I See You II: On lenses and conflict

In response to my last post on lenses and rationality I received an excellent follow-up question: Is it more productive to learn how to effectively communicate my lens or to apply others? I began to compose some knee-jerk response tweet, but as my fingers hovered uncomfortably above the keyboard, I realized I had misunderstood the question. What was actually being asked was much more complicated than I had appreciated (a statement repeated so many times on this blog that the fact that I needed to be re-"struck" by it doesn't speak too kindly to my skills of cognition. But I digress).


First, the much easier question I wanted to answer: Should I focus on communicating my own lenses or understanding others'? The short answer is yes. Learning how to effectively explain how we see the world to others must always be balanced with an equally virile commitment to understand how other people see the world. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we can't do one without the other. We can never truly understand our own lenses in a vacuum, rudimentary epistemology dictates that we can only fully understand one thing in relation to that which it is not. Put simply: we need to compare and contrast. Take the idea of what it means to exist? The question is so hard to answer because we don't know of things that don't exist with which to compare existence to. It just is.

Our own lenses can remain equally opaque to us when we don't engage with, and try to understand, people who see the world differently. I still remember the mind blowing experience of discussing my sophomore year paper on evangelical feminism with my roommate. It was the first time I contented with the fact that I my ideas on the role of women would be considered liberal. In fact, it was the first time I realized I even had "views" on the role of women. Until that point, I assumed that I was merely describing the world. It was how everyone I had known saw the world (or at least, they had given me no reason to assume they saw it any other way). As my roommate described what he thought of as the "proper" roles for genders in marriage remember feeling uncomfortably nervous, not only were his ideas foreign, all of a sudden I had to reinterpret half a year of interaction under a completely different paradigm - which resulted in a significantly different person.

That night I was not only introduced to a different way of interpreting faith and the world but surprised at the instinctive revulsion I had to the picture he was painting. I had thought that I was simply describing the world as it was, but my emotional reaction betrayed the fact that behind that observation were deeply held beliefs about what was right and fair, just and true. Painful as that conversation was, it brought into focus values I would never have been able to articulate prior. I was better able to understand who I was, and what I valued, in contrast to someone who didn't. Understanding him was actually a powerful time of understanding me. Put another way, the upper limit of my self-comprehension is my understanding of those least like me.

But, that wasn't the question that was asked. That would be something like: When trying to resolve conflict with someone who sees things differently, do I focus on helping them see things my way or learn to see things their way? This cuts right to the heart of the admission in the last post that while moving us forward in leaps and bounds in regards to empathy, the "lens theory" offers little in actually settling disputes. There must be a winner. And whether we change the debate from the right solution to the right lens, someone's position ends up on top, and someone's doesn't. This question has particular weight because we have radically different ideas, or lenses, about what constitutes a successfully resolved conflict.

I would hazard to suggest that people usually fall into three distinct groups on this issue: for the first, resolved conflict means a state of affairs where the maximum aggregate happiness possible is achieved (I'll call this utilitarian), for others this is a state where the difference in satisfaction between the disparate parties is minimized (which I'll call egalitarian) and for others it is straight up the state where they get as much of what they want as they can (I'll call this individualistic). Depending on your persuasion, the ideal approach to the question: whether to focus on pushing your lens or learning someone else's changes.

For the individualist, there is absolutely no value in trying to learn anyone else's lenses, let alone conforming to them. Getting what you want, what you believe to be right, is in line with your lens - whatever it is - so just go for it, any time spent deviating from this plan is wasted. For the utilitarian, conforming to the lens (and hence will) of your opponent is justified only when it becomes clear that it means more to them than it does to you. Under this lens, conflict becomes little more than about discerning who cares the most about the issue at hand (and how many of them do). Then their lens (and likely position) wins. For the egalitarian, conforming to one another's lenses is always the preferred option. The more similarly we think, the less any final decision can upset one group more than another.

I see alarming dangers with each of these approaches. With the egalitarian approach, lenses can become nothing more than an inconvenience, diversity is shunned in preference for a similarity that doesn't rock the boat. (Note that I am referring specifically to diversity of lenses. Too many groups passionately advocate for diversity and tolerance - of everything except those who do not agree with their definition of tolerance). With the utilitarian approach, who cares the most and who is right are not always in sync. One risks moving debate permanently from the issue at hand and leaving the group hostage to the most emotional/passionate/just the loudest. Additionally, we tend to overestimate how much we care about things, and underestimate how much everyone else does. Reaching consensus on who cares the most is often impossible and at that point, we revert to the tyranny of the majority for every decision. With the individualist approach, its every man for himself - need I say more? Nothing breaks down group cohesion and destroys trust like the idea that the other parties are not interested in what you think or feel. Every man for himself quickly disintegrates into impassable brick walls and guaranteed failure.

So what is the better way? I'm still trying to figure that and would love any feedback if you have answers. I know at least this much, though, a group needs to, from the get go, agree on how to resolve conflict and allow that blueprint - whatever it is - to become the common lens they all use to approach conflict. Any group that doesn't reach explicit consensus on what their definition of successful conflict resolution has delegated all decision making to the individualist. This is simply because, assuming a mixed group (utilitarians, egalitarians and individualists), the individualist always wins because they are the only one who doesn't budge. You know what I mean, the individualist is the guy in your study group who just can't meet before 11pm (so the rest of you shifted your schedules); the girl who can't proof read the group paper and so - doesn't, leaving the group frantically scrambling to make last minute changes 30 minutes before the paper is due; it is the person in the management meeting who is going to run their department in way X leaving the rest of you to decide whether to streamline management under X or have things go haywire; its the boss who quietly listens to your concerns, nodding appropriately, handing you tissue as you shed a tear or two, and then proceeds to do absolutely nothing to change anything. The individualist always wins.

If you are lucky, the group reverts to introductory game theory and you have a prisoner's dilemma with everyone playing the individualist, looking out for #1 so that success is randomly distributed among the members. Usually, though, we aren't lucky. Some people, because of their background, personality, or just how long they've been playing the individualist - are a lot better at this game. Those who are not so...erm "privileged" have varying names for these people, I won't repeat them here. Suffice it to say, the die tend to be loaded, making for a less than stellar game for most.

In conclusion, it as much in my own interest as that of anyone else to understand how other people view the world. And while the jury my still be out on the best way for a group to deal with conflicting lenses in conflict, the worst way is for them not to make any decision on that at all.