As a child, my mother always cautioned me against “discussing religion or politics in polite company.”  I suppose raising those topics in impolite company was acceptable.  In other words, by polite company, she meant to avoid potential discord with people I did not know well, as they may hold different views than mine.  For a time, I followed her rules, but once I grew older — and supposingly “wiser,” I took on all comers, which did not always turn out too well.  Mom was right!.

My mother’s cautionary advice is even more relevant today.  A generation ago, an average American citizen’s views used to be somewhere near the center, either center left or center right, with sufficient overlap to permit reasonable discussion and meaningful compromise on contentious issues. Today, that center is gone.   Many folks hold fast to their positions and refuse to discuss or even consider variant views.  When one side disagrees with the other side, arguments and fights irrupt, marriages fail and friendships dissolve.  No political or religious issue can be raised, unless the people involved have similar, or at least tolerant views.  It’s an all or nothing environment.  What a shame!

An American journalist, Robert Quillen (1887—1948) approached these verboten topics in a much different way:

— “Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument, an exchange of ignorance.” 

Polarized people display a lot of ignorance today, when they should be able to take a few deep breaths, and calmly discuss a potentially volatile issue, so they may better understand the alternative view.  When each side explains their view calmly, then each may accept some valid points to the other side’s view, and vice versa, reaching a place that achieves acceptance of some and rejection of others, with both sides ultimately walking away with more knowledge of the issue than before coming into the discussion.

The internet and social media platforms build groups who think alike, or else the group “unfriends” anyone who thinks differently.  So participation in “group think”  becomes more important  to individuals than seeking knowledge about another group’s views.  If you do not understand why someone thinks as they do, you gain knowledge by listening, even if you disagree.