Avoiding the Echo Chamber.
I just turned 61, and I can't recall a time when the American population was more divided. Even during the Vietnam War and the riots of the late '60's and early '70's, the divisive issues were relatively few in number compared to today. The most general divisive statement I can recall from those days was: "Don't trust anyone over 30."
Back then, we could disagree about specific issues without denigrating or rejecting the entirety of the other person. I see that sensibility fading, especially during the past decade. Rather than having opinions on issues, we are now seemingly forced to join one camp or another. The ability to be a complex person with diverse beliefs is fading: Uniformity of identity is becoming the rule rather than the fringe exception.
The main problem, as I see it, isn't just what "they" believe versus what "we" believe. The main problem is the "echo chamber" where we hear only those who agree with us, and avoid hearing those who disagree. This can only increase polarization, as it allows for no place between the extremes. If we are to exhibit simple intellectual honesty, to strive to see things as they really are, then I believe this requires we exit the echo chamber.
What is the echo chamber? It is largely the internet. The medium that was supposed to provide common ground for the entire planet has instead become the perfect breeding ground for idiosyncratic communities by the simple process of selecting and filtering what we want to read, hear and see. How to exit the echo chamber?
First, try to avoid single-perspective publications. For every focused blog or twitter account you follow, ensure you also follow one with a contrasting focus. If you like MSNBC, be sure to also watch Fox News
Second, try to avoid stating your own opinion or position right at the start. No matter what I believe for myself, when discussing an issue in "mixed company" I always put myself right in the middle, and try to get opposing sides to convince me rather than fight with each other. Quite often we wind up agreeing on the vast majority of fundamentals, and realize the things causing the most disagreement often have the least affect on actual outcomes. Best of all, I generally learn more about the issue as a whole, which influences my own, private, position for the better. Third, when asked directly what my opinion or position is, I try to be as general as possible. For example, when asked where I stand in the political spectrum (this seems to always happen on first dates), I say: "I seek to maximize personal freedom, and I support responsible fiscal policies." Of course, I believe in far more than "just" this, but I find this statement opens doors with both liberals and conservatives. Find a talking place in the middle. This will permit you to serve as the fulcrum in a discussion, a window between sides rather than a separating wall.
This does not mean denying our deepest-held beliefs or avoiding confrontation! I will never support fascism, or Nazism, or racism, or sexism, or a large number of other -isms. I joyfully confront bigots on sight. But I do not tell them they are wrong: I merely ask them about what they believe until they reveal their own wrongness. It takes patience and practice to get inside the head of an idiot, but the rewards of helping some awareness seep in are well worth it.
By the same token, if someone starts questioning your beliefs, be willing to stay in the discussion for as long as it takes. And if you get stuck, it probably means you should do a little studying yourself, to understand why you believe what you believe. You could be wrong!
Back then, we could disagree about specific issues without denigrating or rejecting the entirety of the other person. I see that sensibility fading, especially during the past decade. Rather than having opinions on issues, we are now seemingly forced to join one camp or another. The ability to be a complex person with diverse beliefs is fading: Uniformity of identity is becoming the rule rather than the fringe exception.
The main problem, as I see it, isn't just what "they" believe versus what "we" believe. The main problem is the "echo chamber" where we hear only those who agree with us, and avoid hearing those who disagree. This can only increase polarization, as it allows for no place between the extremes. If we are to exhibit simple intellectual honesty, to strive to see things as they really are, then I believe this requires we exit the echo chamber.
What is the echo chamber? It is largely the internet. The medium that was supposed to provide common ground for the entire planet has instead become the perfect breeding ground for idiosyncratic communities by the simple process of selecting and filtering what we want to read, hear and see. How to exit the echo chamber?
First, try to avoid single-perspective publications. For every focused blog or twitter account you follow, ensure you also follow one with a contrasting focus. If you like MSNBC, be sure to also watch Fox News
Second, try to avoid stating your own opinion or position right at the start. No matter what I believe for myself, when discussing an issue in "mixed company" I always put myself right in the middle, and try to get opposing sides to convince me rather than fight with each other. Quite often we wind up agreeing on the vast majority of fundamentals, and realize the things causing the most disagreement often have the least affect on actual outcomes. Best of all, I generally learn more about the issue as a whole, which influences my own, private, position for the better. Third, when asked directly what my opinion or position is, I try to be as general as possible. For example, when asked where I stand in the political spectrum (this seems to always happen on first dates), I say: "I seek to maximize personal freedom, and I support responsible fiscal policies." Of course, I believe in far more than "just" this, but I find this statement opens doors with both liberals and conservatives. Find a talking place in the middle. This will permit you to serve as the fulcrum in a discussion, a window between sides rather than a separating wall.
This does not mean denying our deepest-held beliefs or avoiding confrontation! I will never support fascism, or Nazism, or racism, or sexism, or a large number of other -isms. I joyfully confront bigots on sight. But I do not tell them they are wrong: I merely ask them about what they believe until they reveal their own wrongness. It takes patience and practice to get inside the head of an idiot, but the rewards of helping some awareness seep in are well worth it.
By the same token, if someone starts questioning your beliefs, be willing to stay in the discussion for as long as it takes. And if you get stuck, it probably means you should do a little studying yourself, to understand why you believe what you believe. You could be wrong!
Comments
Post a Comment