The Atrophy of the Nuance Muscle
Individual thought is a lonely endeavor.
The comfort (and arguably benefit) of subscribing to a specific group, school of thought, etc. is that it allows one to defer to that given group’s “code” for thinking and behaving. Of course, nuance can be found within a given school of thought (depending on the amount of freedom offered by those in charge), but the more “purely” one subscribes to a group, the less of a need to design original solutions or thought patterns. On one hand, this can be incredibly freeing. The answers, codes, etc. have been thought out by others. The truth has been located. Now all one needs to do is convey that message to those whom have not yet heard and agreed with it. It also gives one a group of people who “have their back.” They know that their views will be supported by a specific conglomerate of people. Yes, they may have “enemies” in other groups, but they know that at the very least, they have some folks in their corner. On the other hand (and this is the sentiment I wish to emphasize), groups with specific ideologies have a difficult time with adherents listening to, speaking with, and integrating ideas from those outside of the group. As soon as an in-group member begins to consider other points of view, that member is at risk of being chastised, ostracized, and shamed. Thus, individual thought risks the fraying of relationships with those in the group. And since biologically speaking, we are social beings who want to be accepted, individual thought is not a safe and enticing option. It literally puts one out on their own, hence why it is called individual thought. Now, of course, one could argue that a group of individual thinkers create a group of their own, but the difference is that thought, ideologies, and beliefs will likely differ between the group members. Since the group utilizes individual thought as its premise, the group can only survive if individual thought is supported and encouraged.
Surround yourself with people who let you speak (and think).
Human beings are incredibly complex. We fuck up often. We say things we don’t mean, and oftentimes, we don’t even know what we believe until we say it. We act out and experiment different viewpoints through speech. We begin to learn if those viewpoints are “true” based on how we feel when and after we say them. “Did it feel true when I said that?” Don’t accept when someone tells you (directly or indirectly) to stop speaking and thinking.
How should we handle conversation with someone with whom we do not fully agree? Should we refuse to speak with them about anything? Should we just refuse to speak about the topics that we disagree on? What if it isn’t even a disagreement, and one of the individuals is still deciding their viewpoint on a topic that the other individual has full certainty on? And what if the fact that the undecided individual doesn’t yet have solid footing is so repulsive to the person who already knows what they believe? How should we handle this? These are incredibly complicated questions. I think they can only be answered on an individual and case by case basis. Each person must determine where their “line” is conversationally, topically, emotionally, etc. It is my sincere hope that more often than not, we can give space for those with whom we disagree with to sort out their thoughts. I believe that if we want to convince someone about our argument or way of thinking, we must understand their argument, their lines of thinking, as well as who and what they are influenced by. If we simply resort to a pre thought out lecture, the other individual may hear, but certainly will not absorb the words we are saying.
Why the Socratic Method is so important…
The Greek philosopher Socrates instructed his students to continue asking question after question. The intention behind this was to illuminate contradictions in individuals’ arguments so that a more precise and well-defined conclusion could be articulated. This can make people extremely angry and emotional, especially if they feel “sure” about their argument, claim a definitive moral high ground, and believe that any asking of a question is simply justifying “the other side or extreme.” Simply put, engaging in the Socratic Method does not make many friends with folks who want their opinions to be impenetrable.
The Socratic Method puts aside a claim to knowledge and invites a sense of curiosity and perhaps empathy. It isn’t interested in winning a battle; it wants to learn. It doesn’t claim to know truth; it wants to collaborate on it. It doesn’t crave homogeneity; it desires to expose contradiction. Life is wildly complicated. The Socratic Method, to me, offers a masterclass in accepting this and engaging the nuance muscle. (Sidenote: Socrates was ultimately sentenced to death through the drinking of hemlock. He was convicted of “moral corruption” and “impiety,” with the proof being evidenced by his asking of political and philosophical questions to his students).
Does any one person or group have a claim on morality?
I am fascinated by arguments on whether or not there is a “Universal morality” to be found and taught. Does religion have a claim to morality? Is morality innate? Is there Truth with a “capital T?” Does morality fall into the domain of politics and policy? Or is morality an individual endeavor? These are crucial questions to ask when figuring out what lines must be drawn conversationally, what topics are fair game, and what types of speech can be disallowed.
Conveyors of information should be questioned.
How do we know which media sources to trust? This is becoming very, very murky territory. Media companies are increasingly incentivized to convey information in a sensationalized manner. Nuance does not garner ratings (although there are some podcasts/YouTube channels that arguably incorporate and utilize nuance to great success). But some of the corporate giant conveyors of information? Seemingly they exist to stimulate emotion, anger and groupthink. This is certainly not an original thought on my part, but I wish to emphasize that these information deliverers must be questioned. When information sources claim to have a stranglehold on truth, while simultaneously conveying opinion, we would be best served to at least raise our eyebrows.
Can a “bad” person do a “good” thing?
Ever heard the phrase “throw the baby out with the bathwater?” This phrase touches on the tendency to discard something valuable in the process of eliminating something unhelpful, or even pernicious. Everyone is endowed with beauty and madness. We must consider if we can allow the “good” someone contributes to remain whilst disavowing their madness. And we also must contemplate if there is ever something so bad as to morally require throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And if the answer is in the affirmative, who makes that decision? What if individuals disagree on what constitutes the necessity to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Can someone listen to a famous musician who may have engaged in child molestation? Can someone read a book about empathy and love if the book is written by someone who is convicted of domestic abuse? Is a good thing no longer good if the person is written off as bad? Is bad more potent than good (in other words, does bad hold more weight than good?)?
Be wary of extremes.
Extremes are very alluring because they appear very confident and assured. There aren’t any questions or uncertainty. They have the answers figured out. That is a very attractive sentiment. Doesn’t one want to be on the side of those who have it all figured out? Doesn’t one want to feel confident and empowered? Wouldn’t one love to have the moral high ground and convey the truth to those who don’t already know? Nuance asks individuals to step into conversational uncertainty. Perhaps after the conversation one determines that an extreme makes sense in a given scenario. However, before making that determination, question said extreme and proceed with caution.
