People have different ideas, so when people interact with each other there will naturally be times when their ideas are not the same as the people they are interacting with.
If these ideas do not affect other people then generally this should not cause issues. When irrelevant ideas are the cause of issues, these issues are likely unjustified.
If the ideas instead are relevant to other people, then there is an issue that the parties need to resolve. There are various ways to resolve issues, which can be categorized into levels of escalation.
The first level is the most logical, reasonable, and effective method for resolution. This method is discussion, in which the parties explain why they have the ideas and beliefs they have and attempt to justify them. This method can often be long, tedious, and difficult, but is most always worth it. Most people are able to understand each other if explained to in the way they think. A reasonable person will doubt their beliefs if they are presented with counter evidence. This is the purpose of discussions, not to prove that you are correct, but to determine what is correct. Discussions therefore are not competitions and cannot be won, they do not use strategies to win, trick, confuse, or mislead others. Discussions should never use fallacies, as this leads people away from the truth instead of towards it. The purpose of a discussion is for all parties to explain their own reasoning to see if they were misinformed or made a mistake, and if so to then correct it to determine what is true.
Often people think that because it is difficult to explain something to someone else that it is impossible. The only way that I can see for it to be possible for someone to understand something is if they refuse any new ideas, or are cognitively or mentally incapable of understanding. If someone has the faculties and reasoning required to know something, then the person explaining must try their best to explain it in a way the person listening can understand, and the listener must try their best to understand the person explaining it.
Another issue is when a person A believes themselves to be correct while another person B disagrees, they might think that the other person is close minded for disagreeing, even if they disagree despite being shown evidence. In this situation there are two possibilities:
1. Person A is close minded for not doubting their idea as being possibly incorrect, and judges person B as being close minded for not accepting a supposedly correct idea.
Person B might in fact be close minded in this case, but person A has not correctly determined this and instead assumed it.
2. Person A is impatient or rushes to judgement by assuming that person B refuses to or is incapable of understanding their reasoning.
Alternatively, person A might correctly determine through rigourous testing that person B is incapable or processing or understanding the information.
At the same time, two parties in a discussion can be both person A and person B at the same time if they both think these things about the other.
Both parties in a discussion should be able to explain their points of view and question the other’s points of view and provide counter arguments without being labelled as close minded. However this also requires that both parties doubt their own arguments are open to the other’s explanations and ideas, and to themselves being wrong.
A second method of discussion could use external experiences, information, or activities to indirectly explain an idea to someone. When the party agrees to do this, it is a justified way of indirectly discussion and resolving issues.
When people are not open minded or do not discuss for whatever reason, the alternatives are to avoid resolution or force their opinion on the other party.
Forcing one’s opinion on someone else generally is done by forcing the other person to see, experience, or do something which will prove their point. This is a viable method if the person will not understand otherwise, however this must only be done if the party is certain that no other alternative is preferable and that leaving the issue unresolved is worse. The reason this alternative should be avoided is because without certainty that the person needs to be forced to learn something, this method could arrogantly assume that their idea is correct, and certainly infringes on the rights of the party being forced by limiting their freedom for something they do not want.
When you force others to learn something that you believe they should know, or worse, to believe what you believe, you are denying them and disrespecting their freedom, and forcefully making them comply with what you believe. If you’re not certain that what you believe is correct, and that the person will for sure be better off by being forced to learn or believe this, then you are being arrogant and disrespectful.
This same logic applies to an even worse form of resolution, when someone physically forces someone else to comply, learn, or believe something. While physical force may sometimes be necessary, as before it should only be done either when you are sure the person will benefit from it, or when it will have a better outcome for a group of people. This relates to a person being dangerous, perhaps out of a lack of information or having a different moral code than yours, or not having one at all. If such a person cannot be reasoned with, then for the safety of others and for their own sake, it might be necessary to force them to reconsider what they are doing, especially if there is a risk for others or themselves by not doing so. As before, certainty is needed before doing this, or risk assessment if certainty is not possible or viable.
Fighting and Unresolved Problems
When two people who disagree do not attempt to resolve the disagreement, they might instead try to suppress the other, allowing their own view or idea to be the only option and remain unchallenged. Fighting does not resolve issues, at least not entirely. While fighting may resolve a practical issue such as stopping someone from hurting people, it does not resolve the root cause of the problem. That person would still believe that he should hurt people even if you prevent him from doing so until he can be reasoned with or realises he is wrong. The cause of the problem, the disagreement between the two parties is not resolved by fighting.
Fighting merely suppresses the problem from being seen, and creates a new problem: the two parties are now a threat to each other. Instead of resolving the root problem, fighting creates a new problem for the parties to focus on: there is now a fight that has to be won. When one party starts to fight to suppress the other party’s ideas, it forces the other party to fight back or be suppressed. Suppression or force cause a new problem, fighting, which by it’s nature solves itself and diverts attention away from the original problem. In this way, fighting is something of a straw man self fulfilling argument. This is why fighting is irrational, it’s simply a way to forget about the original problem by creating a new problem which will solve itself.
There are however certain discussions that cannot, at least with our current knowledge, be resolved. In these cases, the parties may fight not to avoid the problem or force their ideas on the other party, but because they see no other viable option. An example is when an animal tries to kill another animal to eat. While both parties want to survive, one party’s survival depends on the other to not survive, and there is no known resolution to this problem as one side will always lose. These are perhaps the worst kinds of problems, but simply because a resolution is not known does not mean that it does not exist, everyone should strive to solve all the problems we have, for their own and for other’s sakes, in order to build a self sustaining future with as few problems as possible