderstanding of what the points of interet are creates a discrepancy between what the persuader thinks is the point of contention and what the subject is really interested in. This fallacy is especially detrimental in communication that is of persuasive nature. Points of interest often originate and reflect a particular perspective. It is because of a certain interpretation and reality that I hate sweating. Obviously, different interpretations of reality are formed naturally, so there isn’t much to discuss there. Reality, however, can be objectively examined and their direct connection to perspectives can be made apparent.
Context of Reality
Recently, I was in a political philosophy class that examined the source of western political thought and the first philosopher discussed was Socrates. Most of Socrates’ thought were recorded through Plato’s writing — The Apology and Crito. In The Apology, Socrates was accused of impiety and practicing philosophy non-complaint with the state, and he was later sentenced to be executed. Specifically, he was accused of questioning men in authority that claim to be wise and teaching his method of inquiry to young men. Socrates believes that he is doing a public service. In Crito, Socrates had already been convicted and sentenced, but a wealthy friend of his offered to bribe the prison guards and allow Socrates to go into exile. Socrates, however, adamantly declined his suggestion and argued that to escape the rule of law is to be unrighteous. Socrates, throughout the trial, demonstrated his unwavering belief in the rule of law and the state. He placed virtue such as justice, rule of law, obedience to the state, and citizenship above reputation and life. To Socrates, a political death is worse than an actual death.
Socrates asked his friend rhetorically:
“Will you flee, then, from well governed cities and from the most civilized people? Is it worth it to you to live like this? Will you associate with them and feel no shame when talking with them? But will you leave these places and go to friends in Thessaly, since there is plenty of disorder and disobedience there? They might listen with pleasure to you, about how you amusingly ran away from prison… You will surely spend your life sucking up to everyone and being a slave. What else will you do but feast in Thessaly, as though you had traveled to Thessaly for dinner? And those speeches, the ones about justice and the other virtues, where will they be?”
Clearly, Socrates values his political membership not only because it grants him the opportunity to influence the public of Athens, but also because he regards the individual’s relationship with the state to be of utmost significance.
But as influential as Socrates still is, modern communist revolutionaries would certainly disagree. Throughout the 20th century, almost all communist revolutions and resistances originated and thrived outside the practical reach of the pre-existing political institutions. Operating in rural areas gave them a steady source of manpower, as communist ideology appealed to the poor, and allowed the initially weak communist movements to survive. Most importantly, however, exclusion from the political institution did not necessarily mean an inability to propagate communist thought. Chinese communists, for example, not only had their own news publication, but through telegraph they connected with other communist factions.
Communists exerted political influence even without political membership, but Socrates was probably unable to. While I’m not familiar with the social and economic circumstances during ancient Greek, Socrates described life outside the state as “disorder and disobedient” and that Socrates will degrade to being a slave and he will have to forfeit “those speeches, the ones about justice and the other virtues.” In short, it was unlikely that he could continue his philosophical and political work while living in exile. It is these contexts that allow us to go beyond the surface differences between Socrates and communists, and this is perhaps why he regards political death to be worse.
Socrates may have preferred real die than to have his political membership revoked because his personality naturally values political influence, and the reality was that life outside the state at that time granted him practically no political influence.
In most lectures about Socrates and many modern discussions of Socrates, his philosophies were discussed as a given — he thought like this because he did — while the social and historical context — why he had those thoughts — were rarely discussed. Indeed, that is how most of my lectures about any other historical figures was like; discussion about the contexts existed, but they were nonetheless secondary. In fact, that is how most of our discussions go. We take other people’s perspective as a given and there often isn’t much thought into why they think like this. Both Socrates and modern communists clearly had the same goal of preserving their political influences, so I think the key to understanding different perspective is the different reality they lived in.
Evaluating arguments
We discussed how to understand arguments, but how should we evaluate them? To what extent is Socrates’ argument true? When a judgement or an opinion about something is proclaimed, it is not only a claim about the personality, but there is also a claim on reality. When Socrates claimed that political death is worse than actual death, he was really claiming that in a world where he cannot have political influence, he prefers real death. If we assume that his claim is subject to the reality of a particular time and a particular location, then his claim is no longer universal and general — it becomes an “if — then” statement. But people don’t like to make claims that are contingent on circumstances. Most of our opinions are assumed to be universally applied, across different time and location, and I’m almost certain that this was the intention of most philosophers: to make claims about the world that is universal and eternal, in other words — true. Assuming this, an additional claim is being made on reality: we experience the same world, regardless of our time and location. It is only under this assumption that Socrates’ or, in fact, anyone else’s, universal claim can be true.
But that is obviously impossible, isn’t it? How can we all experience the same world? We share our age, culture, and country with only a fraction of the world’s population, and those are only the most general objective differences between us. The disagreement between communists and Socrates demonstrates that different realities can lead to different perspectives. If we follow that we experience different realities, then it is absurd for any argument to be absolute and assume that the world is constant. For example, the claim that “all dogs are happy” is unreasonable because its absoluteness is exerting a claim upon all dogs on earth, including the ones that the claimant hasn’t met. A more reasonable claim would be “some dogs are happy” or “all dogs that I’ve met are happy.” To conclude, the more absolute the claim is, the more likely that it is erroneous.
While the fallacy of absolute claims is easy to identify, less absolute claims are much harder to evaluate. Let’s return to Sam’s argument that if someone cannot understand his subtle hints about his discomfort, then they are not people smart. Many of us may not agree with this, but it is not completely false either. There must be some people that both unable to understand his hints and lack people smart. But how many of those people are there? In other words, what percentage of the world does this argument describe? I think this is how we should evaluate arguments. How much does an argument describe the world? This is a question of comparison, and there are two values being compared: Sam’s experience and the world overall. Of the people that Sam has met, suppose 80% are both unable to understand hints and lack people skills. Then, within Sam’s experience, this statement is 80% true within his experience. The world, however, consists of 70 billion other unique experiences. Sam’s argument can only be 80% true to the world if everyone else experiences the same. If the world is only constituted by 60% of people that Sam describes, then his argument is only partly true. An evaluation of an argument, then, is the difference between the value that an argument is claiming (80%) and the value of the objective world (60%).
Obviously, it is impossible to produce a specific number of the people that this argument describes, thus it is also impossible to produce a specific number that rates the validity of this argument. Some arguments can be substantiated by real world statistics and calculation, like the percentage of people that drives. But for arguments that make claims that cannot be measured, the only source that we can rely on is our reason and openness to new experiences. The key to all this is understanding that, regardless of how inherently valid your experiences are, there are completely contrary ones that can be equally as valid.
Comments