I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how we arrive at our opinions. Not from the point of view of who is wrong but HOW on earth our opinions can be so divergent. I don’t have the answers yet, but I’d like to share a few ideas with you.
Breaking free from the confines of our ‘mental prison’ of limited perspectivesOur individual experiences create invisible walls that both protect and confine us. Within these walls, we develop perspectives that feel unquestionably true because they’re rooted in our lived reality. However, these walls prevent us from truly understanding experiences fundamentally different from our own. Consider some examples of these experiential divides:A man may have deep empathy for his partner during childbirth. Still, he will never truly understand the physical sensation of labour pains or the hormonal shifts that accompany pregnancy and delivery. His opinions about managing pain during childbirth or the emotional impact of the experience remain at best, educated guesses.Similarly, women who have never been socialized in traditionally masculine sports cultures might struggle to fully comprehend the complex social dynamics and visceral thrill many men experience in competitive physical activities. The rush of adrenaline when making a game-winning shot or the specific type of camaraderie developed on the field has a unique quality that can be difficult to translate. Perhaps most consequentially, white individuals in predominantly white societies often form opinions about racial discrimination without having experienced the continuous subtle reminders of difference that people of colour navigate daily. These opinions lack crucial context without experiencing the tension of being followed in a store, the hesitation before speaking up in a meeting, or the mental calculation before calling out injustice. Those who have never experienced sexual assault often form opinions about recovery, reporting, or victim responses that fail to account for the complex psychological trauma involved. The lingering fear, shame, and sense of violation that survivors navigate cannot be fully understood through statistics or second-hand accounts. This experiential gap frequently leads to harmful conjecture about how victims “should” behave or heal. Breaking Free: Alternatives to Conjecture ContainmentI do not believe this is a distant threat. Rather, I think it is a present reality, and it’s time to be concerned and aware of the potential harm our limited perspectives can cause. When we remain unaware of our conjecture containment, dangerous consequences emerge. Our limited perspectives can lead to: Dismissal of valid experiences: “I’ve never experienced that, so it must not be real or important.” This can lead to the marginalization of certain groups and the perpetuation of social inequalities. Misplaced expertise: Confidently speaking on topics we understand only through second-hand information. Policy and decision-making blind spots: Creating systems that work well for people like us while inadvertently disadvantaging others. Conflict and division: When contained groups clash, each side believes its experience-based perspective is the universal truth. And maybe the biggest one we see: High-handedly accusing, calling out, and publicly shaming individuals for actions they may not have taken but are perceived to have done so because they failed to understand or conform to the ‘correct’ POV. Two particularly revealing examples are how people often approach economic inequality and how they approach tackling the results of climate change. Those who have never experienced poverty might view financial struggles as simply a matter of poor choices or lack of effort. Those living in regions already devastated by rising sea levels intensified natural disasters, or shifting agricultural zones experience climate change as an immediate reality. Meanwhile, others in less affected areas view it as a distant or theoretical concern. Without directly experiencing drought-killed crops or a home destroyed by unprecedented flooding, it becomes easier to dismiss the urgency or even reality of climate change, basing opinions on political alignment rather than lived experience. In both examples, the compounding obstacles and systemic barriers that create cycles of poverty or planetary damage are missed, leading to inaccurate and harmful opinions and worse, especially when translated into policy. We CAN expand beyond our experiential limitations. Here are three approaches: Cultivate Deep Curiosity True curiosity goes beyond casual interest. It requires a willingness to question our assumptions and listen without immediately filtering information through our existing worldview. This means asking genuine questions about experiences different from our own and being prepared to hear answers that challenge our perspectives. For example, rather than debating whether racial profiling exists, a curious person might ask: “How has your experience with law enforcement differed from mine, and what factors might explain that difference?” This approach opens doors to understanding rather than reinforcing walls. Practice Radical Empathy and Compassion Compassion—genuinely caring about others’ suffering and wanting to alleviate it—offers a powerful pathway out of conjecture containment. When we approach differences with compassion rather than judgment, we create space for understanding experiences different from our own. This is not just about understanding but about truly caring about the experiences of others. This requires more than sympathy; it demands that we temporarily suspend our narrative to engage with another’s reality fully. A compassionate approach might be: “While I haven’t experienced this, I recognize it’s real for you, and your well-being matters to me.” The parent who has never experienced bullying but sits with their child’s pain, the colleague who acknowledges workplace barriers they’ve never faced, and the citizen who supports accessible spaces without personally needing them all demonstrate how compassion expands our capacity to understand beyond our experience. Intentionally Diversify Input Sources We can consciously seek out voices and perspectives from different experiences. This means diversifying the demographic characteristics of those we learn from and actively seeking contrasting viewpoints. Reading books by authors from different backgrounds, engaging with varied news sources, participating in community events outside our usual circles, and actively seeking out diverse voices on social media platforms all contribute to expanding the foundation of our opinions beyond our personal experience. The Ongoing Journey of Breaking Free It is not a one-time achievement but a continuous practice. It isn’t always easy, and it is never a straight line. Even with our best efforts, we will always have blind spots. And yet, I think the journey is worth it—if simply for the realization that we humans are more alike than different, have more in common than we believe, and, in the main, are keen to leave a better world for our kids and grandchildren. Acknowledging the walls of our experiential prison is the first step toward a more nuanced understanding of our complex world—one that incorporates our own truth and the multifaceted reality of our shared humanity. |