Ozzy, Jason and I attended Genome BC's 7th Annual Don Rix Distinguished Keynote featuring Richard Resnick the other night. It's a topic of great interest to us and I look forward to sharing some of the highlights with you at a later date. For now I want to share an interesting little unintentional social experiment that occurred after the conference.
While milling around the foyer enjoying the scrumptious spread Genome BC (the hosts) put out, I made a comment, twice. The same comment was taken two different ways by two different people.
I remarked on how "I found the speaker's comments on GMO quite interesting and provocative."
There was no prior discussion that would set up a contextual argument, providing the listener with any indication of whether I was for or against the use of GMOs.
But the first woman who overheard the comment assumed that I must be anti-GMO and proceeded to lecture me on the virtues of GMO.
The other woman, who wasn't present for my previous utterance, and who came across as fanatically anti-GMO, gave me a disdainful look and then inundated me with the horrors of GMO that she assumed I must be oblivious to.
For the record, the speaker's comments did not sway me one way or other. I still have the same stance as prior to the conference. My statement, however, still stands in that I did indeed find his comments "interesting and provocative". Does that mean I disagree or agree with them? Does that mean I am pro or anti GMO. (This isn't an invitation, by the way, to tell me what you think of GMO. When I post something directly about GMO, feel free to speak up then. Thanks.)
If I gleaned nothing else from this experience, it was a stark reminder how people will twist what they perceive as your opinion, molding it to suit their own contentious needs. Regardless of your opinion or beliefs, you now unwittingly find yourself as fodder for debate. This happens to me a lot.
I understand people will base their presumptions on how others have reacted in the past, or how they themselves would react, and how these can be influenced by their own passions, biases, misinformation, etc. -- but I can't keep up with it. I think I'm partly to blame because in an attempt to remain open-minded I sometimes come across as rather vague, leaving myself far too open to (mis)interpretation.
It's funny how so many people would rather make an assumption than ask questions. I'm at the age now where I find it more amusing than anything.
However, I won't tolerate disrespect... especially when it's based on opinions that have been unfairly and unilaterally projected onto me. I think people cling to their presumptions -- rather than ask questions -- because it gives them the opportunity to present an opposing point of view... even when such view might not exist.
Either way, I found both women's arguments to be interesting and provocative. Don't tell them I said that. I wish I could've introduced the pair of them and sat back and enjoyed the show. The pro-GMO woman came across as more well-informed, eloquent and respectful, while the fanatic expressed herself in a bug-eyed, contentious manner that did not aid her case. It's a subject that understandably evokes a passionate response in some.
I'd also like to add that the speaker, Richard Resnick, encouraged people throughout his talk to educate themselves, and while coming across as a proponent for some of the things he shed light on (not necessarily GMO as this was a talk on Genomics), he also planted seeds of doubt in that we might not realize what the real threat is.
Interesting and provocative.
~Dani