My good friend posted a pro-Hillary Clinton article. I ignored the piece and continued to scroll on Facebook.

Why?

Did the post originate from a source that lacked credibility? Did the author implement poor usage of grammar, sourcing, or punctuation? Did the journalism bleed the color yellow?

No. In fact, the article contained the contrary. Hailing from "The New York Times," the feature burst with credibility (a newsworthy reputation) and correct usage of style. The author presented statistics, outside sources, and logical writing in his argument for why I should vote for Clinton.

But I never perused it. Clinton's beliefs did not reflect mine. So, I scrolled through to a friend's engagement picture album before giving the column a chance.

We read what we want to hear.

We do not listen to the opposing side. When encountered with a debate about political, religious, or any matter which impacts us deeply, we unearth dozens of sources which support our beliefs. We read what we want to hear. However, we devote maybe a fraction (if any) of our time to investigating what our opposition has to say. Even when we do, we glue their arguments into a straw man and instantly set it on fire.

I found a Bible verse which captures this idea well:

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Timothy 4:3 (NIV)

As mentioned above, I fall prey to this trap all the time. But if we continue in the same vein, the following consequences might occur:

Media will swell with biases

Granted, yes, media seasons itself with opinion now-a-days. However, during the days of yellow journalism, each line bled with subjectivity. Because newspapers oozed with false stories about Spain attacking an American ship (the ship sunk, but they did not have evidence that Spain perpetrated the attack). As a result, war broke out between Spain and America. Over 300,000 lives perished due to biased media.

We will carry poorly-formed opinions and beliefs

The more perspectives you have on an issue, the more you have a chance to form a strong belief.

You can look at argument A, B,C, D . . . and realize some have stronger premises than others. If you side strongly with A, the B opponents will force you to strain your belief through a different sort of colander than argument A. But if A survives the filter, you have all the more reason to have faith in A.

Can you survive the strain?

However, if you only look at A's arguments and not any of the other letters, how do you know your conclusions will survive the strain?

Most likely, it will not.

What you want to hear may not be what you need to hear

Those who fish for compliments often receive the catch of the day.

We have all encountered those who needed to hear some tough-loving words -- perhaps a well-like peer who procrastinated in a group project. We have also met broken individuals who desperately require comfort -- a disliked classmate who suffered from clinical depression.

We will speak loudly and carry big sticks

If we do not listen, how likely will they?

If we continue to shout at our opponents (and vice versa), our inflated words will touch no ears. Take a step inside my school's cafeteria, and you will realize no amount of yelling can ever improve one's listening capacities. Everyone screams in our DC (Dining Commons), but we often cannot hear a thing with the dilated noise.

Even if we have strong ties with one issue, we need to give other viewpoints a chance. If we do not listen, how likely will they?