If you become upset about something that is said on this site or the blog and/or you strongly disagree with it, that is fine.  It is just a signal to look further and/or resolve - or something to just note and to let go of, if there is no real consequence to someone having a different take on things - whether in the political arena or anywhere in life.   

Either you or the other person is misinformed, which is just something very human.  Or maybe it is just that the same facts from a different point of view look different, as with the blindmen and the elephant. 

The next question is how to deal with that in the most constructive manner, one that produces good rather than heat and friction.  After all, we do not want to exacerbate the problem that holds people and the world back - dealing with issues and problems in a nonrational and/or nonfactbased way that is either ineffectual or harmful. 

Surely, there can be no legitimate argument for being irrational or for basing conclusions on untrue data, wouldn't you agree?    

So, let's agree that we will only deal with the issues in a rational, fact-based manner to obtain a better result/benefit.

And let's agree that the belief that it takes rancor and/or punishment to get what someone wants is just a wrongheaded belief.  Evidence suggests that those do not work. It is a cultural myth and unfortunate training that has that believed by so many. 

The better approach, though it takes more effort than just being reactionary, is to put together the facts and a persuasive argument so that you can educate the other person - or simply leave the disagreement as is, as it is just a difference in opinions and viewpoints that only needs to be resolved if it needs to be resolved (i.e. if solving it will make an actual difference, showing up as a positive result and not just "being right").


Stephen Covey's classic example in his book The Seven Habits Of Highly Effective People illustrates how we can swear we what we see is "right" and that the other person is wrong.    Is it a young lady or an old hag?   See The Meaning Of Perception article.


If we had a corner on the market for correct values, we would be godlike and beyond human.  People simply learn what they learn and they believe that that is what is correct.   

If there is a different value (viewpoint) we see something from then our conclusions aren't "bad" simply because they are different. 

If the conclusions that the other person makes are wrong, we can simply acknowledge that the person lacks sufficient knowledge and that the person isn't "wrong" for a lack of knowledge.   The problem is not the person, but it is the lack of knowledge.  The solution, therefore, is to increase the knowledge. 

At this point in our reasoning, we have a choice.  We will only seek to increase the other's knowledge if it is worth our effort.  In most cases, trying to do that is not very worthwhile - and it may only be out of a need to be right, which is not a real need anyway.   We also try to convince others of what we think in order to control them or the situation in some way.   The wiseperson very, very seldom will seek to exert such control, as there is no purpose unless one is truly benefitted - in this way the wiseperson puts his/her efforts only into those things he/she can control in such a way to get meaningful beneficial results.  


The other person is not "evil" for having a different viewpoint or a lack of knowledge.  We are each human beings, remarkably capable compared to other animals but totally capable of being incorrect.  We can only respect others for doing their best and know that their best at this point is limited by their knowledge.

"I respectfully disagree and this is why..." is the only way to really deal with it.  "Let's see if we can come to some agreement that will better the situation for all of us" is the position to take if one wants to advance things. 

Saying things like it is the fault of that group over there (the Democrats or the Republicans or the Tea Party) is only a juvenile conversation, though politically it could be effective - but I believe, from all my studies and thinking, that it is harmful in the long term, as it creates a greater breech in communication and lowers the openness to dialogue.

Labelling others and attempting to gather support or to pander to a voting public only creates division although it might work politically.  Although a person is still to be respected, a person who makes "those other guys" evil or wrong is simply doing that which has created many incredibly stupid wars.   Calling people Fat Cats is a juvenile immature strategy, even if it is a political strategy that will work.