..petpeeve

Over the last two days this has happened twice:

1. Theory/idea/theology is presented partially by knowledgeable individual.
2. Theory/idea/theology is received by recipient, either through direct contact with the knowledgeable individual or vis-a-vis another recipient conveying the new thought.
3. Theory/idea/theology is interpreted by recipient through their previously formulated beliefs and information.
4. Gaps in the theory/idea/theology are filled in with assumptions based on partial understanding and preexisting bias/experience with the topic.
5. Opinions are formed by the recipient about the validity of the theory/idea/theology based on it's congruence with their prior belief structure.
6. Value judgment made of the theory/idea/theology.
7. Value judgment made (either consciously or subconsciously) about the intelligence/rationality/faith maturity of an individual that would believe the theory/idea/theology.

I probably walk through this process multiple times a day, blissfully unaware of the people that I am disregarding and misunderstanding in the name of having personalized congruence in my thinking. Having watched entire systems and topics disregarded through a verbal brush stroke has been a good reminder to be more mindful of when I do this in my own life. Proper respect for the ideas of others is foundational to entering into relationship and conversation with them. Respect requires an assumption of rationality on the part of the other thinker. To say, 'There is a reason why you believe these ideas,' and to desire to know that story is the basis of respect for another. Once that story is fleshed out, temperance in word choice and opinion dueling will come naturally since it will grow from understanding and not assumption. I think that this is particularly important in conversations where privilege plays a role. As a White person, discussion of race are often optional for me to participate in. However, because this is often the reality in my life, I must be cautious that I do not exit conversations prematurely (because of discomfort or expediency) because others do not have the option of engaging in the conversation, it is simply a reality in their lives. As a woman, it is very discouraging and offensive when men disregard or diminish the conversation about female perception in society. (I would say gender but this covers a range of affiliations and has [in my opinion] improperly become the euphemism for women's issues.)

Perhaps it's a curse of academia: knowing a small amount about many things that you are called to draw vast conclusions about. Perhaps it's easier to assume than to ask. Perhaps it gives people comfort to formulate opinions about issues they are uncertain/ill-informed about than remaining neutral and open to learning. Whatever the motivation, it is a damaging practice, allowing for the perpetuation of prideful, justified ignorance.

Needless to say, I am annoyed by it right now.