Protests seem to be a regular event here in DC. The issues that inspire people to take to the streets are many and varied. Some of the protests involve people with a specific perspective, some involve multiple groups with opposing perspectives. Recently I noticed a picture on the web of a person holding a protest sign. The sign says, “the [sic] most violent element in society is IGNORANCE.”
This sign struck me as a reminder of many conversations I’ve either heard or participated in. The topic could be political, religious, cultural, or any other hot button. The sentiment might be stated in any number of ways. “You don’t know what you’re talking about.” “If you had to put up with what I do you’d understand.” “You’ve never had to deal with this.” “You are narrow minded.” I could keep going, but what seems to me is behind any of these variations on a theme is an idea that “I have information that you don’t. If you only knew what I do, you’d agree with me.”
I often hear the same sentiment being expressed by people holding opposing views on the same topic. It really doesn’t seem to strike me that either person in such a conversation has not heard what the other person has to say, meaning they both probably do have access to the same information. If ignorance is a lack of information, and presumably not a lack of intelligence, then neither side of such a debate is ignorant. They just genuinely disagree.
Any number of factors could cause disputing parties to stress some information and down play other information. There may be agendas involved. Either or both sides could be looking for a specific outcome so they argue the facts that support their goal. Values could differ. Depending on the atmosphere a person has lived in, words or ideals could be defined very differently from one person or group to another. For example if the disputants are considering some issue involving the word “freedom”, one side may be speaking of their freedom to… while the other may be speaking of their freedom from…
I take issue with people who take the stance that if someone does not agree with them it’s only because of their lack of information, their ignorance. It is just as likely that the person making such a claim has themselves an information shortage. It’s also just a likely that neither are making a decision in ignorance. The anger seems to well up when either or all sides of an issue begin to assume something even more sinister in a person’s motivation, or because either or all actually do have sinister motivations. Unfortunately, we humans don’t really know what a person is actually thinking or why they choose to do what they do. Likewise, to me, if a person assumes they know more than their opposition they may be part of a different destructive “element in society”; arrogance.
This sign struck me as a reminder of many conversations I’ve either heard or participated in. The topic could be political, religious, cultural, or any other hot button. The sentiment might be stated in any number of ways. “You don’t know what you’re talking about.” “If you had to put up with what I do you’d understand.” “You’ve never had to deal with this.” “You are narrow minded.” I could keep going, but what seems to me is behind any of these variations on a theme is an idea that “I have information that you don’t. If you only knew what I do, you’d agree with me.”
I often hear the same sentiment being expressed by people holding opposing views on the same topic. It really doesn’t seem to strike me that either person in such a conversation has not heard what the other person has to say, meaning they both probably do have access to the same information. If ignorance is a lack of information, and presumably not a lack of intelligence, then neither side of such a debate is ignorant. They just genuinely disagree.
Any number of factors could cause disputing parties to stress some information and down play other information. There may be agendas involved. Either or both sides could be looking for a specific outcome so they argue the facts that support their goal. Values could differ. Depending on the atmosphere a person has lived in, words or ideals could be defined very differently from one person or group to another. For example if the disputants are considering some issue involving the word “freedom”, one side may be speaking of their freedom to… while the other may be speaking of their freedom from…
I take issue with people who take the stance that if someone does not agree with them it’s only because of their lack of information, their ignorance. It is just as likely that the person making such a claim has themselves an information shortage. It’s also just a likely that neither are making a decision in ignorance. The anger seems to well up when either or all sides of an issue begin to assume something even more sinister in a person’s motivation, or because either or all actually do have sinister motivations. Unfortunately, we humans don’t really know what a person is actually thinking or why they choose to do what they do. Likewise, to me, if a person assumes they know more than their opposition they may be part of a different destructive “element in society”; arrogance.
RSS Feed