So, I guess you only want to talk to people who agree with you

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. I think that people only talking to people who agree with them is incredibly harmful.

For two reasons:

1)If you don't talk to people who disagree with you about an issue, you almost certainly have no understanding of it.
2)If you don't talk to people who disagree with you about an issue, neither do they.


If you don't aspire to have any understanding of an issue, or to influence others on it, it's fine to only talk to people who agree with you.

But if you have any desire to actually grasp any thorny political issue, you can *only* do so by not merely talking to people who disagree with you, but by *trying to convince them that you're right and they're wrong, and paying attention to why they disagree*.

Also, it's simple mathematics that if people who hold position A aren't talking to people who hold position B then people who hold position B must not be talking to people who hold position A, and so there's no chance to change anyone's mind.

We hear a lot about how great the internet has been for politics, and how it makes it easier to be informed and to organise. There's an element of truth to that, but the flip side is that it's meant that people spend far less time talking to people who disagree with them. I suspect it's a significant contributing factor to the polarisation of American politics.


I go to the opposite extreme - I pretty much only ever both posting in response to something I disagree with. Thus at least some of my prejudices are regularly challenged, my wits are kept sharp, and there's a (slim) chance that someone might learn something.