Why it can be easy to talk with someone who has very different beliefs than you do

In these divisive times marked by so much animosity between people who believe in radically different things, whether these be in a religious, political, or some other "hot button" area, it was refreshing for me to read a book with a core message that deeply resonated with me. 

Namely, that it can be easier to share ideas with someone on the opposite side of a dualistic spectrum -- liberal vs. conservative in the realm of politics, believer vs. atheist in the realm of religion -- than to converse with someone who believes very much as you do.

Tim Urban explains why in his book, What's Our Problem? A Self-Help Book for Societies. I've written several posts about this book, which I found highly creative and engaging.

One of Urban's core concepts is the difference between horizontal and vertical approaches to investigating or discussing any controversial subject. He focuses on politics, but since I'm writing on a churchless blog, I'll use as an example the question, Does a supernatural realm exist?

Normally most of us think that addressing this question gets us into the sphere of religiosity. On one side there's people who have a strong belief in God, heaven, angels, and other supernatural entities. On the other side there's people who lack that belief, considering that this physical world is all there is.

This is the horizontal aspect of the question, similar to the left vs. right divide in politics. But Urban points out that there's a vertical aspect to the question: the manner by which the question of whether a supernatural realm exists is investigated and discussed. 

He calls this Higher Mind vs. Lower Mind. So if the horizontal axis of the question is Atheist vs. Believer, the vertical axis is Higher Mind vs. Lower Mind. This results in four possibilities: Higher Mind Atheist, Lower Mind Atheist, Higher Mind Believer, Lower Mind Believer.

Someone operating from their Higher Mind (we all have both, a Higher Mind and Lower Mind) on this question will be open-minded, respectful of differing views, eager to use reason and evidence, willing to admit uncertainty, dedicated to finding truth even if it undermines their current viewpoint.

Someone operating from their Lower Mind on this question will be closed-minded, dismissive of opposing views, reluctant to use reason and evidence, unwilling to admit they could be wrong, firmly committed to their current viewpoint even if the truth points in a different direction.

So two Higher Mind people likely would have a pleasant productive discussion about whether a supernatural realm exists even if they disagree about the answer to that question, because they share an outlook that allows for the possibility of learning more about the question through an open exchange of views where each person recognizes that while they currently lean one way or the other on the supernatural question, they could be convinced otherwise through reason, evidence, and other Higher Mind methods. 

Conversely, two Lower Mind people could get into an intense argument about the existence of a supernatural realm even if both of them have much the same perspective on this question, because they differ on exactly what that realm consists of and how it can be accessed, and they lack the capacity to discuss these issues in an open-minded, respectful fashion. 

Urban argues persuasively in his book that what ails not only American society, but societies all around the world, isn't really political, religious, and other sorts of disagreements. It's the increasing spread of Lower Mind viewpoints that prevent productive discussions of those disagreements.

Sure, we humans have always faced a choice between using our Higher Mind or Lower Mind in our interactions with other people. However, it does seem that Urban is correct in warning that various forces are driving us in the direction of Lower Mind interactions, which makes it much more difficult to find common ground on important societal issues.

Higher Mind people may disagree with each other, but at least they will understand each other. And from that foundation of understanding, agreement about what to do about a societal problem or question may eventually arise. Lower Mind'ness just leaves us stuck in our opposite corners.

Comments

[um]

Now you bring up Higher and lower mind, for a moment consider in society when higher mind people make lower mind people live up to their ideals of humanity.

Where the higher mind "exotic" humans are invited to the circles of the local higher minds to enrich their mental world, ..... what happens to the lower mind exotics and locals, when they are "forced" to live up the example of the higher minds you can see all over the world in the slums.

In our country the higher minds from the left and the right are fighting with one another ... those of the right wants the immigrants to be send home and those of the left, speak about lofty ideals of humanity and look down upon the nationalist and populist state of mind of those of the right

BUT

In the neighborhoods where the well to do LEFTIST idealists are living, there is NONE of these exotic humans to be found if they are of lower mind.

You see those of higher mind do not have that fundamental need to flee their country to make a living elsewhere ..they are poor, badly educated etc etc etc and you want them to live in peace and behave in your own country asl well educated etc people

Hahahaha

[Appreciative Reader]

"Someone operating from their Higher Mind (we all have both, a Higher Mind and Lower Mind) on this question will be open-minded, respectful of differing views, eager to use reason and evidence, willing to admit uncertainty, dedicated to finding truth even if it undermines their current viewpoint.

Someone operating from their Lower Mind on this question will be closed-minded, dismissive of opposing views, reluctant to use reason and evidence, unwilling to admit they could be wrong, firmly committed to their current viewpoint even if the truth points in a different direction.

So two Higher Mind people likely would have a pleasant productive discussion about whether a supernatural realm exists even if they disagree about the answer to that question, because they share an outlook that allows for the possibility of learning more about the question through an open exchange of views where each person recognizes that while they currently lean one way or the other on the supernatural question, they could be convinced otherwise through reason, evidence, and other Higher Mind methods.

Conversely, two Lower Mind people could get into an intense argument about the existence of a supernatural realm even if both of them have much the same perspective on this question, because they differ on exactly what that realm consists of and how it can be accessed, and they lack the capacity to discuss these issues in an open-minded, respectful fashion.

Urban argues persuasively in his book that what ails not only American society, but societies all around the world, isn't really political, religious, and other sorts of disagreements. It's the increasing spread of Lower Mind viewpoints that prevent productive discussions of those disagreements."

--------------------

I've quoted at some length from your post here, despite these paragraphs being available right there above, in order to highlight this. Absolutely, this sums up much of what is wrong with the world today.

Differences per se, whether political or spiritual or ideological or any other, should not and indeed will not be cause for animosity or discourtesy or any of these negative things when the people discussing them are fundamentally sincere, and rational, and respectful of others. As Urban says, and as you say, the Higher Mind thing.

In such a scenario, differences are a thing to be celebrated, not reviled. Differences in opinions and views actually enliven up a discussion, that might otherwise end up becoming a boring echo chamber. Indeed, it is through differences that we learn --- well, not through differences per se, but through the amicable reasoned rational examination of differences. Differences, and examination of such, can actually be fodder for growth in understanding, rather than what we're seeing in much of the world today.

Agreed 100%, that what's wrong with so much of the world today --- most dramatically the US, given its preponderance in world affairs, but by no means limited to the US alone --- is not so much differences in views, as a proliferation of what Urban describes as Lower Mind thinking.

[October]

IMO
There are 7 levels of Mind. Not just lower and higher.
From which level you are operating depends upon spiritual wealth one has accrued.
After 7 levels only real bliss kicks in.

[Ron E.]

“Sure, we humans have always faced a choice between using our Higher Mind or Lower Mind in our interactions with other people. However, it does seem that Urban is correct in warning that various forces are driving us in the direction of Lower Mind interactions, which makes it much more difficult to find common ground on important societal issues.”

****

Below is a case of lower mind thinking: -

‘A recent case that fourteen members of the religious group “The Saints” were guilty of the manslaughter of eight-year-old Elizabeth Struhs who died of a preventable disease Two were acquitted of murder– her parents among them – were alleged to have prayed and sang, instead of giving her insulin and vital medical care.’

The doctor writes that medical doctors and scientists now face a barrage of anti-science, anti-medicine narratives, and it feels like we are losing the battle. I feel sick that a little girl could be abused in this way, under the guise of God’s “healing” powers.

How do you deal with lower mind thinking like this? The doctor says that she spends much of her time on community outreach dealing with people who abandon good, preventable treatment that have been influenced by mis-information.

I think Urban is correct but it must be nigh-on impossible to reason with lower mind viewpoints – and I guess that most of us would say that we use higher mind even if we are expounding ridiculous ideas and viewpoints.

Perhaps the trouble is that with all such thinking, (whether higher or lower mind thinking) is that all our beliefs, thoughts and opinions are intricately bound up with our sense of self and to question them or even entertain to ourselves that they are mis-guided, can feel like our very lives are threatened. In fact, for some, they would sacrifice themselves (or their children) for their beliefs.

Yes, Urban is right but I feel at the moment it is purely academic. We humans have always had our particular political, religious and cultural beliefs, today exacerbated by the ease of information (and markedly, mis-information) but I believe our innate drive for ‘self’ preservation will continue to keep the ‘lower mind’ active and thriving.

[sant64]

Or you can just stop calling people who disagree with you "cult members," "authoritarian fascists," "neo nazis," "bigots," etc. You've used these terms time and again to pejoratively categorize everyone on the other side of the political aisle from you.

You do this little dance of spewing such invective and then follow it up, as you do here, with an essay salted with pop psychology, arguing that you're quite an even-minded and tolerant person and your tiny readership should comport themselves likewise,

[Brian Hines]

sant64, maybe you've noted that I'm pleased to publish your comments disagreeing with me on this blog. That shows how open-minded and respectful of differing opinions I am. I'm SO much better in this regard than your Dear Leader, Trump, who fires people who speak the truth to him.

When I call avid Trump supporters, and Trump himself, bigots, cult members, and the like, I'm just speaking the truth as I see it. You can speak your own truth. That's how Higher Mind works. It doesn't mean censoring speech. It means honest open speech, which I'e always supported on my blogs.

The only time I may unpublish a comment is when it spreads obviously false information. You've done this from time to time, as have deniers of global warming and anti-vaccine fanatics who wrongly claim that vaccines aren't effective.

Anyway, thanks for speaking your mind. I'm glad you find this blog so appealing that you return to it frequently. Your support is much appreciated.

[Jim Sutherland]

FWEITW,…..I think RSSB is the main glue that draws readers to this blog.

If RSSB News or discussions about it, completely dried up, ……I don’t think LIBERAL readers would be retained here, just to keep hating on Trump and his followers.

why else would readers ,not some how connected with RSSB ,or with some one they know, who are, now, or in the past, CONTINUE to be retained here, to this obscure forum, just to practice their psychology rants on Brian?

Other than reading Brian’s interesting stories regarding his past with RSSB, over the years, and his sharing the most detailed GSD developments and news over the years, which has been the only place to find such detailed information, like it or not, is what has kept me returning here, and no doubt most of the others who keep returning here, to either share some thing they think might be of value to others, or to snipe at those who do share.

Other than RSSB interests, my other interests have been, and still are, 180 degrees opposite of Brian’s.

But with that said, I think Brian is a fair Moderator, and I appreciate his generous contribution of providing this platform to readers, to hopefully, either witness the Revival of RSSB Spirituality under the new Leadership of JSG,…or, it’s continued demise of growth in the West as it has been, under GSD.

[sant64]

Wow!! What a GREAT month this January was!

As the president is fond of saying, it feels good to win. But who in their wildest expected THIS much winning??

America is finally back!