Searching…searching…searching……

I am looking for people with open minds who choose to think and think deeply.  The search becomes harder and harder.

By way of background, I am someone who struggles with those people, often well educated,  who believe that they know more than others and that they have all the answers on any and all given topics.  This usually goes hand and hand with a closed mind, unwilling to listen or consider other points of view.  My reaction to that is an urge to verbally shake such people until they realize that no one, including they themselves, knows all the answers and that when we realize that and then listen to one another’s differing views and interpretations of a subject we will all grow to greater heights of knowledge.  My fervor is great.  I really want to verbally force them to open their minds and THINK.  I cannot help but suggest alternate approaches and views, whether I personally support them or not, simply to force some critical and open thinking.

Lately I find that political discussions more often than not involve individuals presenting their view as the one and only correct view, even when it is based on incomplete, inaccurate, or even no evidence.  There are really only two conclusions to such attempts:  1.  As soon as I challenge a point for which someone has no answer or which proves their position wrong, I am called an insulting name (racist, bigot, white supremacist, deplorable, ignorant, etc. – whatever is the current in vogue term), or accused of having a political agenda, and, with no actual evidence to support it I am told I just am so brainwashed or stupid that I don’t realize what I am, for that is the only way that I could hold a different point of view; 2.  The conversation is simply ended before it begins with a statement that we just can’t talk about this (this being the specific political issue).  Either way, dialog is ended before it can begin.

Here’s an example of the above from an actual interaction:  One person (someone generally anti-Trump) shared an article in which a politician criticized President Trump’s response to the hurricane damage in Puerto Rico.  I responded with some additional details about the relief efforts, the complexity caused by the fact that Puerto Rico is an island and that it had bad infrastructure before the storm.  I noted I was sickened by people using the situation as just another way to make political points. The other person and a friend continued presenting other statements in which people criticized this or that act of Trump regarding Puerto Rico.  I objected to the “back seat driving” by those who were not privy to the entire situation or the way in which the Governor of Puerto Rico was working with the Feds to coordinate a complex and complete response.  When the first person and friend then began making direct comparisons to Katrina with the point being that Trump was failing, I pointed out that this was a different disaster and that even one of the friend’s sources noted that “no two disasters are alike."  I reiterated that I wished people would focus on the actual situation and tragedy instead of politicizing it and using it as just another way to attack Trump.  The friend of the first person then ended the conversation because I was “dragging politics into the discussion.”  Well, hadn’t this been political since the opening criticism of Trump?  But, once there is no response to a contrary point of view, the dialog must end with the fault being placed on the one with the opposing or simply challenging view, who has somehow become too political.  This is not an open dialog.

To be clear, this sort of “conversation” is not limited to politics.  For example, in a humanities seminar that I attend there is a fairly well-educated individual who loves to pontificate and present his views on a work as if they were the only correct, the only acceptable views.  Anyone who might suggest the possibility of a different interpretation of a phrase, a different understanding of an author, or an additional theme present in a book is dismissed if not demeaned as not knowing or understanding what the pontificator knows.  Alternate views are not necessarily presented as opposing or as the only correct view, but just as alternates and additional views to discuss and further enlighten fellow readers.  Yet, the pontificator who thinks the only answer is the one he holds cannot accept such additional views and sees them as some sort of a personal threat or attack.

As an educator, I have seen this many times in my colleagues throughout the years.  Yes, a teacher is (hopefully) more learned in his or her subject than are the students, but that does not mean that the teacher is more intelligent or that the teacher cannot still learn from the students.  It does not mean that the students may not have good ideas that are different from or go beyond those of the teacher. I have always been enormously saddened by teachers who think their job is to tell students what to think rather than to teach students how to think deeply and critically.  I have concluded that those who are not willing to be open to new ideas, those who feel the need to assert some sort of superior intelligence and that only their views are correct are really very insecure people.

So, lack of open-minded thinking, of real ability to engage in thoughtful dialog has always frustrated me.  In my ideal world people would take a position on something based on a critical review of all available evidence, but they would also listen to the views of others and people would be able to have a lively discussion (or even an argument) in which they critically challenge one another’s views while reasonably and rationally supporting their own.  Those involved in such a discussion would all have open minds, would respect views different from their own, and also be willing to be persuaded to a different position if the argument to do so was strong and reasonable.   Disagreements, through such dialog, can be resolved in a constructive and productive manner.  You can perhaps then understand my frustration when it seems that almost no one is able to enter into this sort of dialog today and my search for thinkers becomes more and more difficult.

If people are unable to carry out such a dialog about the meaning of a century old novel, or a philosophical essay, it may be frustrating or unpleasant, but it is not really going to affect our world in any great way (of course we could argue about whether every act no matter how small or seemingly meaningless has ripple effects, but that is a subject for another day).  But what is so terribly troubling is that critical thinking seems to be absent from every interaction, including politics which do, indeed, have a very real and current effect on our world.

Rather than the open minds necessary for reasonable, critical, rational dialog and decision making, it seems that far too many minds are closed, governed not by thought but by emotion that may or may not be reasonable or rational.  This is not to say that ultimate views and political positions should not contain an emotional component, but they must also include rational thought and understanding of non emotional facts and evidence.  And people must be open to accepting that all will not feel the same emotions about a particular set of facts. 

When we are ruled only by our emotions we are easily controlled by others who can and will manipulate those emotions.  And, because our emotions are ours, they are not subject to objective proof or lack thereof. (Emotion is defined as: “instinctive or intuitive feeling as distinguished from reasoning or knowledge.”)  Hence, we have people who do not waiver in what they believe or wish to be true, despite no evidence to support it or in the face of facts to the contrary, and even people who find no problem with making statements that are contrary to other statements of their own (for example, the librarian who dislikes the President and seems to consider him a racist and who thus refused the First Lady’s contribution of Dr. Seuss books because they are “cliché and racist” can be seen in photos with her students dressed as the Cat in the Hat and also applauding the former First Lady when she promoted Dr. Seuss).  This irrational and emotional approach may work well for the egos of those holding their emotional and ego driven positions, but it does not work well for productive dialog when such is necessary, especially when it is associated with our political debates.

In this country where we are not (yet) required to all think alike, political debate is necessary to reach compromises for the good of the country as a whole.  But such debate requires objective and rational minds and people who can use them to think for themselves.  No productive debates can occur when people refuse to objectively examine current situations and realistically assess their own views in light of concrete facts and evidence.  If “dialog” is simply an assertion of conflicting emotions, people will only feel attacked, “conversation” will end, and there will be no resolution or progress.  I do not know how one gets people to start thinking again.  I do know that until they do there will be many angry and frustrated people watching our country fall apart.