“Oh, I don’t know. I don’t see it that way.” That quote is repeated all the time in our family and social conversations. We have our own perspective and, more often than not, choose to believe that one as compared to other perspectives. But we need to ask ourselves some critical questions – Are there other explanations? What is the truth? Are we willing to listen to the perspective of others and reconsider our position? Are these differences inconsequential (not affecting lives) or are they significant? If significant, are we willing to listen again and reconsider our perspective?
Let me point out a simple example and a more complex one. The illustration from introductory psychology of two faces in profile or a vase (Rubin’s vase) is a classic example of different perspectives depending on how one’s brain interprets the image.1 At first glance, some people will see the vase, and others will see the faces in profile. When shown the other perspective, they will then acknowledge that both images are present, but their first impression was either the faces or the vase.
Another recent example that caught the internet by storm was the blue dress versus the gold dress. When the dress was posted online, some saw the dress as blue and some as gold.
The physics behind the image being projected from the actual fibers of the dress and the photons of light coming to the retina was the same, but the interpretation varied because of differences in the eyes, how contrast and brightness are perceived, and how the images are processed in the brain.2 Again, some stated with absolute certainty that the dress was a certain color and others disagreed. Their perspectives differed, and it was difficult to “see” how others could possibly see the other color. These differences showed how difficult it can be to understand what others are seeing or saying when one’s reality says something different.
I bring up the two examples above to emphasize how differing opinions (and hence different perspectives) can lead to agreement or acrimonious division. In the first example, after an initial impression, one can easily see the other image and agree that both images are there. But in the second example, it is much more difficult to come to an agreement that the different perspectives can be reconciled. We cannot see the other color because of our visual apparatus and brain interpretation. We cannot understand the alternate interpretation, so we insist that we are right and that others don’t know what they are talking about. We can get agreement on things that we can see but find it very difficult to agree on things that we cannot see.
I think this explains so well our current dilemma in so many things. By extension of the examples above, if we cannot see something, we cannot not accept it. But I must point out that sight is only one way of “seeing” things. When we refuse to consider other viewpoints, we refuse to see the other perspective. When we limit our acceptance of facts or truth and trust non-factual information, we cannot see the other perspective. In this latter case, we have actually accepted a false perspective that should be discarded.
Dr. Francis Collins, former Director of the National Institutes of Health, discusses truth in this latest book, The Road to Wisdom: On Truth, Science, Faith, and Trust.3 There are some necessary truths like mathematics, physics and chemistry. There is no debate that the chemical composition of water is H2O. There are also firmly established facts. For example, approved vaccines are highly beneficial. No one has said that they are perfect and without potential flaws but their ability to limit disease, to prevent the spread of disease, to diminish the serious effects of disease and to limit the number of deaths cannot be disputed. Collins notes that untruths can be categorized into ignorance, falsehood, lies, delusion, malarkey (he used the term BS), and propaganda.
It is therefore incumbent on us to seek the truth and dispel falsehood as we form our perspective and as we seek to share with others our belief how their perspective might need altering. The classic example in front of us right now is the Big Lie. President Biden won the 2020 national election. It was not stolen. There is no evidence to support that the election was stolen. Period. Continuing to say something (like the election was stolen) does not make it so. Our perspective must be based in reality.
That gets me to my main point. I was very disappointed with the results of the 2024 national election. (My readers are probably not surprised by that confession!) I could articulate a whole litany of reasons why but suffice it to say that my perspective is that children will suffer under the new administration. My perspective is based on past performance (2017-2021), campaign promises during the leadup to the election and current data. My main points –
- Demonization of people, especially those seeking refuge from lives of utter despair. The separation of families back in 2017-2018 and now the anticipated separation with deportation demonstrates a disregard for those that we deem less worthy.
- Demonization of people, including children and adults of different lifestyles. These people are put at risk for bullying, suicide and violence.
- No serious attempt to tackle poverty. The wealthy must pay their fair share to lift our fellow citizens out of poverty.4 The wealth inequality in our country continues to grow, not subside, and proves to be a toxic influence on the lives of children.5
- No serious attempt to address public education enhancement. Attempts to jeopardize public education at the expense of private schools undermines one of the basic tenets of democracy – an educated citizenry. Education inequality is stark in our country and grows with our inability to acknowledge the need to accept diversity as a strength, not a damnation.
- Denial of the history or presence of racism. To quote Professor Timothy Snyder, any attempt to address racism “will require us to rethink freedom, confront the past, and reconsider the meaning of democracy.”6(p.247) Purposely ignoring the past allows for no positive movement forward.
- Denial of climate change. An ever-increasing crisis now and in the future is climate change. Denying such harms children now and in the future.
- Voting inequality. Attempts to diminish voting rights (gerrymandering, legislative supermajorities) only take us back to the pre-Voting Rights Act of 1964 and harm the rights of our children maturing into adulthood.
You can see that my perspective is skewed toward children. I hope that I and like-minded folks can have some positive influence on those with a different perspective. I hope that we can gently persuade some about the importance of creating a culture and environment that nurtures children and their families, all (not just some) of the children and families. Divisiveness serves no meaningful purpose. I don’t think that my perspective is selfish but rather selfless in the service of children.
Perspectives can unite us or bitterly separate us. We can choose to see the other side and acknowledge basic truths, or we fiercely argue only what we “see” and refuse to accept alternate ways to move forward constructively. It is up to us to see, to listen and to learn how we can improve our lives, the lives of our family and the life of our community.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubin_vase
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress
- Collins F. The Road to Wisdom: On Truth, Science, Faith, and Trust. Little, Brown/Worthy; 2024. 277 pp.
- https://mychildrenschildren.com/welfare-is-not-a-dirty-word/
- https://mychildrenschildren.com/the-injustices-of-poverty/
- Snyder T. On Freedom. Crown, New York; 2024. 345 pp.