Probing Polarization

Polarization is quite possibly the greatest problem facing American society today—as well as many other countries in the world. For various reasons, polarization has grown worse in recent years, to the point that it has extinguished most of what little common ground society once had. We have retreated into our isolated silos and enclaves, as we have come to view those in other silos as enemies, and refuse to listen to them or grant any validity to their beliefs. We engage in cultural wars that aim to utterly defeat the other—giving no quarter. Society seems to have descended into a zero-sum game, wherein one side triumphs while the other is thoroughly vanquished.

Years ago I was involved in conducting various types of nonviolence trainings. The core of the concept—when two parties find themselves locked in conflict—was to seek some common ground, come together on that ground, and then gradually build a cooperative framework to move forward together, for the common good. Those trainings were predicated on the willingness of conflicting parties to engage with each other, in order to work on a community problem that both agreed needed to be resolved—as well as to collaborate in a search for that common ground.

The extreme kind of polarization that permeates society today, however, prevents either side from even considering coming together—except to confront each other. They either do this while screaming at each other over social media, or while being filmed by media, as individuals get in each others' face, engaging in a shouting match. Psychological research has shown that, under these circumstances, each party simply hardens their perspective, with the tragic result that the gap is widened. The parties walk away from these clashes with even more deeply entrenched beliefs, and any possible common ground increasingly vanishes. The level of distrust of and alienation of the other side simply heightens.

Polarization was once confined mostly to the political arena. It has spread, however, and is spilling over into a number of other areas, such as personal relationships, medical advice, hiring decisions, vaccines, etc. As an example of the deleterious impact of polarization on society, progress is hindered on such critical problems as climate change, inequality, and immigration. The two warring sides cannot even agree on what the problem is, let alone find common ground to deal with it.

So, is there any hope for achieving progress on dealing with these issues? Psychological research also shows that there indeed may be a way: polarization can be decreased through what is termed  “mechanistic reasoning.” Very often people conveniently latch onto a viewpoint either because it's simplistic or because they wish to feel a part of a group that holds that viewpoint. We can be lazy... rather than logically arriving at our own thought-out perspective, we grab an easy explanation of something or adopt the perspective put forth by a group ensconced in a specific silo. We cannot really understand the issue this way, but we become convinced that we're right, because the group fervently believes so. When challenged, our certainty just hardens.

That certainty hides the fact that, because our grasp on the issue is shallow, we often don't really understand how it works. Furthermore, false confidence allows us to ignore alternative perspectives or ideas. For example, we may readily attribute the lack of governmental effectiveness in dealing with immigration to one simple factor or another. Those on each side of the issue will seize upon a shallow explanation that fits their preconceived perspective. They then engage in vehement battles based upon those simplistic explanations. Neither side fully understands the complexity of the problem.

Research shows that false confidence can be decreased through a remarkably simple process: ask the person to explain the details of how it works—not their reasons for their belief, but how it works. Ask them to explain how they arrived at their belief by detailing and explaining the issue. What often happens is when they try, they come to understand that they understand less than they thought. And when they can't explain how it works, their certainty decreases and they become less extreme in their view.

A simple example of this idea—from a mechanistic perspective—is that most people think they understand how a bicycle or a refrigerator works. Ask someone to explain the mechanics of a bike or fridge, however, and they often quickly see that they really cannot offer a mechanistic description. Their mind may then become open to learn more about the subject and to change their attitude. When we come to accept the fact that we can't know it all, we can admit to a little humility and begin to listen to others. We may even discover we do have some common ground.