(This commentary is part of a MinnPost Voices series highlighting “What We Can Do Week“ — an effort to bridge divides and reject political violence. Participating organizations include the Citizens League, Majority in the Middle, the University of Minnesota Center for the Study of Politics and Governance, the Minneapolis Regional Chamber and the St. Paul Area Chamber.)

The burly guy at the weapons locker looked at me like I had six heads. “If you walk out that door unarmed, you’re taking your life into your hands.” 

He may have been right.

We were exiting a bar in the Afghan capital, Kabul. It was 2008, and Taliban insurgents were targeting the Afghan government and their U.S. allies. That included our soldiers but also civilian aid workers like me. 

He had just learned that I didn’t have a side arm. I explained that I worked for a nonprofit, implementing a U.S. government grant, part of the larger reconstruction effort that was supposed to support our Afghan allies. I argued that the security situation in Kabul wasn’t too bad and that — at least in my organization — we didn’t have armed security when we moved around the capital city.

Related: In polarized times some MN Democrats and Republicans find common ground

It felt as though, at some primordial level, our brains were having different reactions to the same information. We were both Americans, both living in a war zone — and both potential targets. Yet, we assessed the risks differently. 

To be sure, those risks were real. I had thought through being abducted by the Taliban. When I traveled outside of Kabul, I tried to dress like a local, to blend in. I carried prescription medications on my person, on the off chance that I could spend years under guard in a windowless room in Patika. 

But in that moment, in my gut, I didn’t feel those risks to be as severe as the guy holstering his pistol experienced them.

Years later, living in a bucolic town on the edge of the Blue Ridge Mountains, I read “Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives and the Biology of Political Differences,” by John R. Alford, John R. Hibbing and Kevin B. Smith, and that exchange at the bar clicked back into focus. These political scientists marshal a mountain of research to argue that left- and right-leaning folks tend to respond differently to certain stimuli. Liberal-leaners are drawn to and animated by newness and variety.

Those who lean conservative are more sensitive to threat. Additional work by numerous scholars has taken these ideas further. MRI scans have demonstrated that liberals and conservatives have different parts of their brains light up while watching the same news clips on polarizing topics.

One could interpret this research as cause for despair, evidence that the left and right are hardwired — and thus doomed — to disagree. 

I think that’s wrong.

Humans evolved to communicate and coordinate in groups. Our use of language, the ability to plan and cooperate — this is what allowed us to climb the food chain. Hunting and gathering in bands of 30, we worked together to make decisions about the dangerous world around us. In order to make better judgments, we needed a variety of perspectives.

We needed members of the group who wanted to go chat with the other band of hunter-gatherers our tribe just bumped into (“Who knows, they might have some cool, new stone tools?”) Our tribe also needed folks pumping the brakes. (“Or, they might murder us.”)

Indeed, “How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion,” by David McRaney, highlights experiments demonstrating how much our problem-solving improves when small groups work together. He argues that groups that were more successful at arguing with and persuading one another ultimately outperformed other groups. As individuals, we’re bad at seeing the flaws in our own arguments, but “the group will be smarter than any one person.” 

Related: Fear of public service isn’t healthy for democracy in Minnesota

This body of work has profound implications for understanding our differences today. We don’t have to worry about saber tooth tiger attacks. But we do need a genuine diversity of opinions to help us navigate a complex world that has both opportunities to experiment and change — but also very real dangers. To flourish as a species, our ancestors that were more oriented toward vigilance needed members of their tribe oriented toward variety; just as today, Minnesotans who lean liberal need to hear and engage with the perspective of those who lean conservative. 

We must hold on to the possibility that the other side may be right. And, even when they’re wrong, the interplay of perspectives, the vital exchange of ideas between left and right, will be indispensable as we all navigate this time of profound technological change, economic uncertainly, and global conflict.

Nathan Stock is the principal at CRD Connect. He helps communities counter political violence.

The post Are we doomed to disagree? Not if we truly value diverse opinions appeared first on MinnPost.

This post was shared from MinnPost.