The case of missing objectivity
Based on some of my experiences, of late I have come to believe that that are so many aspects about putting your points across that literally need to be taught to people who are having an argument. Sometimes we are simply not interested in having healthy arguments and are seeking to win or feel gratified rather than understand the counter opinion and empathise with the opponent. It’s like equating an opponent with an enemy. There is a very thick visible line there. But we fail to differentiate and choose to win.
As a quality, one must have the ability to identify personal biases and be retrospective about the statement they have made, be aware of the things they don’t know, talk facts and have the conscience to identify their opinions as opinions. Slicing and dicing topics without respect and without the need to learn more will only lead to futile arguments that result in both sides fuming with anger having being proven wrong. It will hurt them personally whereas the the idea should be to give and get respect, to accept and be accepted, to feel that you have enriched yourself having spoken to someone who feels differently.
Why should one care about it ?
Well because we live in a social construct, the corner stone of which is determined by the strength of our relationship with each other. The strength of a a family, an office set up or an entire nation. Tolerance is not a trait we are born with, it must be developed with conscious practice over-time, and once this tolerance is projected at a national level, the idea of a secular state becomes a possibility.
The reason why discussions don’t happen is probably because we somewhere feel that our expression may not be heard or respected OR the listener has an intention to propagate their own ideas and negate ours. Because it is not a good feeling to not feel accepted, the focus shifts towards guarding our self respect and putting it above our need to have healthy relationships, which is bound to happen, if both the parties aren’t objective enough.
Imagine a beautiful round wooden table with people from diverse backgrounds sitting together and enjoying perspectives. What a harmonious , strong set-up that would be, what vibes would a new comer get? A man speaking to a women and a child listening keenly and asking questions that though may be bold but are being answered with utmost respect, what a beautiful open world that would be.
And then imagine a house where some topics are banned because arguments are considered to be unhealthy; In such situations, a curious and expressive soul would perhaps end-up creating a bubble of like-minded thoughts and eventually their perceptions would harden. Perceptions, that ideally need to be soft and succulent, malleable and airy.
(Parallel thought — It’s interesting to understand how the same brain has the potential to be rigid and flexible at the same time.)
Living in binaries definitely makes our world easier but does it make it better?
Let’s take politics for example, the idea is to not have a blanket perception towards a body and then judge each and every action from the lens of this already formed perception, the idea is to have separate judgements on each and every move made by the body. This will keep our perception unbiased and help us make better decisions. This will also ensure that we don’t get manipulated by the lure of belonging to a school of thought or to a side. The better idea is to be present everywhere, understand everything and not let one thing cast its shadow on another. Of course it’s good to be perceptive about patterns, but judgments should be based on objectivity.
One of the best portrayals of objectivity as a concept, according to me, was made in the movie 12 Angry Men . It really sets a great example (do watch it, it’s a small film).
I am positive that these traits can be taught in the formative years of a person, with a vision to create individuals who don’t consider victory as the end goal.
Would love to hear more thoughts and ideas.
