December 5th, 2016

Controversial opinions competing to be shouted the loudest, an emphasis on proving others wrong, and attempts at delivering the ultimate telling-off seem to dominate public discourse these days. You only need to check twitter—or read the news reports on the latest, most controversial tweets—to see what I mean. Divisions loom everywhere. What most of us seem to forget is that disagreement is not the real issue. It is a profound failure to do so respectfully and a lack of willingness to learn from disagreement that creates a far more severe problem.

We need opposing voices to keep ourselves in check, to make us question our own opinions and see the merits of other ideas. Without disagreement we fall into the trap of believing our opinions are the only right ones, or that we’ve thought things through far more than we actually have. When we callously dismiss dissenting views as misinformed or too extreme to be worth considering objectively, we harm ourselves. Even the most ridiculous claims or horrid statements can often be useful in this regard. Extreme ideas define the boundaries of our conversations and keep us wary of moving too far too quickly. They serve as checks and balances on each other. We need outlandish voices we don't agree with to keep us consistent in our own opinions. When we cry foul and denounce those with whom we disagree, we alienate and divide further. When we respectfully and humbly acknowledge whatever truth others may impart while stating we disagree with the rest of their statements, everyone benefits.

With regards to cancer care, I’ve seen two extremes that would do well to listen to one another. On one side, some people argue that only modern medicine can have any effect on cancer; diet and environmental factors aren’t worth considering when planning treatment options. Standing opposed to that idea is the crowd that rejects modern medicine in favor of natural, holistic cures. Both of those views are, in my opinion, too extreme. As such they can both learn from each other. The people who swear by their turmeric-infused smoothies and those who trust only what is empirically proven would do well to acknowledge whatever wisdom the other side offers.

In the middle are people like me. I recognize that only with modern medicine am I even alive today, but I also try to limit my consumption of processed foods like refined sugars and corn syrups. There may as yet be no real scientific evidence that they’re harmful, but it also stands to reason that eating more real and natural foods—that is, eating a diet that resembles what the human body is designed to process—can’t hurt.

Yes, sometimes opposing viewpoints are devoid of any redeeming quality. Sometimes, and increasingly it seems, people form their opinions from blind prejudice or blatant misinformation, and that is a real and insidious threat to constructive conversation. If we aren't dealing with the same reality and the same basic facts, we can't hope to build anything together; we're starting from two very different foundations using incompatible blueprints. Sometimes there really is no point humbling ourselves and considering what we might learn about our own opinions when we consider someone else’s. But that occurs far less often than anyone, myself included, likes to admit.