3D Thinking

I am very talented at holding opposed opinions simultaneously. I am not sure WHY this is, it could be because of:

• My extensive formal training in human systems theory, which taught me to value the perspective of others while simultaneously pursuing a larger truth.
• Being raised first very Church-going knee-jerk 1980's conservative, then later as an adult to have my political views change drastically, forever imprinting in my mind the value of discovering when I am wrong.
• Exposure to an MLM scam that was considered socially acceptable by my community but which I eventually realized was basically criminal, forever imprinting in my mind that the status quo does not protect us.
• Growing up with 3 military bases in one county, there was a tremendous amount of martial arts knowledge combined with a transient population, so that martial arts schools were constantly coming and going, forcing me to pick up martial arts knowledge from different martial arts with drastically different strategies and techniques.

But I know people who have had at some of those experiences above who are not as good at holding opposing opinions simultaneously. "Cognitive dissonance" is the stress caused holding conflicting beliefs. Why I entertain opposing views simultaneously is probably due to the above experiences along with a gifted tolerance for cognitive dissonance.

This results in what I call "3D Thinking." We see in 3 dimensions only when we can see from both eyes, as both eyes are different viewpoints. If we look at a cone from the top we see it is a circle, if we look at a cone from the side we see that it is a triangle. The cone can only be fully appreciated for what it is when you look at it from the side and top simultaneously.

In order to do 3D Thinking you have to truly believe that others you disagree with have valuable opinions that are well thought out. You seek opinions you disagree with in an effort to get a more accurate picture of a situation for yourself. To do 3D Thinking, if you are on team circle that sees the cone as a circle, you must absolutely hunt down team triangle and get every piece of knowledge you can from them on why they believe the cone is a triangle, or you will never discover the truth that the cone is a cone. You must have contempt for the limits of what you already believe!

Let's take my views on Gun Control for example. As a progressive is I am concerned that guns are dangerous and all together too common, and I give side eye to the legal arguments behind around the 2nd Amendment. But looking at "guns = freedom" more deeply, two issues immediately emerge:

1. The more rural the environment, the more likely you are to be confronted with wildlife that is trying to kill you. An assault riffle seems entirely more necessary when being stalked by a pack of coyotes in Kitsap County than when being confronted by an aggressive panhandler in Seattle. To this end, guns literally improve our mobility in wilderness areas with predators capable of preying on us. Guns do, under certain circumstance, protect our freedom.
2. In the second amendment there is this language used around the phrase "militia." Militia members I am aware of are weekend warrior gun nuts. You know what these people never do? They never let their firearms end up in the hands of gang members, they never let their children accidentally shoot themselves with firearms, they never commit crimes with these weapons.

So the real problem then is casual consumers getting into weapons they have no appropriate training in. What is wanted then is regulation on who owns firearms, not what type of firearms should be owned. The Utopian standard would be a gun owner's license roughly equivalent to a driver's license. Strangely TEXAS ALREADY HAS THAT SYSTEM, arguably tested and ready for national adoption: 

But most people can't see it, because they have chosen one side of the argument and can't handle the cognitive dissonance needed to entertain the other side of the argument. In fact many people demonize others with 3D thinking, accusing them of hypocrisy or being two-faced. But understand when you read my blog, I am not satisfied with your two dimensional views.