Resolve to Have Our Minds Changed
“What is the opposite of talking?”
As we mentioned in a previous piece, a therapist once posed this seemingly simple question. The answer is “listening,” right? “No,” the therapist shook his head, and said, “it isn’t.”
“The opposite of talking,” the therapist went on to explain, “is waiting to talk.” This, for most of us, is a statement of fact.
Think about group discussions, in person, or online, or arguing with someone about something about which you both feel passionate. When the other person is explaining their point, we are already formulating a response for our turn to speak. While we do this, our ability to hear what someone else is saying is greatly diminished. We deny ourselves the ability to hear something that might improve our understanding of the subject at hand.
A year ago, we suggested that we should all resolve to improve our on-line safety by practicing good data hygiene. We still believe that is a valuable part of our digital life. This year we propose that you join us in a resolution that is both simple and difficult – to alter, slightly, the ways that we listen, and along with that, what we are listening to.
Much of our time is spent paying attention to information that reinforces our own beliefs. This makes sense. We want to spend our time engaged with subjects and viewpoints of interest to us. We propose that personal growth entails listening to information and viewpoints that do not support our current opinions. This means both exposure to alternate information and views, as well as accepting new information that may improve our knowledge and change our minds.
Changing Opinion Streams
Most of us listen to podcasts, read Substacks (including this one), subscribe to magazines, and visit TV or YouTube channels that feature viewpoints that we already agree with. This is normal, after all, viewpoints can serve as a hobby, and hearing from pundits that we agree with serve to both inform and entertain us.
The options for information/opinion streams are plentiful and growing all the time. We don’t need to subscribe to too many of them, because when a major news story occurs, the various streams and pundits from each perspective, tend to have the same thing to say about the event and use almost the same language to express a point of view.
Let’s compare the headlines of a recent major story:
These headlines were easy to find – Mother Jones, Fox News, and others have nearly identical takes on the story as others in their ideological camp. If you read an editorial from one perspective, (that is, in one column), you have essentially read them all in the same column. But what if we chose to read an editorial from the opposing column, with an open mind, to consider what is being said?
Possibly, an interesting viewpoint will be expressed, with supporting information that might color the story in a new way for us. Would we change our mind about the event? Possibly, but probably not. But we would be better informed, and we might understand the reasons why the writer of the editorial holds a view in opposition to our own.
Along with preferred podcasts and Instagram feeds, may we suggest including a few that you are likely to disagree with? Just watching or listening to them a couple times a month will provide broader perspective on issues and events. Some of the views might even change our position on a subject, if only slightly. This change is growth, as we become better informed, more sympathetic, smarter.
Getting News Stories
No newspaper outlet can be unbiased. Humans write news stories (so far) and no matter how hard writers and editors try to balance viewpoints, they must choose a point of view to tell a story. Deciding what information to include or leave out, choosing quotes, all affect the slant of a story. AI is, if anything, worse. All AI output is based on human input with no attempt at unbiased editing. So, Bard or Chat GPT may actually be more biased than the National Review or The Republic. What to do?
One thing we can do is to look at news reports from other countries. Many foreign outlets publish articles in English. Some of them limit the number of stories you may read each month, but the ones listed here are generous with their offerings. It is especially thought provoking to see each one’s take on the same major news story. Just add their link to your mobile device or browser and see the diversity of news reporting. It is also interesting to compare the front pages of the various outlets, to see what they believe to be the biggest stories of the moment.
Der Spiegel International is the English version of the long-standing German news magazine.
El Pais is Spanish, with an emphasis on Spanish-speaking countries in Europe, Mexico, and South America.
South China Morning Post is based in Hong Kong. While China has clamped down on their territory’s news reporting, SCMP is sometimes surprisingly critical of government decisions.
BBC News is the on-line outlet for the BBC. Some evenings they have much more detail on breaking news than American newspapers do – being closer to Europe and Asia, and with more reporters awake and reporting.
The Rio Times is Brazilian. This outlet is a great example of alternate headline stories that you might never be aware of, from local newspapers.
Le Monde is the venerable French outlet. This paper might feature the most alternative take on the headlines you will find, compared to our own outlets.
Al Jazeera is the English-language news outlet owned by the government of Qatar. Middle East news is understandably fragmented, and this one represents only one point of view. But the emphasis, in stories often differs from what we see in the West.
Changing How We Listen
So far, we listed ways to broaden our information sources. This takes little effort on our part – just a bit of time management. But the last part of our resolution takes a bit more effort.
That same therapist mentioned before was asked, “How can you handle someone that refuses to listen when we disagree?” He had a couple solutions that we can try.
1 – Ask them to agree to a discussion, where each person presents their viewpoint. During this presentation, they may not be interrupted, and cannot be responded to. The same rules hold for the other person. Agree to revisit the discussion later, after you both have had time to think over the discussion. This approach gives each person time to consider the value of the other person's argument.
2 – Have a discussion, with one rule change: the opposition may respond to the idea or proposal, but only on the points on which they agree. This can reveal common ground that might demonstrate that the two people agree more than they realize. This common ground can be used as a foundation on which to build an acceptable compromise.
A presidential candidate’s meme once declared that “he has never changed his mind in 25 years”. This statement is meant to show that the candidate has great integrity, having never altered a view in decades. But instead, this claim highlights a problem. If, when faced with new information, someone refuses to entertain change, that is evidence of a fossilized mind.
Intellectual growth comes from new knowledge. New information can produce change. New information does not come from echo chambers that reinforce what we already believe. Our resolution this year, is to discover ways to have our minds changed. You might consider ways to do the same.
Happy New Year
Reform Congress is a collaboration between Liz Terwilliger and Stephen Wahrhaftig