[남산 Ddalggakbari] When Expressing 'Different Opinions,' Say "It's Not Tennis but Beach Ball Game"

During the first decade of the internet's popularization, a theory gained traction that the more people communicated, the kinder they would become, the more they would understand each other, and public discourse would become healthier. But is that really the case? Now in the 2020s, Ian Leslie, author of Different Opinions, says that such a vision “seems extremely naive.” While people are “connected,” it does not lead to a sense of camaraderie, and in the worst cases, it creates discord and division. Paul Graham, a Silicon Valley founder, also pointed out that “the internet is inherently a medium that generates conflicts of opinion.”

People tend to gain more momentum when they disagree than when they agree. When viewing internet content, people often nod in agreement with opinions they share, but respond with strong comments when they disagree. In fact, in 2010, a data science team studied user behavior on the BBC forum (about 2.5 million postings from 18,000 users) and found that “long discussion threads were driven by negative opinions, and the most active users often expressed negative emotions.”

In today's society, unpleasant conflicts of opinion occur easily and frequently. We live in a world where people listen less, speak more often, and become more aggressive or are attacked more frequently. It is clear that the communication technologies we use have contributed to this phenomenon. However, we cannot simply blame Facebook or Twitter for all of this. The author points to the shift from high-context to low-context communication as a major cause. In high-context societies, where implicit etiquette and rules are important, communication is based on understanding these unspoken norms. But society has transformed into a low-context one, where communication relies primarily on language itself. The biggest difference between these two societies is how many conflicts of opinion they generate. In the past, when small village communities existed, communication was sufficient with just a nod or a wink. But with urbanization, it has become difficult to even know who lives next door, making society feel inhuman, unstable, and unpredictable. It is always fraught with potential conflict, and the author argues that simply fighting or avoiding conflicts is no longer an effective way to solve problems.

So what should be done? The author argues that conflicts must be resolved through a new form of dialogue. This aligns with how one accepts different opinions, i.e., conflicts. The author introduces examples such as the rock band The Rolling Stones, who, despite their strong personalities and frequent clashes, remained together for a long time, and Nelson Mandela, who negotiated with hostile opponents in a situation that could have escalated into a racial war, illustrating methods of handling conflict through dialogue. The author also discusses the Wright brothers, who, despite not being scientists, succeeded in inventing the airplane by identifying problems and resolving them through dialogue.

Does gathering smart people mean everything will go smoothly without conflict? Not at all. Instead of simply insisting that their opinions are correct, a “groupthink” phenomenon occurs, where people tend to rely on the dominant opinion or figure. This is a strategy to avoid responsibility, but if that opinion is wrong, failure is hard to avoid.

Shared information bias is also a problem. This occurs when people trust each other too much. Believing that the other person knows more about the topic, they do not seriously express their opinions, and discussions become merely formalities, making it difficult to identify problems. The CEO of a startup that established a microblogging platform similar to Tumblr and was later acquired by Twitter said the reason for their failure was “the co-founders never fought.” On the other hand, the most successful airline in history attributes its success to a unique organizational culture that encourages “expressing dissatisfaction.” Unless the problem is serious, they hold meetings called “Come to Jesus” where everyone thoroughly explains the problem from their own perspective and finds solutions.

Different Opinions is not about making the other person agree with your opinion. Rather, it is closer to developing your own thinking through the other person's perspective. We discover something new and better among diverse opinions, something that could not have been created alone. The author calls dialogue an “infinite game” for this reason. The goal is not to win or lose, but to continue playing the game.

Michel de Montaigne said, “Whenever we encounter opposition, we think not about whether the opinion is right or wrong, but how to escape it. Instead of extending our arms, we show our claws.” British poet William Blake said, “Without opposition, there is no progress.” And the author says, “(Dialogue for opposition) is not tennis where you slam the ball into the opponent's net, but friends keeping a beach ball afloat together.”

Different Opinions | Ian Leslie | Translated by Eom Yunmi | Across | 16,800 KRW

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.