A Question

Why is it when someone sees things in a different way than you, they are somehow naive/blind/ignorant/etc.?

Is it not possible for someone to have a different way of looking at the world and yet not be wrong just because others do not agree with your view?

It is possible, but it's not in most people's nature. We desire certainty and "fix" our views to the extent that everything we don't agree with is wrong/misinformed/whatever. It's a hard thing to get past, once you've got that mindset.

One of the most powerful techniques in learning to cultivate compassion is to ask questions and really try to listen and absorb to the answer, even if you still disagree with it. A friend of mine posted this elsewhere and I think while to many here it will seem like a load of obvious advice, the "philosophy" it represents is a good way to live avoiding the kinds of small thinking you describe... even if it doesn't necessarily map exactly to the Jedi path:

When someone has a different opinion to you

• ask them what makes them think that
• ask for clarification if you don’t understand
• use non-committal phrases like “i never thought of it like that”
• say things like “I can see where you’re coming from” even if that’s a fib
• change the subject if you think you’re going to clash over it- is it really worth arguing over?
• don’t try to make them change their opinion
• pick your fights
• don’t think your views are more valid than theirs
• don’t stubbornly tell people they are wrong if it’s not a fact-based argument. that’s just rude.
• don’t worry so much about what other people think
• be polite
• be kind
• be a nice person because it’s good to be nice to people (which is obvious but a lot of people seem to forget that)
• ask yourself “do i like this person enough to ignore their dumb views on x issue?” if you do, talk about other things, if not, get a different friend.

Most arguments are over silly things. I once didn’t talk to my dad for a month after we argued about the pound vs the euro. Neither of us actually really cared one way or the other about the issue.

These are my words of wisdom after 30 years of arguing and falling out with people over things. Sometimes, you can give people information which might lead to them changing their views on something, but you can’t forcibly make someone agree with you anymore than you can make them grow taller. Unless you’re a wizard.

Another tip I like is to imagine everyone is enlightened but you... to always find the lesson, even if it's just in what not to do/say. Everyone has something to teach if we're ready to hear.

That is something Ive noticed and caught myself doing. Sometimes I catch myself dismissing something for those very reasons when confronted with someone that sees the world in a completely different light and have to consider that I could be wrong, or just as ignorant of the facts as I assume they are.

Damn introspection forcing me to step aside form my point of view and realize that my opinion isn't an extension of my ego and i should consider what they have to say.

During these types of discussions or debates, I typically use the phrase, "Well, the way I see it is...", or, "In my opinion, ...". The reason being is that we all typically speak from our own perspectives, which can involve taking mutiple perspectives into consideration when tackling what we observe to be true in relation to another's observation of the same thing. "I see it this way, but can also see it from this other perspective, and this other one, as well." "Well, I observed it in this light and saw it this way." I've noticed in situations like this that there is always, in a group, a person with a strong will to make their perspective the consensus, intimidating the weaker willed individuals in the group to concede to their stronger personality. If you observe this behavior and still don't think their perspective is correct, I find it best to listen to their reasoning and take it into consideration before responding. Perhaps they are seeing something that you aren't, which can aid in sifting through the BS and collecting the more valid information. Some are very tiresome, though, in that they seem to think that stating their reasoning repeatedly will convince the other person that their opinion is the better one. Commonly referred to as insanity, repeating an action and expecting a different result after multiple attempts with the same result is not going to get anybody anwhere. That's how I see it anyway. lol

I've done that, too, Luthien, but honestly, it doesn't seem to matter. I think my problem is that my way of looking at things is so vastly different (not better, but different) than everyone else's that I suppose to many it does seem like complete nonsense. I can see things from other perspectives sometimes (other times I just get confused cause it makes no sense to me), but just cause I can see it, doesn't mean I believe it. But I don't think I'm "right" either. I don't have that black and white belief that if I'm right someone else has to be wrong. I think it's possible for several people to have opposing views and still be right. Not in all situations, obviously, but it's possible in situations that are a matter of opinion.

From Chapter Six, "It", of "The Book" by Alan Watts :

To go anywhere in philosophy, other than back and forth, round and
round, one must have a keen sense of correlative vision. This is a
technical term for a thorough understanding of the Game of Black-and-
White, whereby one sees that all explicit opposites are implicit allies—
correlative in the sense that they "go with" each other and cannot exist
apart. This, rather than any miasmic absorption of differences into a
continuum of ultimate goo, is the metaphysical unity underlying the
world. For this unity is not mere one-ness as opposed to multiplicity,
since these two terms are themselves polar. The unity, or inseparability,
of one and many is therefore referred to in Vedanta philosophy as "nonduality"
(advaita) to distinguish it from simple uniformity. True, the
term has its own opposite, "duality," for insofar as every term
designates a class, an intellectual pigeonhole, every class has an outside
polarizing its inside. For this reason, language can no more transcend
duality than paintings or photographs upon a flat surface can go beyond
two dimensions. Yet by the convention of perspective, certain twodimensional
lines that slant towards a "vanishing-point" are taken to
represent the third dimension of depth. In a similar way, the dualistic
term "non-duality" is taken to represent the "dimension" in which
explicit differences have implicit unity.

It is not at first easy to maintain correlative vision. The Upanishads
describe it as the path of the razor's edge, a balancing act on the sharpest
and thinnest of lines. For to ordinary vision there is nothing visible
"between" classes and opposites. Life is a series of urgent choices
demanding firm commitment to this or to that. ...

A possible response to the question may be found in exploring whether it is really a case of dichotomous right/wrong-ness ? Or is it simply a matter of perspective ?

Much as in one of the myths referred to in 'Masks of Eternity' :

MOYERS: There's a wonderful story in some African tradition of the god who's
walking down the road wearing a hat that is colored red on one side and blue on the
other side. When the farmers in the field go into the village in the evening, they say,
"Did you see that god with the blue hat?" And the others say, "No, no, he had a red hat
on." And they get into a fight.

CAMPBELL: Yes, that's the Nigerian trickster god, Eshu. He makes it even worse by
first walking in one direction and then turning around and turning his hat around, too,
so that again it will be red or blue. Then when these two chaps get into a fight and are
brought before the king for judgment, this trickster god appears, and he says, "It's my
fault, I did it, and I meant to do it. Spreading strife is my greatest joy."

Naya wrote: Why is it when someone sees things in a different way than you, they are somehow naive/blind/ignorant/etc.?

Is it not possible for someone to have a different way of looking at the world and yet not be wrong just because others do not agree with your view?

Because the reason why they have a different opinion is they've had different experiences. If you believe their experience to be lesser than yours (believed by many middle-aged people on the basis of their age)(also believed by the younger who think they are more modern and therefore more advanced), then you will necessarily believe them to be less aware of a situation than you are...

And it all makes perfect sense. Because there is such a thing as naivete, blindness, and ignorance. What we lack are independent judges who determine who's smarter or stupider...

Remember it's the ones making all the posts that make it seem like we can't stop arguing. In reality the rest of us read and don't reply.

I think it is also important to determine what the ultimate goal of an "argument" could be.

Sometimes we "fight" out of fear or anxiety and the conversation can be ruled by emotion. If you're voice is raised, you're probably in a "fight". Other times we "argue" to determine who is right and who is wrong and the conversation can be ruled by ignorance. If you are busy thinking of your reply while someone else is talking, you are probably in an "argument".

I believe we are at our best when we "debate" in order to share ideas and further our collective knowledge. This can be a conversation ruled by mutual respect. It makes sense that this can be the hardest type of conversation to carry on because it requires all involved to listen closely, be open to new ideas, and be patient with each other. If you find yourself saying "Hmmmm... I never thought of that before" you are likely in a healthy "debate".

I think often the hardest thing to consider is that there is a possibility that we might be 'wrong, ' I think if we can remember that we might only have our opinion because we're too stubborn to allow ourselves think of something another way, then we might have fewer arguments and more debates.

I used to have arguments with a friend over pretty much anything; it always ended in stalemate because we were both as stubborn as each other.