Compromise has a lot of great uses, but compromising for its own sake (so people don’t get mad at you) is also not a virtue.
Sometimes I go to Youtube to listen to music and watch music videos, and sometimes I click on related videos, some of which are all about personal opinions, including opinions on rather controversial topics such as abortion, virginity, homosexuality, and the like. I never comment on those vloggers’ videos, though. They are allowed to share their opinions, if they wish. However, if I feel like that the opinion goes too far to the point that it is hurtful (as in denigrating homosexuals rather than focusing on same-sex marriage), then I would click “dislike”, flag it, and move on. I refrain from commenting and starting comment wars.
In real life, I do not talk about such topics. I remember the time when I talked with my Environmental History professor (I took the class because it could fulfill an Arts & Humanities requirement for the general education curriculum, even though I am not a Humanities major at all) about hippies. The professor said that he was from San Francisco and said that the hippie population was not great and declined even in San Francisco. I did a quick search, and somehow Wikipedia showed up. I was a bit wary of the information on Wikipedia, because anybody could edit it, even though the information about San Francisco was easily accessible. It was about how San Francisco was “After the war, the confluence of returning servicemen, massive immigration, liberalizing attitudes, and other factors (Vietnam) led to the Summer of Love and the gay rights movement, cementing San Francisco as a center of liberal activism in the United States.” I ignored the “gay rights movement” and concentrated on the hippies, because for some reason I had a strange mental feeling to associate hippies with treehuggers and environmentalism. So, when I shared the results with the professor, he said that “it is interesting” and that I should write a paper about this sometime. 
Waaaay back when I hosted in a chat room on AOL, I used to tell the members: “Okay, I don’t allow any discussion of religion, namely Mac vs PC.”
~VOW
So you ignored a rather significant fact about the cultural history of San Francisco in order to focus solely on the facts that conformed to your preconceived stereotype?
Not. Good. Science.
What I meant was, I did not want to bring up the topic of gay rights before the professor. I did want to discuss the topic of gay rights and homosexuality with the professor, because I knew that it was a touchy issue, and I did not know how the professor would respond to that. If I knew that the professor had a liberal opinion on gay rights, then yes, I can talk freely about the relationship of the gay rights movement, the hippie movement, and the environmentalist movement. I may have had some cognitive bias, because I assumed that a Catholic Humanities professor would be somewhat conservative on this issue.
Ok, I’ll grant you a pass on that one if you wrote what the prof wanted to hear in order to just get a good grade rather than risk a poor grade because the prof may be a bigot and didn’t want to read about certain topics. It’s a touchy situation when someone is in a position to react punitively; this is why mixing religion (for example) with work is not recommended.
Still, I think you need to reconsider the fact that you made a conscious choice to ignore certain facts in favour of others - you let a bias dictate your work, and that is poor science. Heck, it’s poor work even in non-scientific fields. To use an incredibly broad brush here, it’s one of the major criticisms of conservatives and religious people, who ignore inconvenient facts. It leads to an incorrect world view and can be very damaging. Scientists can be guilty of it too - I know I’ve had to start lab work over because I made incorrect assumptions about stuff - but the decision to accept the inconvenient fact or not is, essentially, the difference between a scientist and someone who lets their biases control them.
I get the feeling you’re rather young - perhaps in high school? Maybe college?
This above paragraph is correct - if you’re summarizing lab data or existing research. That doesn’t mean you have to actually have a neutral stance on everything you encounter. Some controversial topics are controversial not because there are no FACTS, but because some people find those facts to be unpleasant. Unfortunately, that’s a fact of life, and taking a stance supported by the facts is better than burying your head in the sand. Ignoring something because it makes someone else uncomfortable leads to a lack of communication, a lack of research, and potentially dangerous conclusions/laws/behaviours/etc. Being neutral on every topic means you are passive; you are not improving your world or seeking to understand it better or doing anyone any good. You just might be doing someone harm.
Well, at least you admit that you have made a faulty assumption. The best thing about science is that it can change! If science cannot change, then it is dogma.
I think I had one Biology lecturer who discussed the “Central Dogma of Biology” and then said, “like all dogma, it is false”, implying that there are exceptions in certain situations. Example: the retrovirus.
I feel that your post is assuming that I am unwilling to change because of my perceived passivity. I admit that I can be passive at times, even on issues that is supposed to be important to me such as feminism. I once took an English class and read Frankenstein. We discussed how the novel could be feminist and discussed its feminist aspects. If Frankenstein were a feminist novel, then I think my personality would match the female characters’ personalities, as they are quite passive and nearly all are dead at the end of the novel. So, I could be a feminist in a passive way. However, as I gain more information about these hot-button topics, I try to reform my original assumptions and not make the same mistakes, like signing petitions to show that I care about the topics.
There is no way to “prove” anything about external reality, even something as simple and straightforward as “There’s a jar of pickles in the refrigerator.” All we can do is make claims with a greater or lesser degree of confidence.
If there is no empirical evidence to support the existence of an entity, and if that entity’s existence would contradict well-established theories of how the universe works, then I’m fully justified in claiming that such an entity doesn’t exist. Such a claim is, of course, provisional. But so is my claim that there are pickles in the fridge.
Your post seems to be sending an implication that I wrote a biased research paper – something that I never did in my life. Therefore, I think you have misinterpreted my words, “focus” and “ignore”. You must know the circumstances that were involved in the casual e-mail conversation that I had with my professor. After class, I have a tendency to ask questions, hoping to clear up my biases and misconceptions about things. So, before I sent the e-mail, I did ask the professor in class something about hippies because I had a misconception that hippies were related to the environmental movement, and I wanted my professor to clear up on that misconception of mine. We were also reading The Greening of a Nation?, by Hal Rothman, and he used that book to answer my question. He said “whatever, whenever, however, with whomever” and gave a small laugh at Rothman’s words. I did not understand at the time why he laughed, but I was interested in the quote that he used in the book. So, I did my own reading and my own, unassigned research on the hippie movement. I reported to him about my findings and how they related to Rothman’s story. He gave me a reply that Rothman must have thought that the “hippie movement must have been more mainstream that in fact was” and that he was from San Francisco and didn’t realize that there were any hippies or that hippies were a small minority. That triggered me to do some more on-my-own research, and I reported my findings to him again. I took entire quotes from Wikipedia – including sources about the gay rights movement – and some population reports about San Francisco at the time. The findings I reported implied that the hippie movement was not only mainstream, but also became mainstream and led to more liberal activism in the United States, including the gay rights movement. However, because I contradicted what my professor just said, I had to show him my findings rather than simply saying “You’re wrong.” If I said “You’re wrong”, that would be an discourteous example, and I would have insulted his higher intellect. Honestly, I did not understand why he laughed about hippies. I was afraid that he would laugh about gay people as well, so I talked about the anti-war movement in Iraq instead as an example that the hippie movement had become mainstream and led to liberal activism, including gay rights activism, in the United States. It’s more about having a casual conversation with a professor and learning more about the topic more than writing a biased essay/research paper.
I understand your misinterpretation, though. I once had a Biology professor/lecturer, and she used quotations to describe Darwin’s theory of evolution, implying that this theory can easily be misunderstood by other people due to misconceptions about it, personal philosophies, and the limited vocabulary of the English language. Because the English language can be so limited, she said that we have to be cautious with our wording; otherwise, some people like creationists could easily use the wording against us.
I hope that you take the time to understand the circumstances that were involved rather than point your finger at me at a situation that I have never in my life been involved and ridicule me as if I have made a grave error. I will make it clear: I have never written a biased research paper.
I am still in University, studying Biology. I understand the theory of evolution quite well. I have read stories in the New York Times about creationist high school teachers who do not support their own work and break the law by preaching creationism in the classroom. Instead of condemning them, I feel sorry for them. I do not understand why such teachers would do such a thing; why can’t they accept this theory? Why do they believe that this theory conflicts with Christianity? Must they conflict at all?
When I say “making a neutral stance”, I mean sympathizing with the opponent’s side and trying to understand their point of view, at the same time let them know that their view is false. However, one must do so in a polite manner rather than simply saying “You’re wrong”.
I must add that, my Environmental History professor, gave me a strange sense that he associated hippies with hedonism, and because the hippies were a subculture in the United States and died out, so did hedonism and their lifestyles. I don’t know, but I feel like he is trying to say that he simply does not like the “do whatever you want” lifestyle that some people have. Perhaps, it may have to do with his own religious beliefs… Who knows?
Miss Manners (yes I read all of Judith Martins brilliant books as Miss Manners) agrees with Anaamika here.
If you still get pushed, you can say, increasingly coolly, “I really don’t care to discuss it”. Repeat as necessary.
Equally effective is: “It is a complex topic. What do you think?”
If you are a scientist, and the discussion veers on to some territory that you are supposed to be an expert in, you can steer the discussion toward that field.
“Are you an atheist?”
“It is a complex topic. But if you want my professional opinion as an biologist/ community worker who deals with gay marriage legislature/magazine proof reader with knowledge of how a certain magazine deas with the topic and knows how much letters to the editor each side sends and how they word it, then I can tell you that…”.
Another good non-reply is to smile graciously and say in an interested manner, “Why do you ask?”
I can’t imagine any circumstance in which I would be asked about controversial topics. Work? Nah. And if I did answer bluntly, my job would not be in jeopardy anyway. When sidewalk hippies with clipboards approach me, I just smile and say, “I’m sorry, I don’t speak English,” and keep walking.
Am I misunderstanding this? Do you mean that you can’t imagine circumstances in which a stranger/someone you are not close with would ask about a controversial topic? Or is there really no circumstance in which your personal views come up?
snip.
This approach only works if your opposition also understands protocall and wishes to keep the discussion purely cerebral. In reality, such opinions are held at a visceral level and thus they are expressed in emotional terms when challenged. The best thing one can do is express a clear, firm counter opinion and leave it at that. There are billions of people in this world, I don’t care if some of them do not like me. I prefer truth to a pleasant neutrality or fiction.
That is a good one too.
Your second reply reminds me of one particular dada-ist appreaoch to telemarketeers: “Sorry, I don’t have a phone” and hanging up.
Actually I also have a hard time imagining any situation along these lines that isn’t outrageously rude (strangers, aquaintences) or obviously inappropriate (ie, your boss or coworkers). Aanamika’s reply suits those situations just fine. Politics and religion are not fit topics for unknown company, polite or otherwise.
No, it’s understandable if you’re talking about strangers and people you’re not close to. I’m just confused because Eve seemed to be saying that were no circumstances AT ALL in which a controversial topic would be brought up.
That reminds me of the Father Ted episode in which an impending visit by three bishops prompts the relatively sane Ted to train the brain-damaged Father Jack to answer any question with “Yes,” “No,” or “That would be an ecumenical matter.”
In certain circumstances, like interacting with a bigoted superior at work or avoiding a crazy person on light rail (the line goes through the Medical Center so we get the occasional dude ready for a new 'scrip), weaseling out of answering loaded questions can be a good way of avoiding trouble. Otherwise, I have my opinions & will usually express them. I’ve got some factual backing for questions where it’s relevant. I find religion interesting & will discuss the topic with respect, while not hiding my own lapsed Catholic status; if they try to Save Me, I just remind them their stop is coming up…
Well, my friends and relatives already know how I feel about most matters, and I cannot imagine my coworkers, casual acquaintances or perfect strangers bluntly asking me about topics like religion, politics or sex.
Off topic, but there are such things as black swans - state bird of Western Australia.