We have become remarkably good at turning ordinary people into characters.
Not people. Characters.
Heroes who can do no wrong. Villains who can do no right.
Once those roles are cast, the story becomes more satisfying than the evidence. Every action from the hero gets interpreted generously. Every action from the villain becomes proof that we were right about them all along.
But real life is almost never that clean.
Yesterday, we opened up a public Furry Hideout instance. It became popular very quickly, as these spaces often do, and suddenly we were dealing with people from all walks of life and every imaginable kind of personality.
Some were absolutely wonderful.
Some were difficult.
Some had opinions that challenged ours.
Some were simply strange or interesting people we never would have encountered inside our normal circles.
And some genuinely seemed interested in causing trouble.
Along the way, we made a dozen new friends.
But getting there required sorting through everything else.
My team had to learn how to distinguish disagreement from actual conflict. We had to recognize the difference between someone who was merely abrasive and someone who was genuinely disruptive. We had to know when to talk to someone, when to tolerate someone, when to establish a boundary, and when someone simply needed to be removed.
That is difficult.
And I think that difficulty is valuable.
If you completely surround yourself with people who think like you, talk like you, agree with you, and affirm your interpretation of the world, you can slowly lose your ability to deal with anything else.
Disagreement starts feeling like hostility.
Criticism starts feeling like aggression.
An uncomfortable person becomes a bad person.
And eventually, every complicated interaction becomes another opportunity to divide the world into heroes and villains.
That is precisely the habit I think we need to resist.
We need friends who disagree with us.
We need people who challenge our assumptions.
We need environments where we occasionally have to ask ourselves whether we're actually correct.
That doesn't mean tolerating abuse. It doesn't mean keeping genuinely destructive people around for the sake of "diversity of opinion." Part of developing good judgment is learning to recognize that distinction.
Not every uncomfortable person is dangerous, and not every agreeable person is good for you.
The same principle extends far beyond friendships.
For roughly the past year, my team and I have been working on VR trackers intended for the general public.
We've spent an enormous amount of time trying to make them work as well as they possibly can. We've tested things. We've changed things. We've encountered problems. We've reconsidered decisions. We've tried to understand what people actually need rather than simply assuming that our first idea was correct.
Our intention is straightforward:
We want to build something useful.
That doesn't make us heroes.
And criticism of what we're doing doesn't make somebody else a villain.
Likewise, someone being suspicious of us doesn't automatically make us villains either.
Good intentions should never make someone immune from scrutiny. If we make something poorly, people should be able to say so. If we make a bad decision, people should be able to challenge it. If there's evidence that contradicts what we believe, we should be willing to look at it.
But scrutiny should work in both directions.
There is a difference between skepticism and assuming malicious intent.
There is a difference between saying:
"I think you're wrong."
and saying:
"I think you're evil."
Once everything becomes heroes and villains, we stop investigating what people actually did.
We start investigating which team they're on.
And that's dangerous, because real people don't come conveniently pre-sorted into costumes.
Good people make terrible decisions.
Difficult people sometimes make excellent points.
People we love can be wrong.
People we dislike can be right.
Someone can disagree with us without attacking us.
Someone can criticize something we've built without wanting us to fail.
And someone can smile, agree with everything we say, affirm every opinion we have, and still be terrible company for our intellectual development.
Maturity is learning to survive those contradictions.
The purpose of challenging ourselves isn't to become endlessly tolerant of everything.
It's to develop discernment.
It's learning to ask:
What is actually happening here?
What evidence do I have?
Is this person challenging me, or actually harming me?
Am I rejecting their argument because it's wrong, or because hearing it makes me uncomfortable?
What evidence would actually change my mind?
Those are much harder questions than simply asking:
"Who's the villain?"
But difficult questions are exactly what make us stronger.
If we never challenge ourselves, we don't develop the capacity to solve difficult problems. We don't create ambitious things. We don't learn how to manage complicated communities. We don't learn how to work with people who aren't exactly like us.
And perhaps most importantly, we never discover where we ourselves might be wrong.
There is comfort in surrounding yourself exclusively with people who affirm you.
But comfort and growth are not always the same thing.
Sometimes you need friction.
Sometimes you need disagreement.
Sometimes you need to meet the strange person, the difficult person, the person whose worldview makes absolutely no sense to you, and actually listen long enough to understand how they got there.
You may still walk away disagreeing with them.
That's fine.
The objective was never agreement.
The objective was developing the ability to encounter disagreement without immediately needing to create another hero and another villain.
Because the world has enough of those stories already.
Real life is considerably more complicated.
And I think we're better people when we're strong enough to live in that complexity.
The Cost of Thinking in Heroes and Villains
7 hr ago
|
By Engineerisaac
|
Log in to view page count
Public
Comments