Heh, I'm wrong about X quite frequently... and I rely on my sane intelligent friends to point that out to me. But yes, I take the lazy labelling route with people I don't know, although they have to be quite consistent with their idiocies for me to feel that way (ie. not just topic X, but Y, Z and ABC as well). It's a bad habit, which I'm slowly eroding. Slowly.
Strong opinions that are different to mine are absolutely fine. For example, the interchange we've just had on the LMB list is in the category of "relevant and interesting perspective", and is totally consistent with what I know of you already. It certainly didn't spark this train of thought, but it was an interesting contrast.
I've just had a couple of instances lately where I've encountered some ideologies that weren't consistent with my view of someone... but I think in that instance I lack the history behind them. And that, as you point out, is often just as important as the objective facts and logic that we present.
So, I think my thing is to learn to ask "why do you think that?" without it sounding like an accusation or an attack on someone's closely-held-yet-not-impinging-on-me beliefs.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-04 09:58 am (UTC)Strong opinions that are different to mine are absolutely fine. For example, the interchange we've just had on the LMB list is in the category of "relevant and interesting perspective", and is totally consistent with what I know of you already. It certainly didn't spark this train of thought, but it was an interesting contrast.
I've just had a couple of instances lately where I've encountered some ideologies that weren't consistent with my view of someone... but I think in that instance I lack the history behind them. And that, as you point out, is often just as important as the objective facts and logic that we present.
So, I think my thing is to learn to ask "why do you think that?" without it sounding like an accusation or an attack on someone's closely-held-yet-not-impinging-on-me beliefs.