Truly listening to people is hard. This is made most obvious during a 50-minute class, when I often find anything to do except listen.

More intimate personal conversations are usually easier, but hearing people out without injecting my own personal beliefs or jumping to conclusions is still a tough task. Advancing the conversation means listening for ways to connect, respond and question. That means being an active listener, a life skill taught in grade school but rarely successfully achieved.

I’ve always considered myself a pretty good listener — until I started noticing who I was listening to. I discovered that I really only listen to people I agree with or find amusing. I routinely disregard news sources, acquaintances and classmates who have opposing opinions. I ignore them because it would be easier than actually engaging in critical thinking.

When I do listen to people who are different than me, I make a disclaimer before hearing them out: “Well, I disagree with you, but…” By doing this, I fail to intellectually stimulate myself, much less become a better debater by refining my points.

Unfortunately, “I believe what I believe and if you don’t agree, you’re an idiot” is my subconscious train of thought all too often.

And I am not the only one who thinks like this. We live in a polarized nation, where the media we consume and the communities we make often reflect our own beliefs instead of challenging them. Disappointingly — but not surprisingly — the ultimate example of this type of echo chamber is Congress.

Last Thursday, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa held a hearing on the contraceptive coverage rule and its pertinence to religious freedom. Logically, the two parties involved would be religious leaders and women — right?

Wrong. Congressman Issa chaired an all-male panel Thursday morning. Later in the day, two women would be included in a supplemental panel. Issa took the easy way out by listening to people who agree with each other about why contraception is wrong, but who do not actually use the birth control pill because of their religion – and their genitalia.

Justifiably so, the female members of the committee were outraged by the absence of women on the initial panel;  so much so that Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton of Washington D.C. stormed out of the room.

You go, girls! You show those gents how to listen to women by not listening to them!

Oh, wait.

Here’s the thing: listening is a two-way street. Listening to both sides means that we have to actually hear both sides. A simple solution for the oversight committee would be to have a single hearing with both religious folk and women present. But in our daily lives, public hearings are not common occurrences, and there are not thousands of people outraged by our neglecting one side. There is no one to call us out when our lives become an echo chamber for our beliefs.

I got the news about Issa’s hearing debacle from my own echo chamber: my Twitter feed. When two strong women who happened to be Democrats left a hearing led by a man who happened to be Republican, the people and sources I follow flipped. Women’s groups were distraught and Tweeting much faster than any unbiased news source. As far as I know, the Pope does not have a verified account, so my thoughts on the matter became one-sided very quickly.

Without even realizing it, I stopped listening. I cared about women’s rights — not stuffy men. And I did not develop my opinion; I just started repeating what was in front of me.

We are all entitled to our opinions, but our stances become weak without taking time to hear out the other side fully. Neglecting the points we disagree with does not result in compromise – it results in polarization. By noting where our news — and thus, views — come from, we are able to notice our weaknesses and reinforce our strengths.