Answer

• Bridging the Differences That Divide Us

              Humans are divided based on race, political affiliations, gender, nationality, race, and socio-economic status. As such, interacting with those with divergent views on pertinent about life is a normal aspect of being human. The unprecedented growth in technology has continued to aggravate various things that divide people instead of uniting them. Presently, means of communication, particularly social media has predominantly provided people with a platform to share their opinions with those with similar perceptions rather than with those with divergent opinions on important issues thus fostering the bridge to divide them even further. Various authors have presented their views on how people can assist bridge their divided countries. Therefore, borrowing the arguments from The ‘Other Side’ Is Not Dumb by Sean Blanda, this paper argues that bridging differences between people encompasses determining the position they should follow while discussing with those with different views to bring them closer rather than accentuating such differences.

              The ‘Other Side’ Is Not Dumb explains how there is an” other side” that basically implies persons who have divergent views as “us”, the people who hold similar views as one another. From the psychological perspective, a false consensus bias refers to the belief that everyone is like us and this bias is normally depicted when it comes to election polls and politics (Blanda 1). This implies that people are blind to views and opinions of others, or to be a broader American. This according to the text mutates into the subconscious belief that those people who hold similar views as us are the sane while those with contrary opinions are the crazy ones (Blanda 1).     

  Sean Blanda offers numerous examples to support his argument. He argues that the internet encourages people to collapse their differences in social life, work life, and political life (Blanda 1). According to Blanda, when a person you like discusses about a particular TV show you like, as well as, dislikes injustice, then as time progresses you can identify him or her as a friend based on the TV shows he or she likes (Blanda 1). However, when a person shows any divergence that he or she is not on our side, we tend to label him or her as the enemy. Secondly, Blanda also informs the reader that sharing posts on social media platforms particularly Twitter and Facebook that mock a flawed and comedic representation of the other side is indeed not informing but rather indicates that we would rather be immature and smug instead of actually considering alternative views or opinions (Blanda 2). As humans, we share information that must be approved by our peers and this makes us ignore wider realities. Rather than attempting to win the discussion, try to lose. Therefore, while conversing with someone from the other side, it is prudent to pay attention to everything they want to say. At the same time, while sharing a link, one should ask himself or herself why he or she is sharing that link and why posting it.

  I concur with the argument postulated by Sean Blanda. Personally, it is the nature of human beings to disapprove individuals with divergent opinions on particular topics. In fact, it is their tendency to call such people dumb. However, if people want to bring to an end the purported segregation, they should stop the aforementioned form of thinking. There are many instances where people could break ties or disapprove their close friends and relatives simply because such persons have divergent views from them. This is major concern and has contributed to the self-segregation currently experienced across the globe. Therefore, rather than disapproving someone who is from the other side, people should implore in social interaction and seek out their opposites.  In particular, they should consider why such individuals believe in certain topics rather than calling them dumb. Declining to understand the other side is considered immature and depicts intellectual laziness and this even appears worse than what they are accusing the other side of doing.

  To bridge the differences that divide us, people should hold discussions with others who have divergent views. As explained in the text, individuals perceive those with divergent individuals as being from the other side (Blanda 3). Moreover, they tend to mock individuals from the other side as dumb and primitive even when their views and beliefs differ slightly or insignificantly. Therefore, a person should not try to convince anyone of his or her or her viewpoint. Moreover, he or she should not score points by mocking such people to their peers but instead try to lose, hear them out and if possible request them to convince you. Essentially, this advice informs people the need to stay open minded when meeting or interacting with those with divergent views and allowing them express their opinions instead of adamantly insisting on their alleged veracity of their personal belief systems. Adopting such a position will encourage those from the other side to become tolerant on the matters raised and be willing to pay attention conflicting ideas or views. Doing this will encourage those engaging in the discussion to deeply understand the issues being discussed.

  Nonetheless, the stated position of dealing with discussions could potentially be objected. Pessimists may contend that the mentioned position can potentially widen the differences among varied groups instead of reducing it as intended. For instance, in the just concluded US presidential election, electorates had divergent views regarding Donald Trump and Joe Bidden. When deliberating on high emotive issues, individuals may be reluctant to adopt a losing stand, particularly when they have a firm and strong position concerning the issue being deliberated on (Blanda 1). Moreover, issues related to sports, religion, and political policy may equally may not be achieved through a fruitful deliberations because of the same principles.

  This pessimists’ objection can be addressed by arguing that bridging the differences that divide people is a gradual process. Certainly, humans tend to belief firmly on different issues because of the roles that such issues play in their lives. Thus, a person who originates from a nation that depends largely on gas and oil mining may be unrelenting to take in opinion of stringent environmental policies that is likely to endanger their major source of livelihood. However, engaging in such an open discussions offers a strong foundation for pursuing actions to minimize the differences between the conflicting groups. Providing people from the other side with the opportunity to express their views bridges the divide because they appreciate being given a chance to explain the essence of their views and nurturing further productive action.

  In conclusion, humans segregate with each other based on religion, political affiliations, beliefs, ethnicity, where and how they live and age among others. A key impact of this is social media, as well as, technological advancement. Sean Blanda has put forwards his arguments that I totally concur with. People need to accommodate the other side and pay attention to everything they want to say. Immediately turning them away or calling them stupid is not going to help reduce the divide that continues to divide us. Moreover, humans should continue sewing their social fabric and make it stronger than the way it used to be in the past.