Reasonable, intelligent people can disagree with each other in regards to important social, religious, political, and economic issues. Or even important issues like the best brewery or BBQ. Generally speaking, personal preferences and perceptions are quite tolerable, and even interesting. Human beings aren't like that big school of sardines at the Monterey Bay Aquarium that swim around in a circle all day, every day, with nary an incline of divergent thought or behavior.
Unfortunately, there is an all too common downside to human perceptual diversity. Individuals often embrace the notion that they are most certainly right, and those with whom they disagree are wrong.
In some cases, such an unwavering loyalty to one's own perception is quite harmless. For example, if several friends and I go out for evening libations, my companions will not take exception to my choice of beer. I will likewise honor the selections of my friends who have not acquired an affinity for Lagunitas IPA, or beer in general. That's one of the reasons wine was invented, along with a multitude of other refreshments. Diversity and tolerance compliment each other very well.
But tolerance does not fair as well when confronted by issues of greater consequence. Not surprisingly, people become considerably less cordial when the discussion turns from the best flavor of ice cream to the superiority of their deeply ingrained religious or political beliefs. Friends quickly become divided into groups of Fox News versus MSNBC. "Fair and Balanced" is a myth, as allusive as unbiased reporting from any major news source. Friends quickly don the competitive colors of their allegiance, ready to compete on the battleground of divisive discourse. Civil debate is replaced by rigid, uncompromising perspective, and compromise becomes as appealing as complete moral forfeiture.
How did we as human beings, and friends, get to this point of ideological animosity? Does this competitive trait go back as far as the Neanderthals and the Cro-Magnons? Have the cooperation and compromise genes been bred out of the Earth's current human inhabitants, considered an inherent weakness in the never-ending competition for resources?
We collectively elect political representatives, and reward them handsomely, who are more comfortable pointing fingers than shaking hands. We eagerly point our internet browsers towards either the Drudge Report or MoveOn.org. As physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson wrote to the New York Times on Aug. 21, 2011, "One objective reality is that our government doesn’t work, not because
we have dysfunctional politicians, but because we have dysfunctional
voters."
Here is our collective challenge: Endeavor to believe that those with whom you disagree have the same right to their perspectives as you have to yours. That doesn't make them right, or wrong. Anyone who believes that he or she has a monopoly on the "truth" is sadly and arrogantly mistaken. I am not inferring that it is wrong to passionately embrace an ideal; I am suggesting that it is reasonable to expect and to accept different perspectives. When we tolerate each others' opinions in the spirit of respect and collaboration, we are able to overcome the restrictive biases that make progressive understanding and compromise impossible.
If you disagree with me, you might be right.
