Nuanced Reality

Over the years, I've found myself agreeing with some groups, some threads in public discourse more than others. But usually the group that I agree with doesn't quite capture how I feel about an issue, and so when I talk about it with others, if I want to stay in my group, I'm forced to make compromises and ignore most of the complexity of the issue.

I think an exercise will help illustrate this scenario. Here are two statements with generally opposing perspectives on an issue and I want you to consider which one resonates with you. Here's statement 1:

Over the last several decades of progressive social movements, women, people of color, and LGBTQ-identifying people have gained a lot of sympathy. Today, they wield this sympathy power to restrict the free speech of others that challenges their experience, to gain power, and to draw undeserved attention to themselves. Therefore, we shouldn't cater to the special interests of these people anymore than we'd cater to anyone else's.

Alright, take a moment to think about that. How does that feel in your body? Here's statement 2:

White men, especially straight, Judeo-Christian, English-speaking, middle-class, American men, do not recognize the privilege they grew up with. Growing up as a woman, a person of color, an LGBTQ-identifying person, etc. or any intersection thereof is not just any single experience, but a lifetime of negative ones and missed opportunities. Therefore, we should sympathize with them when making decisions and implementing policies.

So, I'll bet most people feel stronger resonance with one of these statements than with the other. I definitely I do. But more importantly, both of these statements say things that are sometimes true.

For example, I can easily imagine an LGBTQ-identifying person who's never felt persecuted for their sexual orientation or gender identity using that part of their identity to get ahead in a corporate job or receive an extra scholarship for their education.

And it's easy for me to imagine an American white guy from an affluent family telling a woman of color that all she needs to do is just work hard, like he did, to succeed... and “also can you stop infringing on my freedom of speech by censoring what I say”.

On one side, people weaponize “identity politics” against any messaging that doesn't paint them as the underdog hero. On the other side, people are completely unable or unwilling to empathize with people who have disadvantaged, socioeconomic backgrounds.

But truly, a healthy understanding of the issue lies somewhere in the middle: There are tons of people that are marginalized by society because of their birth and/or experience coming of age. If you believe in an equitable society then one method of making things fair is for individuals and government to intervene and give them more support.

There are also demographics who feel one way and then speak completely differently because they're afraid of expressing their true feelings and having the social media mob imposing vigilante justice on them e.g. public shaming, death threats, “doxing,” “cancel culture”. But it doesn't seem like this mob punishment will fix any systemic issues. The targets will probably develop more extreme views.

So, imagine just how many issues there are like this. Even if you agree with someone on everything except for one, you may find yourself alienating even them if you don't listen to what they're saying. And when you listen, listen generously. Think of how many variations there are of beliefs in just economics alone. For example:

Corporations only exist to enrich their shareholders. Using deceitful license agreements, oligopolies, and branding, they exploit the consumer. Using campaign contributions, lobbying, and bribes, they exploit the government too. They are evil and will never change.

And an opposing perspective:

Entrepreneurs disrupt social traditions with economic and technological innovation. They are continually creating value and job opportunities and improving the efficiency of processes. Companies move quickly to fill in the gaps where the government has failed and free market competition ensures that goods are well priced.

So maybe you're noticing a pattern? Both of these are real thought areas that people gravitate towards. And they still fail to capture all the nuances of the issues, all the nuances of reality. So when you read content in the future, I want you to consider:

• Which side of the issue, which group, do I resonate with the most?
• How is it unrepresentative of how I actually feel?
• If I disagree with someone on this issue... Are they wrong? Or are they just reporting how they've experienced the issue?

Knowing the truth is more important than winning the argument. And if you actually want to know the truth, you'll need to empathize with people who are different and adopt new ideas that you don't currently agree with. And that's really hard. But it's righteous.

To hear more, subscribe to my newsletter or follow me on Twitter.