More on Extremists
Have you ever noticed that on many issues in this modern world you are expected to take a pro or anti position, while those on both sides of the argument do little more than sling vitriol at each other? Whatever happened to moderate thinking?
I think part of the problem with these 'hot issue arguments' is that people see all these kinds of issues as independent of each other and either black or white - you're either pro or anti (with both sides tending to view being in the middle as a bit of a cop-out). The approach is usually: "If you're not in the same camp as I am you must be the enemy, and because there are only two positions and you don't share mine, you must be both wrong and as extreme as the most extreme of the opposing camp".
I see it more as a several long interconnected scales with the extremists at each end of the scale. In reality, most people aren't at either end, but at different points along the middle of the scale.
Few people will have absolutely identical views, although those near each other on the scale will have many views in common, and as a result there will be some people at every point on the scale who mostly agree with each other on some issues while everyone else disagrees with them to a greater or lesser extent.
Those at the far ends of the scale are at greatest risk of being wrong, because their
position is so narrow and extreme. The rest of us, the majority, are somewhere in
between, where we're sometimes right and sometimes wrong, to different degrees. Sometimes even the issue itself is one that has neither right nor wrong positions, or can have a number of positions that are all right even though they differ from each other. Those not at the extremes are often moderates, neutrals, or undecideds on some issues - they're not cop-outs, they're just on a different point in the scale between the more extreme views.
Personally, I don't want or expect anyone to agree with me all the time - on sliding scales, unlike with two extreme camps, it's not possible for that to happen. I just want them to find the position that accurately represents their views instead of the views of others, and not to fall into the traps of thinking they must always go to one extreme or the other, of assuming that differing views must always place others at the opposite extreme, of assuming that only an extreme position can be 'right' and everyone else must be 'wrong', of assuming that every issue even has a 'right' position, or of assuming that only their position can be the 'right' one.
If people see things as two camps with only one being 'right', their clear duty is to convert people to their camp and to forcibly impose their views on those who will not be converted, because they are 'wrong' - this approach tends to entrench people ever more firmly into the two extremes. If they see things as a sliding scale, their task is different - it is to provide information and education about their own position to help others make up their own minds and find their appropriate place on the scale, without expecting them to take up exactly the same position.
This affects nearly every issue we face. And we have grown to accept it without noticing. So many surveys have yes/no answers, media goes out of its way to tell us something is 'right' or 'wrong', modern journalism looks for 'both sides of the story' when all too often that is a simplistic and immature approach to the issue.
Next time you are formulating an opinion, do not be fooled by those who would imply that you must go to their extremes or be dismissed as the 'evil enemy'. Consider the issues. Make up your own mind. Decide for yourself where on the scale you fall. If you find yourself somewhere in the middle, you are not sitting on the fence, you are merely applying moderate thinking.
I think part of the problem with these 'hot issue arguments' is that people see all these kinds of issues as independent of each other and either black or white - you're either pro or anti (with both sides tending to view being in the middle as a bit of a cop-out). The approach is usually: "If you're not in the same camp as I am you must be the enemy, and because there are only two positions and you don't share mine, you must be both wrong and as extreme as the most extreme of the opposing camp".
I see it more as a several long interconnected scales with the extremists at each end of the scale. In reality, most people aren't at either end, but at different points along the middle of the scale.
Few people will have absolutely identical views, although those near each other on the scale will have many views in common, and as a result there will be some people at every point on the scale who mostly agree with each other on some issues while everyone else disagrees with them to a greater or lesser extent.
Those at the far ends of the scale are at greatest risk of being wrong, because their
position is so narrow and extreme. The rest of us, the majority, are somewhere in
between, where we're sometimes right and sometimes wrong, to different degrees. Sometimes even the issue itself is one that has neither right nor wrong positions, or can have a number of positions that are all right even though they differ from each other. Those not at the extremes are often moderates, neutrals, or undecideds on some issues - they're not cop-outs, they're just on a different point in the scale between the more extreme views.
Personally, I don't want or expect anyone to agree with me all the time - on sliding scales, unlike with two extreme camps, it's not possible for that to happen. I just want them to find the position that accurately represents their views instead of the views of others, and not to fall into the traps of thinking they must always go to one extreme or the other, of assuming that differing views must always place others at the opposite extreme, of assuming that only an extreme position can be 'right' and everyone else must be 'wrong', of assuming that every issue even has a 'right' position, or of assuming that only their position can be the 'right' one.
If people see things as two camps with only one being 'right', their clear duty is to convert people to their camp and to forcibly impose their views on those who will not be converted, because they are 'wrong' - this approach tends to entrench people ever more firmly into the two extremes. If they see things as a sliding scale, their task is different - it is to provide information and education about their own position to help others make up their own minds and find their appropriate place on the scale, without expecting them to take up exactly the same position.
This affects nearly every issue we face. And we have grown to accept it without noticing. So many surveys have yes/no answers, media goes out of its way to tell us something is 'right' or 'wrong', modern journalism looks for 'both sides of the story' when all too often that is a simplistic and immature approach to the issue.
Next time you are formulating an opinion, do not be fooled by those who would imply that you must go to their extremes or be dismissed as the 'evil enemy'. Consider the issues. Make up your own mind. Decide for yourself where on the scale you fall. If you find yourself somewhere in the middle, you are not sitting on the fence, you are merely applying moderate thinking.