He who listens more and talks less, learns more, gains more insights, and thus likely improves his perspectives on things. This we know by rote. But do we actually follow this sagacious advice? In my case, I try always to force myself to take this route especially when I intend to articulate and advocate certain positions publicly. For the sake of fairness and prudence I believe I can try to do no less. Though at times I falter, still I rise and resolve to do better next time.
With that aside, one of the critical insights I take is that as expected and as taught to us, our levels of understanding to a great extent determine our grasp and resolution of issues. The higher the level, the more astute the understanding. We can assume that knowledge and comprehension are two big factors in determining that level. And they are.
And there are other cognitive factors like:
Application: Use a
concept in a new situation
Analysis
Synthesis
Evaluation
But I for one cannot square this with some real life situations. All things being equal, there will be times when two apparent peas of the same pod still have diverse or divergent perception of certain issues. And it is during such times when we wonder why so. How could somebody else so close in nature and nurture still have very divergent views from yourself? Like members of your own family or circle of close friends?
I then venture this rationalization. If the initial factor of knowledge is scant or insufficient, or false, then the other factors mentioned will necessarily be suspect and defective. Thus true and sufficient knowledge is so critical for us to be able to make informed decisions or conclusions about things and events.
Missing that means positions are bound to be not reasonable and logical.
This is happening with regularity in our society, in politics, and even in family matters.
And it is a sad commentary, for it brings unnecessary and uncalled-for division and enmity amongst people.