Why Bother Listening to Opinions You Disagree With?

[ADAMOLOGY]

that's one of my professors LOL San Francisco State!!!

[givebirthathome]

Its interesting that so many of the comments reflect people arguing with what Needleman didn't say.

[studentofsmith]

2:00 This would be a good way to avoid the straw man fallacy.

[BoStevoD]

Compromise is the womb within which a peaceful and progressive society can gestate. But there are times when it would undermine integrity and amount to cooperating with evil. How do we distinguish between when a Faustian bargain and when we are simply striving for tolerance of alternative lifestyles and positions? Is it okay to bargain with the devil in the name of peace? When we refuse to compromise on moral grounds, are we imposing our values? It all depends on the situation.

[BoStevoD]

So how we should deal with irreducible difference is open an objective space within our psyche wherein understanding can flourish between the two parties? Nonsense. Imagine settling class differences that way. Imagine the Revolutionary War being settled over tea and scones. For some reason, I don't think the Americans would have managed such radical breaks from tradition had they wasted their efforts on talking out their differences. Sometimes morality calls on us to fight for what is right.

[givebirthathome]

@BoStevoD But first be sure you know what your opponents point of view is, and why they believe it, because you have striven to understand. That will avoid needless conflict, and help you win necessary conflict.

[Da0YiN]

@BoStevoD

it was settled over tea and scones!!!

[debranov]

@BoStevoD fighting for what's right is usually on the minds of confliciting sides

[bettysman]

@BoStevoD

Don't you think that if Needleman's description of this actually ancient idea of how to reduce suffering in the world had been PRACTICED long before the Revolutionary War, that there would have been no need for it? That is the key, for me. It has to become a "way of life", and not just a tool to pick up when we have made a hopeless mess out of things by practicing bad habits otherwise. Of course you are correct that jumping into a hopelessly desperate situation like colonial -

[bettysman]

@BoStevoD

(continuing from above) - America with such a new way of human interaction would have been unsuccessful.

[bettysman]

@BoStevoD

OOPS! I meant to say below, "(continuing from below)"

[jizzfish]

I always watch this video whenever I feel like I'm starting to get big headed, it's really helped me understand some of the seemingly insane views out there.

[FAILocracy]

I just went to this page because I wanted to comment that I am against listening to opinions with which I disagree, and, for that reason, I will not watch this video. :P

[jizzfish]

@FAILocracy

just like religious fundamentalists

just like brainwahsed members of totalitarianism regimes

just like child rapists who think that god approves of their actions

just like people who think that the universe revolves around the earth

just like people who thought the earth was flat

I wish I could be a wise as you, as confident in my unfaltering understanding of all things as you. Alas, I don't know everything because I'm a human being who's reality is based on social constructs. 

[FAILocracy]

@jizzfish Okay, are you joking? Because I was, but I made sure to note it by including the ":P" emoticon.

[jizzfish]

@FAILocracy

I come across so many comments on a daily basis that just ooze ignorance, the kind of ignorance that makes your head hurt... I grow a hard spiky shell towards comments like that, sorry I didn't notice.

maybe I'm a little sensitive today, it's the second time it's happened in the space of about an hour...

[Mu5clehead]

@jizzfish and whose reality is based on empirical constructs

[Professoranton]

This is wonderful

[alainpiniero]

I understand morality as something subjective, since what is moral in one culture is not in another. From that view I would say that listening is a critical part of human relations harmony. Thanks

[JLeo777]

And objective morality exist, alain, however it's real possibility is not with much self work. Until then, one has to move by something, which is the same in everyone. That being conscience. Conscience can lead to a objective reality. Remorse of conscience is not subjective. It is felt everywhere the same.

What needleman is opening up is a form of empathy. To suspend oneself, in order to draw in, as much as possible, anothers perspective. Then no longer you and you, but them and you

[stopyerwhinin]

What pie in the sky dribble. Works in the world of academia but someone has to grow the 'taters and pump the gas.

[hybridamerica]

True morality is revealed not in the listening - but in the action taken by what is heard.

[mcnowski]

Listening is an action. If we dont trully quiet our minds and listen to another person, all we will hear is our own predujice, and the persons true message will not get thru.

[patri08luz]

Por favor, subtitulenlo en español, quien pueda, SOS!!!!!!Gracias.

[Kurtlane]

He's not talking about a formal debate, but something much more profound.

It all would work just fine if people were honest and really wanted to diminish their egos. But most people are just egos in human form, and others are just walking opinions in human form. Their goal is to push their view on the opponent and to destroy him while coming out intact themselves. They will not follow what Jacob Needleman proposes, because they don't want to. Period.

[givebirthathome]

We can be prudent about choosing our battles and at the same time benefit by challenging ourselves to really listen... no matter how many people choose not to.

[givebirthathome]

Great idea, that is also brought out by psychologist Eugene Gendlin. But it needs a prettier, peppier presentation.

[givebirthathome]

Marshall Rosenberg's Compassionate Communication movement is not quite the same thing as this, but it is also about staying open to discover the other person's relationship with their idea.

[mollynolan1]

Jacob I listened intently to what you were saying in this clip and found it most interesting. I would love you to say something more about the blocks to listening. Listening is such an essential part of effective communication.

[Israe5l]

I stopped this video in the middle and wrote this. I am not sure about "fairness". Fairness exist before the discussion. We expect fairness. So, we are really not opened for something else.Perhaps stress. We may verbally come to agreement; but we may distorted language use. Perhaps physical reaction, often called violence.

[endoh666]

I think Needleman's speech on achieving "personal morality" is easier to associate with every-day arguments where finding a middle ground is desirable. In a debate, however much I wish it weren't so, the participants need to be firmly set on their opinions and should be passionate when talking about it.

A debate is not a disagreement, nor a place to find compromise; it's a specified discussion between two factions where the audience can listen to both sides and determine their own stand point.

[pdxmanwilsonville]

aim? first note of an octave that leads to perhaps another kind of action? Jacob Needleman is steeped in Gurdjieff nomenclature to such a point you couldn't pry his idnetification with it and opinons with a 2nd conscious shock crow bar.Mindfulness and Presence..consider it with out the mechanical formatory nomenclature of the 4th way..Take it easy and get some rest Professor Needlemen and thank you for trying.Even though our aim is good we sometimes miss the mark ;-)

[aikigenius]

interesting comments ..truth without morality for instance.. im not sure about respecting your fellow man stuff.. respect is an attitude toward superiors its profoundly unequal..

arm in arm suggests friendliness..good sportsmanship that kind of thing.. tho i guess if you both equal the other in debating skills..in carefully articulating the other sides position then yes there's respect there..no?

[cablesapo]

Thats not true. He's old and is probably high on crack.

[cooler393]

Beautiful.

But, let's not forget the purpose of debate. This sort of passivity can diminish the spirit of debate, which is to arrive at truth, or at least, a higher truth than was present before the debate began. The whole purpose of argumentation can be lost when both sides are just aiming to leave "arm in arm."

Debate passionately. The trick is finding the balance between pure passion, and pure debate.

[bettysman]

@cooler393

ONCE ARM IN ARM, two people are deeply concerned about each others purposes and only then can a true resolution in truth be attained. Otherwise we get what we see for example in Israel/Palestine - hopeless, bloody, interminable conflict. THAT is what you get without a "meeting of minds". That is what you get with "debate", the etymology of which has more to do with quarreling and fighting than solving a problem.

[YadaYadaguy]

This person has a profound understanding of Respecting your fellow man. To know he is teaching others makes me breath a little lighter more of this way of thinking being taught world around we could have world peace.

[givebirthathome]

Just the way I feel.

[BingoTheClowno666]

wow - that video really made me think. If you enter an argument to win, there is no way you can really understand what the other side is saying.

[skatebawd]

thats not true

[italianchappy]

Great passage. This should be true even culturally. It seems to me there many matters, positions, ideas, that in our free societies cannot be listened to. They are taboo. Forbidden. Obviously not on the net, but in the media, and in society.

[jonesjamie]

Around 20 I took a break from collage and spent a year recovering from burnout. I did a lot of "debateing" over the internet. I eventually started doing exactly what this guy is talking about and developed a deep distaste for "academic debate" I.E trying to win an argument. I perfer negotiateing through a differences.