On Disagreement(s)
By: Balaji Ramakrishnan
Tags: Paint, Food, Disagreements, Coffee, God

On Disagreement(s)

There are two sides to every coin either a head or a tail; unless you get hoodwinked by a two-headed coin like in the movie Sholay. Likewise to every issue, every topic, every view there are at least two sides. The facts and supporting arguments exist to validate both or multiple opinions. There is no clear right or wrong, it’s just a matter of your opinion and your bias.

Why then is there so much partisanship? Is it because our clouded vision disables us from being able to see the other side. Or is it just our unwillingness to accept a different point of view. Examples abound in our daily life, no matter where you live and what you believe. Disagreements are a way of life with family, friends, co-workers and the rest of humanity.

Let’s start with something as simple as coffee. Let’s say you go to Panera and have a bagel and coffee. You could leave with multiple set of opinions – the bagel is good and the coffee is bad, the coffee is good and the bagel is bad, or both are good or both are bad or you might be just indifferent. But there are some who have strong 💪 opinions about it like my friend Verite’, who swears by his cup of Panera coffee and felt strangled when lockdowns. shut down his favorite Panera.

Now just your view on coffee could be very divisive. Is Panera coffee better, or is it Dunkin or Starbucks, or Cafe Coffee Day, French Pressed or good old Filter Kapi. There are so many more possibilities based on the type of beans ( Java or Arabica or .. ), how you grind it, whether you add Chicory or not, the types of brew –(Latte, Cappucino and Espresso) and as the Italians in Torino insisted on one of my trips there - the water that is used to brew the coffee matters too. With so many variations, diversity of opinions is a given. So how can a group of individuals settle a dispute on coffee. My assertion is they cannot, they can only politely agree to disagree. But there is no reason for them to be mad or upset with each other or not want to have a relationship with each other just because of their likes and dislikes on coffee.

You can extend this argument easily to food and even restaurants. Whether you are discussing idli/sambhar or chicken tikka or lasagna or steak, there is a huge diversity of views and likes and dislikes. Even in a small family dinner it’s hard to get four people to agree on how good the food is. Don’t even try convincing your spouse that your dish is as good as theirs ! Now you take desserts and ice cream each brand has its own following and each brand’s admirers are willing to swear by it.

The issue with clothes and paint and interior decor is even more complex. God’s given us eyes and perception but it appears that we all see different when presented with the same scene. Imagine going out to buy paint with four family members and trying to come to agreement on the color, the finish. You would be amazed how difficult it is. Finally someone gives in first, it’s hard to come to an agreement.

But let’s shift the discussion from the tangible, that we can see, smell, touch or taste to the intangible, that we picture in our brains. Our behaviors evolve as we grow and are greatly influenced by our families and friends our education and are strongly tied to our belief systems. So each one of us thinking, feeling beings is unique. We grow up under different circumstances have disparate experiences and form our own biases. These continue to evolve continuously as we live our lives.

So when it comes simple questions like — ” Does God exist?” Or “Is Climate Change real?” Or “ Should we have Universal Healthcare ?”, we have varied opinions. Imagine having a conversation at the dinner table with friends, family or co-workers, these conversations get unruly. Folks that have a lot in common tend to vehemently degree or have diverse points of views on these topics. Passions get aroused in these discussions as each one tries to intensely argue their point. But unlike in the discussion about coffee these discussions become divisive.

In an honest discussion with Celibrite’, she mentioned how it’s becoming increasingly difficult to carry out a conversation with folks who have a very different point of view. It’s not that I am different for I too have experienced this emotion. There is no right or wrong but it’s interesting to explore the genesis of this feeling that many of us experience. It’s almost as if we become one with our thoughts.

Our thoughts establish what is right and wrong and we are unable to reconcile. When someone takes a different view point, we summarily reject it as that is the easy route. We dislike challenges to our belief systems as that makes us insecure. Since words and gestures are just our external forms of communications we interpret the others belief systems based on their words and gestures. Our minds then take over and create an image of that person based on our interpretation of the words they use and their actions. This then governs our interactions with people.

So if we are god fearing person and are having discussions with agnostics or atheists or even those who believe in a different god we start bucketing people into categories. There are varying degrees in how we do this in our interactions. The conservatives are a little more rigid whilst the liberals amongst us are a little more open or so they think. But the bottom line is we start categorizing instead of understanding the people we are interacting with.

The same applies if we are discussing climate change. There are believers and non believers in science and a believer in science is often appalled at the arguments provided by a non believer. Just like religion, science too is based on assumptions and as the human race has evolved these have continued to be challenged. Let’s take the field of astrology, the art of predicting our futures based on the alignment of stars. Advanced in astronomy have continued to challenge the assumptions made by astrologers in the past, but we still use the same basis for making predictions into the future.

The topic of Healthcare is even more divisive for now we get into the social aspects of our living. If you don’t believe in Universal Healthcare for all you don’t care about your fellow humans. This could be no further from the truth. But inevitably a discussion on healthcare comes down to your social conscience. How can we interpret other behaviors based on their views on something?

As humans all our behaviors and view points continuously evolve, although the rate of evolution can change as we age. More often than not, the change is spurred by a challenge to our belief system by someone who thinks very differently than us. If we start surrounding ourselves with those that think like us we are the ones who lose out. To change, to evolve to grow we need more interactions with people who disagree with us, who think very differently than we do. As we evaluate our interactions with people it would be beneficial for us to frame the question differently. Instead of asking why he or she think that’s way, we should be asking what is the basis of their thinking. If we are all rationale beings then those who oppose us too must have strong rationale for their points of views and behavior.