What Is Missing?

[Ahab]

I have had a similar question in the past concerning why two people who are intelligent, etc. and disagree on something that is a matter of fact rather than opinion will often continue to disagree even after discussing it. I agree with thesometimesaint and others that people simply have different perspectives, biases, memories, etc. People are not simply logic machines, even though I and others would sometimes like to see ourselves that way.

Hence the question, what is missing?... when people don't agree on an issue after talking it through.

I already gave the touching-the-elephant analogy to explain when people have different experiences while touching the same thing, in the larger context. So maybe what is missing sometimes is someone's ability or willingness to see the big picture? I'll now add that to my list for what is now 6 things that may be missing. Are you in agreement with me on the other 5 things?

Edited September 19, 2014 by Ahab

[thesometimesaint]

Hence the question, what is missing?... when people don't agree on an issue after talking it through.

I already gave the touching-the-elephant analogy to explain when people have different experiences while touching the same thing, in the larger context. So maybe what is missing sometimes is someone's ability or willingness to see the big picture? I'll now add that to my list for what is now 6 things that may be missing. Are you in agreement with me on the other 5 things?

 

We all honestly see everything a little differently. No one mortal person can see the whole big picture. It is pure hubris to claim my reality is more honest than your reality. We need to be tolerant of that fact. That being said that is no reason to accept bad behavior, or ideation that is self destructive or infringes on the rights of others.

[Ahab]

We all honestly see everything a little differently. No one mortal person can see the whole big picture. It is pure hubris to claim my reality is more honest than your reality. We need to be tolerant of that fact. That being said that is no reason to accept bad behavior, or ideation that is self destructive or infringes on the rights of others.

You don't agree with me, and I'm wondering why.

I'm also thinking that if I could convey my thoughts to you about how I believe you could get to the point that you agree with me then you would be able to see that we can agree, and then you and I would be in agreement.

But maybe you don't want to agree with me? Could that be the case, for some strange reason? Now I'm wondering if it would make any difference if you knew I was in agreement with God on this issue about there being a way for all of us to be in agreement together.

Anyway, at least I have another thing to add to my list about what could be missing when 2 people don't agree with each other.

7. Some people just don't have the desire to agree with some other person for some strange reason that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not that other person could be right.

[katherine the great]

I simply said that according to people who write books of history, there have always been disagreements between people. I can't say I know that from my own experience, referring to the "always" part, but I do know that I have never seen a time as far back as I now remember when all people agreed with each other, and I can also say I've never read any book of history written by anyone who said that there was once a time when all people agreed with each other.

I didn't realize you or anyone else would make an issue out of that comment. Are you of the opinion that there was once a time when all people agreed with each other, about everything? You'd be the first person I met who believes that, I think.

Ahh.  I read it as: people don't always agree on history.  You mean people just don't agree in general. Of course they don't.  We have the most complex brains of any organism.  As long as people have brains, there are going to be disagreements.

[Ahab]

Ahh. I read it as: people don't always agree on history. You mean people just don't agree in general. Of course they don't. We have the most complex brains of any organism. As long as people have brains, there are going to be disagreements.

I'm pretty firm in my opinion that our brain or mind is not the cause of our disagreements, because we could use our minds and our brains to think of how we could be in agreement.

So, no, something else is missing that is the cause of our disagreements.

And yes, you are right, and we are now in agreement about what I was saying before.

[katherine the great]

I'm pretty firm in my opinion that our brain or mind is not the cause of our disagreements, because we could use our minds and our brains to think of how we could be in agreement.

That takes time. Unless there is some overriding reason for a person to want to change their mind then what would be their motivation for doing so? Within a community there is a payoff for cooperation but outside the group it's a different story.

[Ahab]

That takes time. Unless there is some overriding reason for a person to want to change their mind then what would be their motivation for doing so? Within a community there is a payoff for cooperation but outside the group it's a different story.

Because of wanting to be right instead of just holding on to current ideas.

I consider other ideas than my own when other people share them with me and when I see better ideas than my own I adopt them as my own ideas then. I wasn't always a member of the Church and there were many good ideas I didn't have before then which I accepted when I became a member. And I did that for me, to do what was right, and to accept better ideas than I had before I was a member. Don't you agree that we should always be open for and actively looking for better ideas than the ideas we now have, if we can find them? I have an insatiable appetite that I keep trying to feed.

[katherine the great]

 Don't you agree that we should always be open for and actively looking for better ideas than the ideas we now have, if we can find them? I have an insatiable appetite that I keep trying to feed.

Don't I agree that we should?  Not necessarily.  Some people are perfectly happy with their own ideas.  If it works for them then I don't think they have some kind of an obligation to change their world view.  As for me, it totally depends.  I am all about learning but I'm too busy to always be actively looking for better ideas to implement in my life.  I can't entertain every idea that's thrown my way. If I did that I'd never have time to do anything else!

[Kind Debater]

Hence the question, what is missing?... when people don't agree on an issue after talking it through.

I already gave the touching-the-elephant analogy to explain when people have different experiences while touching the same thing, in the larger context. So maybe what is missing sometimes is someone's ability or willingness to see the big picture? I'll now add that to my list for what is now 6 things that may be missing. Are you in agreement with me on the other 5 things?

I suppose I agree with the gist of them, though I would probably phrase them slightly differently.

I'm pretty firm in my opinion that our brain or mind is not the cause of our disagreements, because we could use our minds and our brains to think of how we could be in agreement.

But the things you listed are related to the brain -- a lack of intelligence, a lack of knowledge, poor communication, etc.

Plus there are people who are intelligent, educated and articulate but who lack intellectual empathy, i.e. the ability to see things from someone else's point of view and understand why someone would hold a view that's different from their own.

[Ahab]

I suppose I agree with the gist of them, though I would probably phrase them slightly differently.

I'm fine with that as long as we can agree on the ideas behind our words.

But the things you listed are related to the brain -- a lack of intelligence, a lack of knowledge, poor communication, etc.

I would say mind, which is our spirit, and yes everything about us involves our mind/spirit and our degree of intelligence, but that doesn't mean we can't agree with whatever or whoever we want to agree with. Hence, the idea that we're always going to disagree simply because we have a brain or mind/spirit is just wrong

Plus there are people who are intelligent, educated and articulate but who lack intellectual empathy, i.e. the ability to see things from someone else's point of view and understand why someone would hold a view that's different from their own.

While it can help to understand how and why someone is wrong about something the goal should be to agree on all that is right and good.

[katherine the great]

I would say mind, which is our spirit, and yes everything about us involves our mind/spirit and our degree of intelligence, but that doesn't mean we can't agree with whatever or whoever we want to agree with. Hence, the idea that we're always going to disagree simply because we have a brain or mind/spirit is just wrong

 

Hmmm.  I would match this statement with your #1 of the OP: "1. Each person feels confident that he or she has superior intelligence and wisdom on a specific issue than anyone else who doesn't agree with him/her. So he/she believes that anyone who doesn't agree with him/her is missing or lacking the same degree of intelligence and wisdom that he/she has."

[Ahab]

Hmmm. I would match this statement with your #1 of the OP: "1. Each person feels confident that he or she has superior intelligence and wisdom on a specific issue than anyone else who doesn't agree with him/her. So he/she believes that anyone who doesn't agree with him/her is missing or lacking the same degree of intelligence and wisdom that he/she has."

Heh, yeah, probably a good guess, but maybe we're both talking about the same thing while using different words. And I should add something about different levels of knowledge somewhere since that's not necessarily covered under intelligence and wisdom.

[katherine the great]

Heh, yeah, probably a good guess, but maybe we're both talking about the same thing while using different words. And I should add something about different levels of knowledge somewhere since that's not necessarily covered under intelligence and wisdom.

Have you ever studied epistemology?  That might be a good place to start.  

Edited September 20, 2014 by katherine the great

[Kind Debater]

I'm fine with that as long as we can agree on the ideas behind our words.

Ok.

I would say mind, which is our spirit, and yes everything about us involves our mind/spirit and our degree of intelligence, but that doesn't mean we can't agree with whatever or whoever we want to agree with.

I'm not sure how to parse the last half of this. Are you saying that if we want to reach an agreement with someone on something, we will be able to do so?

Hence, the idea that we're always going to disagree simply because we have a brain or mind/spirit is just wrong

I don't think that's quite the point Katherine was making. My version of what I understood her point to be would be that in this world, where we all have biases, sin and make mistakes in our thinking, there will always be disagreements somewhere in the world.

While it can help to understand how and why someone is wrong about something the goal should be to agree on all that is right and good.

I was thinking about this today, and I both agree and disagree. Finding truth should be a general goal; harmony should be a general goal; but there are times when "agreeing on all that is right and good" is not a good goal to have. For instance, I disagree with my pastors on several things; for one, they're Calvinists and I'm not. But is it worthwhile to have the lengthy, involved discussions with them that would be necessary for us to come to an agreement on every last detail of theology? There are times that my husband and I disagree, and I defer to him; I think it's more practical to agree to disagree on a minor matter than to go through a lengthy discussion/argument that may well do more harm than good to our overall relationship.

[mfbukowski]

You're so cynical.  How about:  Different source material, different perspectives of those recording source material (did the event just happen?  is it a recollection of an event? what is their relationship to the event? would they have a motivation to report the even inaccurately?), Paradigm of the person compiling the data, different interpretations of the data.

Oh come on!  Shades of grey?  The idea that people may actually have different perfectly valid opinions?

 

What's your problem- you a relativist or sumptin? 

 

[mfbukowski]

Get down to the basics and there is either truth or error, though. Right?

 

Uh, no.

[Robert F. Smith]

I've noticed as far back as I can remember that there is a lack of agreement amongst different people, and according to people who write books of history that has always been how it is. People don't always agree with other people. And I'm still in wonder of why.

So far I've narrowed the answer to "what is missing?" down to the following possibilities, and if you can think of some other answer please feel free to chime in:

.......................................................................

Anything else?

Now my point here is to not only identify the problem of what is missing but also to fix the problem by supplying what is missing or at least helping others to get what is missing, unless that wouldn't be the right thing to do, in which case we would at least understand what is missing.

What is missing from your equation is the simple fact that history-writing is a group effort which takes place over time, lots of time, and it cannot remain static either in the data or the conclusions.

 

No single historian, however smart can subsume all information within his grasp.  Nor will he interpret the information he obtains the same way someone else will.  And his work will be reviewed by his peers, and by generations yet unborn -- who may stand on his shoulders, but who may also have additional textual and archeological discoveries to digest.  In the process, one will find historians influencing each other and keeping each other honest.  At least to some extent.

 

Have you ever studied history or historiography?  Isn't the textbook you used already out of date?

[katherine the great]

Oh come on!  Shades of grey?  The idea that people may actually have different perfectly valid opinions?

 

What's your problem- you a relativist or sumptin? 

 

Shocking isn't it?