Tag Archives: debate

The inverted political bell curve

1 Reply

We no longer have an opportunity to be centrist. Extremes on either side make this challenging. Being centrist is too hard, hated by both sides because if you aren’t way over here on ‘our’ side, you lack the merit of being associated with ‘us’, so you belong with ‘them’. Rather than being seen as partial to common interests you are lumped in with everyone else that is not on ‘our’ extreme.

Examples: Liberal minded but worry about immigration? Well you may as well be fully right wing conservative. Believe in equal opportunities for gay marriage? Well then you might as well be a bleeding heart liberal, no matter how else your views may be conservative.

There used to be a bell curve where most people were not on the extremes, rather more centrist, more in the middle. That curve has inverted and flattened. Less people are ‘in the middle’ and more people are veering to the extremes. And it’s not getting any better because any political candidate who appeals to the center is not appealing to the masses. The once peripheral minorities are now a divided majority.

There is no room for nuance. No debate, just argument. Dichotomies, not a spectrum of ideas. But global issues are not well defined into clearly opposing views. Electric vehicles can be a net good while the environmental cost of dead batteries pose a problem. We can provide rights for some without taking them away from others. We can have strong border policies, and be both discerning and compassionate. We can disagree and not vilify, argue and not attack, debate facts and dismiss logical fallacies.

We can… but will we? Or are the propaganda machines too powerful right now? Are we entering an era where truth is elusive, and biased AI created videos constantly exaggerate perspectives? An era where fact checking is a requirement before accepting information? Throw in ad hominem, personal attacks, and intentional foreign interference focused on deepening polarization, and anti-social social media, and I’m afraid to think about where we are headed.

The bell curve majority of moderate thinkers have dispersed to the extremes, and these extremes are dragging everyone out of the middle. It’s 2024 and I can go on social media and watch a live debate between a scientist and a flat earther, and despite the evidence to the contrary, no flat earther is going to change their mind. I can find a bible prophecy that ignores wild extrapolations and factual inaccuracies, and no countervailing points will be accepted. I can find intelligent people arguing biased and counter factual points, and putting their intellect aside blindly to support a point, a belief, a perspective, or even a political candidate.

I’ve come to the realization that we are just monkeys. We are not civil, we are tribal animals, playing at being intelligent. We are more likely to solve disputes like other animals than we are as humans. We admire bravado, we look down on the meek, we beat our chests and vie for attention. Winning is more important than playing fair. I am safer when my tribe, my group, my monkey troop, is stronger and other troops are dominated.

The bell curve is gone, only warring tribes remain, and the fighting is just going to get uglier.

It’s about the nuances

Today I ran into a teacher that was a favourite of my two daughters. He brought up a current geopolitical issue that I won’t discuss here, because there is too much nuance and I’m not prepared to write a dissertation of my thoughts… and anything else will only cause me grief. In fact, even a dissertation would cause me grief because I’d be bound to garnish disagreement and even anger. Why? Because no matter what position I hold, no matter how nuanced or not, it will upset people.

We’ve reached an impasse in public conversation when nuance is not part of the conversation. Everything is black & white, and any shade of grey is ‘othered’ to the opposing view. This is unhealthy. Very unhealthy.

It took my conversation today, where we agreed yet were equally reserved, to realize that a more public conversation can’t happen for me. I’m not knowledgeable enough. I haven’t done the hard work to have a strong and well defended view of a sensitive issue. I ask questions that could and would piss off people on either side of the issue.

I’ve said before,

“We want to live, thrive, and love in a pluralistic society. We just need to recognize that in such a society we must be tolerant and accepting of opposing views, unaccepting of hateful and hurtful acts, and smart enough to understand the difference.”

I don’t believe that distinction is being made right now. I don’t see an openness to nuance. I don’t see a way forward where we are moving in the right direction. An upcoming election in the US coupled with AI generated fake news, and the bi-polar positions on the left and right, are going to lead to a shitstorm. It’s going to get ugly, it might get violent, and it will not get better until it gets worse.

We need to find a way to bring back nuanced debate and conversation… where different opinions are met with interest not scorn, with acceptance not ridicule. Discourse can be had without anger, and nuanced opinions will lead to solutions where now we only find conflict.

Bad questions

One of the dumbest tropes in education is that, ‘There is no such thing as a bad question’. Yes, yes there is. Yes there are. There are many bad questions. We live in a world filled with bad questions.

Why are people still asking if climate change is real? Why do people still question if the world is flat? Why do people still question evolution and want creationism taught in classrooms?

Because we live in a world where bad questions are asked and people respond to them. With each justification there is a rebuttal, and when millions of people hear the dumb, illogical, misleading, and inaccurate rebuttals some of them will believe these bad ideas.

Bad ideas spread from debating bad questions.

Good questions deserve debate. Bad questions should be ignored… or redirected. ‘Is climate change real’ is a dumb question based on a bad idea. A better question is, ‘We know humans are impacting the climate, what can be done to reduce that impact?’ Spending time rationalizing the first question is literally giving the question too much power, and the ignorant responses an opportunity to be shared.

It’s worth saying this again, it’s the problem we face today across many fields, spreading through news and social media… and when we participate, we are part of the problem:

Bad ideas spread from debating bad questions.

So the next time someone tells you there is no such thing as a bad question, you might want to disagree, just don’t waste too much time debating the point.

The Ego and the Way

There is a saying that we are our own worst enemy, and this is especially true when our egos get the best of us. I know that I’m not at my best when I get my back up. I know that making my point a second time in an argument doesn’t help even if… especially if… I’m right. And yet sometimes in the moment of an argument I’ll still poke my point in, like a finger into a wound. Being right becomes more important than coming to an agreement.

Ego clouds the way. Hammering out past transgressions becomes more important than finding a good path forward. Being right trumps being kind, considerate, humble, compromising, or forgiving. Ego destroys apologies, by inserting justifications and explanations. “I’m sorry but…” is not an apology. “What I meant to say…” only adds to the harm. “The reason why…” is a way to justify not a way to heal.

It’s especially hard when the other person doesn’t make it easy. It takes an inner strength to take the good path when being met with frustration or even anger. That’s when the ego wakes and stands it’s ground; When the tone and tenor switches from coming to a settlement to winning an argument; When the ego becomes the way. But when you succumb to ego, you surrender a good outcome. When you meet another’s ego with ego the way forward is lost.

Do you or your ego rise up to a challenge? What is the desired outcome, to be right or to move forward? When the ego clouds the way pack your umbrella because the destination is not bright. Tuck the ego away and a clearer horizon is possible… and you just might arrive somewhere you want to be.

Shades of grey

Just a simple reminder that we don’t live in a dichotomy. The world isn’t either black or white. Most ideas sit somewhere in between.

Nuances in politics, in culture, and in our communities create opportunities to learn, to explore, and to be empathetic. Not sympathetic, empathetic. I remember interviewing a friend of my aunt’s for an essay about discrimination. He was in a wheelchair and I quoted him in my paper, “The only place sympathy belongs is between shit and syphilis in the dictionary.”

We don’t learn if our ideas aren’t challenged. We don’t learn by talking but by listening. We can disagree. We can even argue and debate. We can research and support our ideas. We can walk away… and maybe we can change our minds. Maybe we can find the grey that allows us to coexist without feeling like we have to change others minds.

Nuances. Empathy. Shades of grey.

They do not know

Children do not know they lack the wisdom of age.

An adult does not know when more information and knowledge has ceased to provide more wisdom.

When blind privilege provides an advantage it does not know that this advantage has been bestowed.

When ignorance is spoken it does not know that it is spoken while lacking relevant information.

Anger does not know how it clouds rational thought.

Hate does not know how to foster love or forgiveness.

A biased person does know their subjectivity lacks objectivity.

An irrational person does not know that their judgments are clouded.

The delusional does not know their view of the world is altered.

The hypocrite does not know their words do not meet their own standards or revered beliefs.

The fool does not know when they are being fooled.

To tell a child that they they are too young to understand; To tell an adult they are not wise enough to understand; To tell the blindly privileged that they are privileged; To tell the angry or hateful not to be angry or hateful; To tell the biased, irrational, or delusional of their faulty perspectives; to call a hypocrite a hypocrite, or a fool a fool… These are vain and futile attempts to share what you know with someone that does not know.

To be noble in principle, thoughtfully persuasive, and influential in a way that can be heard is no easy task. Knowing when you can be convincing and when efforts are futile is not always clear. To believe that you can change a fixed mind is a fool’s errand, but to give up on a fixed mindset that can be changed is a lost opportunity to have meaningful influence.

Related post: Ideas on a Spectrum

I don’t agree to disagree

In Canadian fashion I will apologies for this, but I don’t agree to disagree. Sorry.

No I won’t say it’s ok for you to have a different opinion about Covid-19, it is not just a flu. It’s also not an infringement on your rights to wear a mask any more than it is to insist you wear a seatbelt, or not enter a store naked from the waist down… and no, this is not a ridiculous comparison.

No, it’s not ok for you to spread QAnon conspiracies any more than it’s not ok to share religious reasons to infringe on the rights of others. These are both wrong in an open, free, and democratic society.

Do you have a right to expunge stupidity in this open, free, and democratic society? Yes. Yes, you do… but I don’t have to accept it as something deserving an equal stance to science and facts. I don’t have to see it as an opposing view worthy of debate. You are wrong.

I don’t agree to disagree, not at all. Your sources are not reliable, your opinions are not facts. I’m not agreeing to disagree. To do so, I would be weighing fact to fiction like they somehow are the same thing. They are not.

The economy can stay open if people wear masks, socially distance themselves and sanitize appropriately. Some people might disagree with me, and on a topic like this we can agree to disagree.

However, with 40,000,000+ cases worldwide 1,118,443 deaths, and over 9,000,000 known active cases worldwide this is not just a bad flu, it’s a pandemic. And if you want to disagree with that well then sorry… you are wrong.

Put a mask on, and thank those around you for being respectful and doing the same.

Ad Hominem Attacks on Social Media

Ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. (Wikipedia)

It used to be that an ad hominem attack during an argument was a (weak) defensive move, but that is no longer the case… especially on social media. Don’t like someone’s ideas? Attack their character, their physical features, their business acumen, or even their choice of clothing. As for the point they are making, the very thing that was upsetting, this is not dismissed with any points of merit. No, instead it is simply assumed that the opposing view is already a lost argument with no need to fact check or provide counter evidence or opposing rationalization.

I’m not sure when this became so acceptable? It is a weak and counterproductive approach to disagreeing with someone’s ideas, and yet it is pervasive on all social media platforms. While ad hominem attacks used to be used as a poor, defensive response, now it is done as a knee jerk reaction with little thought as to how it undermines any points made in conjunction with it. While ad hominem attacks used to be used by weak people avoiding having to put forth a weak argument, now it is used as fuel to feed the rage that social media can invite. ‘Here is my point, and here is a personal attack I’ll add for good measure.’

Ultimately, here is the problem, an ad hominem attack is literally an argument that preaches only to the converted. It undermines any valuable information or argument that is shared along with the attack. Sure it scores a point with the people who agree with the person on the attack, but it does the opposite with those that disagree, those that the attacker would actually want to convince otherwise. Think that through to its logical conclusion: Ad hominem attacks are great for convincing people who are already agreeable, while angering or being fully dismissed by those that disagree. What does this accomplish?

____________

Addendum: Sarcasm works the same way, pandering to those who need not be convinced, while being dismissed by those that it would be desirable to influence.

Also, this brings me back to the post: Ideas on a Spectrum.