Some observations about conflict that may or may not be correct, and may or may not be about anything in particular.
As an observer of and sometimes participant in various on- and off-line conflicts — as I get older, I try to observe and participate less — I’ve noticed some behavior in myself that I suspect others may also practice to some degree. (To that end, I will cast most of this post using the royal “we,” but you are welcome to insert my name specifically if reading “we” bothers you.)
What I’ve noticed, in my own thinking and in the posts and comments I’ve read from allies and opponents alike, is that when we are faced with opposing viewpoints: we doubt, we devalue, we disparage, and we diagnose.
(Image: “D,” by Duncan C, on Flickr under Creative Commons.)
We Doubt. It seems we balance between gullibility and skepticism, and the degree to which we practice each depends on whether we trust the sources of particular information. To some extent we build our own “echo chambers” by tuning in more often to sources that appear to support our views of things; few people hold the same opinion of the Huffington Post as they do of Breitbart, for example, or of CNN as they do of Fox News. I suspect few go out of their way to obtain and consider reports from sources they do not favor, but at this level it is still possible to do so.
When we are faced with reporting on even simple matters from sources we have come to distrust, we simply doubt what we hear. This carries over from the presentation of facts to the presentation of opinions — especially when opinions masquerade as facts and when our own opinions become more important than facts. We can, however, reach the point where we begin to doubt even verified facts, demanding increasingly high levels of validation and distrusting even first-hand accounts if they contradict our own opinions or positions.
Simple doubt is the mildest reaction. But when doubt is not dispelled, when it lingers, it grows wild and even malignant. Doubt, unchallenged by facts or new theories, multiplies and metastasizes in the mind until we find it nearly (if not completely) impossible to believe. And then
We Devalue. When we let doubt become too strong, we may begin to transfer our disbelief onto the sources — even when the sources are people known to us. Little by little, perhaps, we lose respect for them. Sources we might once have considered credible we come to dismiss by reflex. And when we devalue a particular source enough, when it becomes worthless in our eyes, it becomes easy to disdain it.
We Disparage. This is broader than simply considering the source to be in error on a specific matter: this is rejecting the source entirely, on any subject. We begin to hold such sources in contempt.
At this level, when the source is a corporate entity, be it the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, we cease to find any value in it and turn instead to other sources we do find valuable, and in so doing retreat further into the echo chamber in which messages reverberate and opinions ossify. When the source is a friend, a real human being with whom we may have broken bread, laughed, and even cried, the bad blood accumulates and we find avoiding contact more comfortable than resolving or even discussing issues.
How insidious this becomes when those sources are people. Friends we valued, whose opinions we trusted, we begin to treat in less friendly ways. Colleagues we esteemed, whose work we appreciated, we begin to disrespect. In the process we become more cocooned in our own preferences, inured to even the mildest overtures lest they damage our conceptions.
We Diagnose. At this stage we convince ourselves that our opponent — whether a once-close friend or a complete stranger — suffers from an illness or other defect, and we begin to formulate remedies. We rarely consider if we ourselves might be suffering from a similar malady, some incoherence of thought or some paralyzed grip on comfortable but unreliable theories. We consider ourselves healthy; perhaps not paragons of mental fitness, but certainly not afflicted in the way our opponents are. If only they would consult us, and imbibe the elixirs we are all-too-ready to prescribe, they would be well. Wouldn’t they?
___
Such It Has Ever Been, But Must It Always Be So? At the risk of stating the obvious, although sometimes it is necessary to state the obvious, only when we recognize something as a problem are we ever motivated to change it or solve it. And we may differ on whether a particular thing is a problem.
In the colonial era, for instance, loyalists did not recognize the same problems that the Patriots recognized. They saw the same things happening, and perhaps to some degree were also uncomfortable with them, but they did not recognize them as problems that needed to be solved. As a result, they almost certainly disapproved of the methods that the Patriots used to address the problems that they saw. The loyalists and the crown considered the people we call Patriots to be rebels, and such they certainly were. And in the end, the differences became too severe to be reconciled and the stakes were high enough that open battle ensued.
In contrast, often we find ourselves embroiled in low-level, non-life-threatening conflicts — perhaps matters of some consequence, but certainly not matters that demand unbridled vitriol and venomous attacks. In such cases, we may hope that we could detect when we doubt without affording any benefit of the same; when we shade from doubt into devaluing; when we begin to disparage someone else; or when we diagnose another’s supposed condition. And, having recognized the pattern, we may hope to moderate our own thinking before we irreparably damage our relationships or reputations.
We may further hope that our opponents could recognize the tendency in themselves and refrain as well, but we have responsibility only for our own thoughts and actions. May we use them well.
by 
