1) If we don’t have a moral obligation to change strangers, do we have a moral obligation to change ourselves? Our family? Our friends? Or our government?
We don't really stop wanting to achieve consensus, we choose to believe that others agree with us - their disagreement with a particular position or approach is just example of their greater agreement. Do they agree?
2) Is there a way to create internet spaces that help us co-exist, rather than perpetuate needless war?
I think a certain amount of siloing is inevitable and probably good. We need to get from "the world must agree with me" to "my crown understands me, we have enough in common to get along".
3) How much time should we spend on people who don’t agree with us? Is there a method for understanding when the conversation has reached a non-productive point?
It's supposed to teach us, but in truth it merely enrages, as there's often no point of contact between their point of view and ours. For example, my sense of morality is deeply taken up in a rational atheist perspective where death is the end, I have no idea how that would relate to perspectives that would reject that.
4) How can we be more confident in our worldviews, so that we don’t see other people’s differences as a threat to our own unique ideas?
They *are* a threat. They will hurt you, if you do not understand and comply.
5) Can we create techniques, within our subjectivity, of finding common ground with people who come from a very different set of experiences?
Probably. I could probably really use that. My direction of travel is if anything the other way.
1) If we don’t have a moral obligation to change strangers, do we have a moral obligation to change ourselves? Our family? Our friends? Or our government?
We don't really stop wanting to achieve consensus, we choose to believe that others agree with us - their disagreement with a particular position or approach is just example of their greater agreement. Do they agree?
2) Is there a way to create internet spaces that help us co-exist, rather than perpetuate needless war?
I think a certain amount of siloing is inevitable and probably good. We need to get from "the world must agree with me" to "my crown understands me, we have enough in common to get along".
3) How much time should we spend on people who don’t agree with us? Is there a method for understanding when the conversation has reached a non-productive point?
It's supposed to teach us, but in truth it merely enrages, as there's often no point of contact between their point of view and ours. For example, my sense of morality is deeply taken up in a rational atheist perspective where death is the end, I have no idea how that would relate to perspectives that would reject that.
4) How can we be more confident in our worldviews, so that we don’t see other people’s differences as a threat to our own unique ideas?
They *are* a threat. They will hurt you, if you do not understand and comply.
5) Can we create techniques, within our subjectivity, of finding common ground with people who come from a very different set of experiences?
Probably. I could probably really use that. My direction of travel is if anything the other way.