something that i’ve been thinking about for a few weeks: millions—often billions—of people disagree with me. that is, for almost every significant opinion or attitude that i hold, there are at least millions of people who hold a conflicting or opposite position.
for example, no matter which candidate i voted for in the last US presidential election, at least 60,000,000 people voted for someone else. To put that in perspective, a number of US citizens equivalent to the entire population of France or of the UK voted against my vote…and that’s just counting those US citizens who thought that voting was a worthwhile endeavor in the first place.
of course, sixty million is nothing compared to the number of people who disagree with me about other issues. specifically, i am emotionally invested in raspberry beer, pistacchio ice cream, the pittsburgh steelers, the world cup, Christianity, and mindfulness meditation. for any one of those preferences, there are billions of people who either couldn’t care less about it, are suspicious toward it, or feel disdain for it…and these are just preferences—not specific, propositional-type beliefs (e.g., the world was created in seven days, phermones make people horny, bees and dogs can smell fear, the us was correct to invade iraq, etc.).
i am aware that there are certain things almost all humans agree on. most members of our species are down with the belief that there are certain relatives we shouldn’t have sex with (although we can argue about exactly which ones), that snakes are scary, and so on. but that doesn’t change the fact that millions and billions of people think i’m wrong, almost no matter the object of my attitude or opinion.
so, what do you think? how should i (and humans similar to me) deal with this? should i pretend that i don’t know that all these people think that my deeply held beliefs are erroneous or flawed? should i delude myself with the belief that most people agree with me?
i’ll let you know what i think (and what a couple of interesting psychologists have written about this idea) in a couple days when i have more time to write, but please don’t hold your breath for any exciting or life-changing thoughts. i have neither deep thoughts nor answers, and millions of people are sure i’m wrong anyway.
Assume you’re right until someone disagrees with you, then defer to her greater knowledge, completer wisdom, and/or superior judgement.
by greg—Jan 9, 09:48 PM
On a more serious note, I knew I should have brought a framboise or six for you at Christmas, but I let my attention stray from the notion. Framboise—well, ale of most any sort—helps with this sort of existential questing.
The question, “What is one to do about disagreement?” is very difficult to get a handle on. I know that it changes the perspective, but maybe it would be better to ask, would you prefer that most people agree with you? I wonder that sometimes about myself. If I actually had physical interaction with others, and if everyone agreed with me, it might make my life easier, certainly more correct, but as it is, I do not leave my house, and that makes my world very small. I do see Kathy a lot, and she disagrees with me way, way too much. So maybe I ought to direct the question to her: would I prefer that she agree with me more, if not always? Truthfully, probably not. For one, I have terrible taste, and for another, she’s much more attuned to things like real life than I am.
Anyway, I tend to think that agreement is overrated and that harmonies with others are better achievements. In harmony, one doesn’t need to match another, just be next to her, and in that being-next-to, you create something that wasn’t possible alone. Moreover, harmony exists on a continuum from pleasant to unpleasant, such that even discord is a version of harmony. That way, when Kathy asks, “Did you even listen to what you said to me ten minutes ago? You didn’t say you would clean the sink, you grunted and said some nonsense about bacteria and disease! Sinks get clean by your hand, not by your ass sitting in front of the TV!”—when she says that, I know that she is, even in spite of herself, in harmony with me, and I can settle back to watch the rest of Charmed, content that I am one with the universe.
by greg—Jan 10, 07:19 AM
this is a very interesting question…i will try and post later, when my life returns to something like normal. plus, i’ve got about 5 posts (on the serious weighty side) brewing. (especially since my cheese post went nowhere) :)
by hermit x—Jan 10, 09:20 AM
i am not a funny person. i try to be funny, notice my cheese post…that’s the second time i bring it up.
still, i try to be funny. yet, i and everyone i know knows i’m not. but i still try to be funny regardless of the fact that i am not.
that is one answer.
a second (more serious?) answer follows:
i think one should acknowledge this and let it temper one’s interactions with others….granted i say that and then i go and use bombastic (sometimes vitriolic) rhetoric…but the more i realize that there are 1,000 paved roads to rome and an infinite number of unpaved ones the less self-agrandizing i will be, hopefully.
and i now sound like i’m channeling some new age pop guru on tolerance.
by hermit x—Jan 10, 03:47 PM
the more i realize that there are 1,000 paved roads to rome and an infinite number of unpaved ones
You sound like Borges—who, come to think of it, isn’t a bad referent for this thread…
by greg—Jan 10, 04:07 PM
in my follow up to my current post, i think i will echo jeremy’s comment in many ways.
but for now…look! i embarrassed myself on another blog today. [see comment #3 for my overwrought contribution.]
i am hereby going back to my policy of not commenting on other sites. i remain too mushy and sentimental in my current age.
by chris—Jan 10, 04:22 PM
but you are wonderfully affirming in your embarrassing posts…i, on the other hand, write without knowing what i am saying and post the same thing more than once and here, greg was kind enough to delete one of the three responses…the posting seemed to be slightly screwy that day
by hermit x—Jan 10, 04:39 PM
Embarassed? Not by what you said, I hope, which is right-on and very sane. The only thing you might be chagrined over is that such a nonsensical line as, “Professoring sure does match up well with communism” got you defensive. If you take the claim at face value, then it shows, at best, a sad ignorance of both professoring and communism or, at worst, a willful oversimplification of them. Most professors serve their professions well, the communist ones (of whom I’ve known several, all outstanding) included.
As for your comments, J, I wanted to bring up the Mormons after you mentioned the Cherokee, but I couldn’t figure out a good way to do it. Your last comment at KB.net is the best of the lot.
by greg—Jan 10, 08:33 PM
Thinking more on it, Chris, you might as easily have said, “Please don’t overgeneralize a very large, diverse, and complex political philosophy like that. Lenin and Trotsky, Stalin, Khruschev, Chairman Mao, and all the other communists—the least of which, in terms of real life, were Marx and Engels—spent a lot of time and energy defining the communist party to suit their times, their places, and/or themselves. You do communists everywhere a radical disservice by not demonstrating an inkling of understanding of communist life.”
It’s tantamount to what you said, if less personal.
by greg—Jan 10, 08:45 PM
first, i agree on all counts.
second, i am certain that communists are no more lazy than most other -ists.
third, for whatever reason, generalized accusations of communism don’t bother me nearly as much as do the implications of laziness or baseless entitlement.
unfortunately, there exist plenty of examples of political excesses in the classroom. however, most professors i know bend over backwards to hide their personal opinions. for example, when i teach about research on sexual orientation, i am proud that students from opposing perspectives both think that i represent their p.o.v.’s effectively and fairly that i might just agree with them.
i wish the cartoonishly liberal and conservative profs would play down their on-campus and in-class acts a bit and quit damaging the reputation of the profession.
by chris—Jan 10, 08:57 PM
I wish cartoonish liberals and conservatives would play themselves down and quit damaging…
No, in my experience, it’s not politics that damn the damnable professors… no, not politics at all.
by greg—Jan 10, 10:02 PM
Chris,
Oh, your comment was just fine. Please stop by again and comment again sometime.
by extremist—Jan 10, 10:45 PM
to tie into to chris’s first points laziness too often damns those political professors.
they don’t prepare for class…(at least this is my experience, and i shan’t divulge whether this has been in grad school or one or more of my colleagues) and so they ramble, preach, and pontificate. laziness turns many into the cartoon
well, that, and having roaming hands, rushing fingers, wandering eyes, and a loose fly…yeah, those’ll damn the damnable any time.
well, that, and obfuscation, demagogary, jargon, in-speak, and emotional, phsyical and spiritual violence towards students.
in other words (or in another’s words) (or in all together radically other words)here’s an interesting conservative voice ... i almost to a lit theory class with him…but, alas, he was english and i was spanish and the department couldn’t get over the defeat of the spanish armada back in 1588…
it was not meant to be
by hermit x—Jan 11, 12:10 AM
well, that, and obfuscation, demagogary, jargon, in-speak, and emotional, phsyical and spiritual violence towards students.
That was more on my mind than anything: those damnable ones who are socially inept, politically (in the smaller, departmental way) inept, and otherwise plain inept in dealing with people.
by greg—Jan 11, 06:50 AM
thanks, extremist. i don’t think i’ve any more hijacking left in me, though. :)
by chris—Jan 11, 09:07 AM
no doubt…i’m hijacking for the lot of us at the moment. :)
by hermit x—Jan 11, 09:25 AM
To extremist as well:
Reading your blog further, I spoke in haste: much of what I recommended has been covered there, as you point out in the thread to which Chris linked. The context I did not know, nor did I comprehend the personae involved in an already-established conversation. (¿FYI: Your rollover bylines are really dim and perhaps not noticeable enough?)
Now that I'm up to speed, I still say the comparison is silly.
by greg—Jan 11, 12:30 PM
Return to Topic a month later, self-chastisement edition:
Why can I not keep my mouth shut? I’m on an e-mail listserv that’s been veering off topic into discussions of climate change; however, the discussions haven’t been discussions, they’ve been doubting Thomases instead, grousing about how “climate change” is a liberal conspiracy theory, and tossing off canards like, “Thirty years ago science was all about global cooling! Ergo, global warming must be as specious as global cooling was!” When I see this bogus argument in particular, I seethe. I like to think most people can see the patent illogic of it. So what do I do but open my big mouth… and then leave it open for all sorts of flies and other vermin to make their homes in.
by greg—Feb 9, 03:19 PM
being the home for flies and vermine is bad…especially when you’re a vegetarian.
by hermit x—Feb 9, 03:32 PM
i do believe, though i could be wrong, this is a post we might be commenting on for the rest of this little blog’s existence.
by hermit x—Feb 9, 06:04 PM
If that’s the case, then I better turn off the “comments close after 6 weeks” feature…
by greg—Feb 9, 07:02 PM
maybe i should never write part ii—it could stifle discussion?
by chris—Feb 10, 02:48 PM
Oh, no, write it. part ii will allow us to continue to confess those times when we open our mouths and nonsense babbles forth—for at least another six weeks, anyway…
by greg—Feb 10, 04:41 PM