Difference of Opinion
On many issues, my neurodivergent approach to life provides a different perspective of the scene, issue, or worldview from atypical processing. It may be a surprise to those who know, but I mostly keep those opinions to myself. As a result, people closest to me don’t hear all the positions I would take if I didn’t feel the likelihood of backlash.
Somehow I have learned that ‘having the right’ to my opinion isn’t the same as subjecting others to the opinion. Sometimes, I recognize that the audience isn’t ready to hear a different position. Occasionally, I realize that I haven’t thought my idea through and am unprepared for a debate. But, mostly, I surmise that those in front of me are indifferent to thinking about positions outside the status quo.
Controversial ideas usually lead to controversy.
If I hold that, we can’t solve the opioid crisis unless and until we hold all the players to account:
- Drug companies would create non-addictive medication that reduces physical pain but is still therapeutic.
- Doctors would limit the prescription quantities and dosage.
- Patients would ensure that scripts and medicine are protected for patient use.
- And controversially, illicit users would seek treatment for their addiction rather than decide to use.
If I believe that the social sector is perpetuating social issues by managing them rather than solving them, I would need society to solve them diligently and courageously.
Suppose I have concluded that the things we held to be solutions, freedom, universality, equality, privacy, have become the new problems we face. In that case, I need all of us to enter into awkward and difficult conversations.
Having a difference of opinion is a good thing. However, the complacency and echo chamber is robust, and combined with self-interest, it requires focus and intention to overcome. I am not ready to commit to always speaking my truth, but I am prepared to challenge thinking stagnating progress and devolving society.
