13 ms·
The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People
- lintiness 11y agohe forgot one: they don't watch cable news.
- seivan 11y agoWell needed article. Trying to follow this more and more. Although it's getting harder.
- vardump 11y agoSo, soon it's time to elect another scapegoat, a social lightning rod. U.S. presidents seem to get blamed (and sometimes praised) for things they can't really control.
- mhurron 11y agoWell they do keep making promises around those things like they do.
- 0xcde4c3db 11y agoAbsolutely. My favorite example is the price of gasoline. This often comes up with the seasonal price shifts (Americans drive much more in the summer than in other seasons, so gas is more expensive then). We might as well blame them for the weather.
- Tiksi 11y ago>We might as well blame them for the weather. Oh we have, remember how Bush caused Katrina? (for broad definitions of we)
- mikeash 11y agoI don't recall ever seeing that sentiment, in terms of causing the actual hurricane. Causing the bad response, on the other hand, I've seen a lot and is not on its face an absurd thing to say.
- wfo 11y agoPresident Trump might be the only thing that can unite both of the parties. Against him, of course.
- bryanrasmussen 11y agowell, first off it says that people distrust people of opposite political parties more than of different races like that's a bad thing ( distrusting people because of their beliefs instead of their race seems an improvement to me), furthermore has this data been adjusted for political affiliation and race - do white Republicans, for example, really distrust white Democrats more than they distrust people of other races? Did this study take other parties than the big two into account?
- sillysaurus3 11y agoit says that people distrust people of opposite political parties more than of different races Yes. like that's a bad thing No. It did not say this. distrusting people because of their beliefs instead of their race seems an improvement to me Equating political party = belief is a big problem. It's basically the definition of tribalism. You're forced to pick a side.
- RodericDay 11y agoAt the point where you've picked a party, you've picked a side all by yourself. For example, knowing that someone is a self-described "American republican" in 2016 doesn't let me know if they are a good person or a bad person, but it does let me know that abortion rights for women isn't one of their main priorities. The goal is not to do away with categorization/heuristics entirely. It's to continually revise and improve them. Political party affiliation is on a whole different ballpark than race.
- sillysaurus3 11y agoActually, you haven't. You are allowed to pick either group A or group B. Both groups are idiotic in their own ways. On the spectrum from hardcore libertarianism to hardcore conservatism, the two political parties are huddled closely together in the middle of it. You don't get a choice. But you get to be branded for the rest of your life as one of those two groups. It's a game I refuse to play.
- ultramancool 11y agoI closed this almost immediately because of the giant yellow "this is your free article for this month" banner on the top. Get your shit together web designers, I don't need something blaring so everyone in the office sees that it's my free article.
- seivan 11y agoGive it a chance. It was worth reading.
- toolz 11y agobut is it worth encouraging that kind of behavior by visiting the site? I personally don't think so. There's nothing wrong with it per se, but I personally don't like websites functioning like this so I won't encourage it.
- thebaer 11y agoThe yellow banner was fine until it started stalking me down the page -- I need to at least be able to focus on the article's words.
- zodPod 11y agoYeah, I'm all for subscription model instead of ads but, as someone else said, it doesn't have to stalk you down the page. It's way too distracting and takes up enough real estate to be obnoxious.
- mfoy_ 11y agoOddly, I didn't even notice the banner until I read your comment... I blame Wikipedia for conditioning me to ignore banners.
- gyardley 11y agoRight click, delete element. Almost as fast as closing the page, and you're no longer letting crap web designers dictate what you read and what you don't.
- _archon_ 11y agoThis is an interesting article, and I think there could be a point made that wasn't expressed. I propose that someone who embodies these methods may be much more likely to have others judge them to have intellectual integrity. That was an awkward sentence. I further propose that this acknowledgement is an important aspect of having even highly polarized people have a worthwhile conversation.
- mystikal 11y agoIn my experience, because they only see in black and white, polarized people see anybody that isn't polarized as belonging to the other pole. It gets boring after a while.
- toolz 11y agoHmm, I think that makes that person polarizing if they are viewed in such a light. Being depolarizing would by definition mean that person is able to have polarized people see them in a non-polarizing light, would it not?
- mystikal 11y agoOh yeah, I was conflating depolarizing with not polarized. Good point. Yes, by definition, if you are depolarizing, none of the polarized people will see you as polarized, at least in time. On the other hand, I still believe there are lots of people that cannot listen to anything that isn't what they believe (pick any hot button topic) - like it's really impossible to depolarize them.
- markc 11y agoSo true. Half of my facebook friends think I'm a flaming liberal. The other half think I'm a flaming conservative. This is because I dare to challenge their silly meme posters that lie about and defame the "opposition". They don't seem to notice that I challenge the BS on both sides. They only know that correcting falsehoods that align with their pet belief is proof you're in the enemy camp. Likewise, they think it's impossible to concede any point made by the enemy, no matter how obviously true, without being entirely aligned with them.
- brightball 11y agoOne of my favorite quotes actually embodies this pretty well. "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
- senekerim 11y agoOTOH if you've reached a point where you are ready to accept both 'A' and 'not A', you need to go back and re-examine your premises/assumptions (sort of a real life example of reductio ad absurdum). Related example: accepting 'the left is delusional and corrupt' and 'the right is delusional and corrupt' leads one to re-examine the validity and usefulness of this whole left-right spectrum of political thought.
- heegemcgee 11y agoI take the original "Hold in mind" to mean "consider, in detail", and it works better. Perhaps in line with "seek first to understand".
- ch4s3 11y agoI'm inclined to agree with this interpretation.
- jschwartzi 11y agoThere's a difference between considering A and not A, and accepting A and not A. In formal logic, one or the other statement must be true. The point being made is that we should refrain from choosing the true statement until we've taken the time to consider both on their own merits.
- qznc 11y agoMixing reality and absolute statements seems like a recipe for falsehood. Probabilities work much better. "I'm 50% certain of A and 50% of not-A", which means complete ignorance. A "80% A" means you have an opinion, but you acknowledge a 20% possiblity of being wrong. If anybody claims "100% sure of something", it is an obvious sign of idiocy.
- agentgt 11y agoI believe many of the problems of polarization are caused by cognitive dissonance [1] in particular "confirmation bias" (the article is sort of light on references to academic social psychology and cognitive behavior). Confirmation bias is often exarcebated with greater choices (as the number of choices brings greater discomfort). An example would be the GOP primaries (ie sheer number of candidates). I also think certain personality types (ie myers briggs/jung) have a tendency to behave in a polarized manner. I don't think being polarized = stupid as another commenter posted albeit probably being ignorant does have an affect. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
- RobertoG 11y agoMy irony bias makes me think that attributing problems to confirmation bias should be classified as a type of confirmation bias.
- agentgt 11y agoPerhaps I'm not as knowledgable in the area as you are (and thus think my critique/question trite). Maybe care to elaborate on the irony? I posted it because the article doesn't bother to answer why the hell people are polarized in the first place. Its like saying America is fat.. here are 7 tips to get in shape... I also think the # prefix tips is clearly a click bait ploy albeit I a nice clever a play on Steven Covey's book title. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to know why people become polarized in the first place or why we are so much now?
- RobertoG 11y agoI want to excuse myself. It wasn't an attack against your comment but I see how it could looks like it. In essence I share your opinion. It's just I couldn't resist the chance. I know, childish.
- emodendroket 11y agoI find the idea that the current level of polarization is unprecedented kind of questionable. McCarthyist purges? The violence of the Reconstruction era, which followed a literal Civil War? Compared to that people calling each other mean names seems like small potatoes.
- aggieben 11y agoYes, exactly. Some perspective is in order. Your examples are on point. Also: duels, anyone?
- maxxxxx 11y agoI wish they would still do duels. That would get rid of a lot of crazy people in politics. Trump would certainly be very busy...
- jessaustin 11y agoThose historical disagreements were about something. So much of the current sound and fury is just the marketing department of the status quo attempting to convince us that there's a debate going on at all. On a giant polo field of political possibility, the Bushes and Clintons fight furiously over a tiny postage stamp of "acceptable" policies. Anyone venturing outside that is just craaaaazy! It sort of backfired on TPTB this time around, however. Not only did they get annoying one-step-beyond-the-pale "alternatives" like Cruz, they also got legitimately different directions like Sanders and Paul. TPTB had wisely saved the easily-controlled pseudo-alternative Trump for this election, though, so he's been able to take the wind out of those sails. His two terms will be like a rerun of W's (or, frankly, O's). In eight years, though, to whom will they turn? There's no way Hillary will be able to stomach "standing by her man" for that much longer. Christie is just too fat. If you want to see the next fake-alternative president before anyone else does, keep watching those reality shows!
- emodendroket 11y agoIn a lot of ways I agree with what you're saying, but that makes the whole "polarization" thing even more preposterous to me. The political parties are broadly in agreement with each other about many of the big issues even when voters are not -- how can anyone look at this situation and say the problem is that more "civility" or "consensus" is what is needed?
- alistproducer2 11y agoIMO, A large part of the problem is people of different political views don't talk, face to face, enough. Like in war, it's easier to kill a "gook" or "haji" than a person. The Internet makes it easy to dehumanize the other side; they're just avatars and words on your screen. It's a lot harder to hate an actual person, especially just for having a different opinion than you. [Edited]
- wolfgke 11y agoCouldn't it be that it is much better that persons of very different political views don't talk so much, face to face? I can imagine quite well that this would easily in yelling at each other etc. Also at least me I even get more hate to views someone says if I talk to him/her personally than when I only have to see his/her arguments in the internet. In other words: That people of very different views don't talk much to each other is in my opinion both a "self-protection" and quite plausibly rather prevents spreading even more hate.
- tat45 11y agoSpeaking from personal experience only, I work with people who are on the other side of the fence from me politically. We manage to have conversations on political matters without it boiling over into contempt and dislike. Probably the fact that it is a workplace and we all want to keep our jobs serves to keep a lid on it. I find it far easier to depersonalize someone who I don't see in the flesh on a daily basis.
- tomjen3 11y agoAre you sure about the contempt and dislike? When I hear somebody say something stupid at work I won't necessarily say anything, or say what I think, but I will change my like/dislike of that person.
- clock_tower 11y agoI think he's explicitly saying _expressed_ contempt and dislike: "Probably the fact that it is a workplace and we all want to keep our jobs serves to keep a lid on it."
- maxxxxx 11y agoHow about "think for yourself"? I notice that when you discuss something with a lot of partisan people they come to a pretty balanced view if the party leadership hasn't already staked out a position. But they will make a 180 turn as soon as soon as the official position is out and be totally opposed to the view they have developed previously.
- zzalpha 11y agoI suspect that's a big part of group identity. Want to solve that problem? Stop referring to those who disagree (or agree) with you as "Democrat" or "Republican". And stop thinking of yourself that way.
- maxxxxx 11y agoTotally agree. That's why I register as independent.
- nikdaheratik 11y agoIt's partially "group identity" and partially that they didn't care about issue X enough to hold onto that idea. I feel like people identify with parties in the U.S. based on its position on a few issues they really care about, like Global Warming or Abortion, and just go along with them on the other issues that they don't care that much about.
- breischl 11y agoArguably that's one of the underlying themes of the entire article. In particular point #5 seems to address this, and especially the article's quote of Daniel Bell: Ideology makes it unnecessary for people to confront individual issues on their own merits. One simply turns to the ideological vending machine, and out come the prepared formulae. I particularly like the "ideological vending machine" metaphor, and I think it describes exactly what you're talking about.
- maxxxxx 11y agoI like the metaphor too but I don't think it's direct enough. The original seven habits had very direct advice "Sharpen the saw", "Being with the end in mind" so I think "Think for yourself" fits with the style.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- lez 11y agoI am thinking about what could happen if a large company with communication platform engaged in encouraging these rules within their platform. Good world that woulud be.
- carsongross 11y agoPoliteness comes from social solidarity: it is a consequence of social harmony, not a precursor. What if the polarization represents actual, fundamental disagreements on politics and, at root, moral axioms? Being polite hasn't done much for the respectable right for the last fifty years. I would rather focus on solutions like secession or federalism that allow groups of people with different and irreconcilable moral axioms to simply leave one another alone to build the social/political structures they would prefer.
- Xcelerate 11y agoWhile I think secession should probably be a last resort, it would indeed be an intriguing thought experiment to separate the two ideological groups and see what happens. Each side thinks a society run under the opposing side's view would fall apart; wouldn't it be interesting if you could actually see which group does better after a century on their own?
- carsongross 11y agowouldn't it be interesting if you could actually see which group does better after a century on their own It very much would be. This is another argument for federalism/secessionism: a laboratory of governments/social structures will provide better feedback as to what works and what does not for various populations. I think it is also worth bearing in mind that "does better" is inherently subjective, since value is subjective. Some political units may be fine trading GDP for a better environment, while others may be fine trading sexual freedom for stability. The irreconcilability of values/moral axioms dictates that we either agree to allow sufficiently differentiated groups to develop their own political units, or we impose our axioms on them (or they, us.)
- Xcelerate 11y agoIt would be interesting if we had "virtual countries" where you could choose among the tradeoffs for yourself. I suppose the difficulty would be handling the interactions between each person's virtual country, but the idea that everyone signs up for a different set of laws and freedoms has interesting implications.
- ChemicalWarfare 11y agoPolarization has a very strong tribal component to it. Once you get into the "us vs them" mindset you become the member of the "tribe" purely based on the labels instead of "reality". At some point in time the label can have a strong correlation with the actual reality,then the label becomes more important than what it actually represents. Politicians exploit this constantly, "us vs them" is what unites their respective camps and promotes loyalty.
- specialist 11y agoThe increasing political divide in the US is the direct result of ever more aggressive gerrymandering. Jurisdictions are becoming ever more partisan. So now only the most partisan (divisive) candidates can win their primary election, which then pretty much makes the general election moot. The fix is California style redistricting, where citizens and not politicians are in charge of the process.
- bgilroy26 11y agoEconomic uncertainty is also bad for solidarity. It becomes a "Team up? What for?" situation
- jarjoura 11y agoThat's definitely a cause for what we're seeing out of Congress, but it's not related to what we're seeing with Trump. He is winning at the polls with his hateful angry rhetoric and it's pretty damn strange.
- specialist 11y agoCaucus results are determined by the handful of people who bother to show up. Trump's winning because his supporters are showing up. This speaks more to the failings of the other candidates than the success of Trump.
- bryondowd 11y agoNot familiar with 'California style redistricting' and I'm curious. Have a short explanation or a link?
- specialist 11y agoSure thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Citizens_Redistricting_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Citizens_Redistrict...
- dragonwriter 11y ago> The increasing political divide in the US is the direct result of ever more aggressive gerrymandering. I think that there is almost precisely zero evidence of this; there's a lot more to support that regional strong political divides have always been present in the US, what's new is that the salient issues have become increasingly consistent nationally, so that it is no more the case that the national political scene often seems less sharply divided because all the sharp regional divides used to be in different places, whereas now there are more common national divides. > The fix is California style redistricting, where citizens and not politicians are in charge of the process. Non/bipartisan redistricting by notionally independent commissions (which, often, as in California, legislators actually have a role in choosing members for, so they aren't truly independent of the legislators, though they are certainly less accountable than legislators) has been a growing trend in the same time as the increasing polarization in national politics. So, its pretty clearly not fixing the problem.
- alexashka 11y ago"Of all the mental habits that encourage polarization, the most dangerous is probably binary thinking" Does this article recognize it's own irony? It's a whole article about 'depolarizing' as opposed to 'polarizing' and within it, is the line I quoted above. Here's a thought - intelligent people don't have these problems and they don't need 7 vague bullet points that are impossible to follow. Dumb people lack nuanced points of view - they polarize/simplify a great deal because that's how humans are - we first learn to think 'hitting other people is bad', and only later learn that 'most times hitting other people is bad'. When do people learn philosophy and different types of fallacies? For most people, the answer is never. How many people grok fallacies, philosophy and have emotional intelligence to boot? Even fewer. Thank god someone wrote an article that by-passes all that though, it's just the 10 commandments you need, oh sorry I meant 7 habits...
- adwf 11y agoYou could also read this is as 7 ways to lose an election ;)
- norea-armozel 11y agoI can't blame the author to trying to focus on the best aspects of how to reach across the political spectrum (even within the same party), but I'll be honest and say that some ideas/positions are fundamentally incompatible with a liberal society. For example, the current crop of social conservatism to seem to be dead set on putting inspectors at the entrances of public restrooms because of pseudo-fears over transgender people (specifically male-to-female transsexuals). Clearly, it's not about protecting children, women, and the elderly. It's about shaming a minority into submission since we've been making gains in terms of the national discussion. Hell, the fact that Caitlyn Jenner got some conservatives to rethink their ideas signals that certain virulent ideologies are on their way out. So, all they got left is to demonize. Worse still, there's no compromising with these people on such legislation like ENDA. They always want more protection to discriminate in private settings where they would be in violation of existing protected class laws. If such people want to have a seat at the table then they need to stop assuming that transgender people are monsters first and foremost. If that's not in their agenda then there can be no depolarization or compromises, ever. You can't debate the humanity of another person, either they're human or they're not.
- yompers888 11y ago>Clearly, it's not about protecting children, women, and the elderly. It's about shaming a minority into submission since we've been making gains in terms of the national discussion. It would be fruitless for me to speculate on the particular aversion you mention to transsexuals, but in general you'll gain a better understanding by looking for a motivation other than malice; that's seldom the explanation. The real rationale may be short-sighted, ignorant, wildly unfair, and unlikely to be advanced by the outlandish actions taken, but nonetheless there is some underlying thought process, and most people care far too much about themselves to go out significantly out of their ways to deliberately do harm to others.
- norea-armozel 11y agoThe fact of the matter is they are open about their malice. Search on Youtube for the South Dakota senator's remarks in response to someone's skepticism of his bathroom bill. He basically states that trans people are effectively bad or broken people. If he's saying that sort of bunk then there's no room for debate for him, he's made his mind up. For me, talking to or trying to compromise with these kinds of people is like compromising with a robber: he's still gonna steal your stuff even if he doesn't beat you up or kill you.