When we discover that someone disagrees with us on a matter we consider settled, we often go through three steps to “understand” why they are wrong, and those three reasons go from most charitable to least:
- They are ignorant. If they knew what I know, if they had the facts I do, they would see things as I do.
- They are too stupid to understand the facts. This is the next line of thinking once we realize that they know the facts we know and simply interpret them differently or feel differently about them.
- They are acting in bad faith. They don’t want to know the truth because their intentions are bad. They don’t care about others or the truth, just whatever immoral or unjust thing they want.
The problem is that both sides of a disagreement think these things about the other party, but they don’t question themselves in this same way. They don’t question their own facts, understanding or motives. Nobody experiences being wrong, and only occasionally do they experience having been wrong (but from the vantage point of now being right again).
Consider a classic argument between those who no longer believe in the Church and those who do.
Ignorance:
- Believer: That person hasn’t had the spiritual experiences I have. They don’t possess that spiritual evidence I have. They never had a testimony.
- Non-believer: That person doesn’t know about the things I know. [insert a litany of faith-damaging facts such as Joseph Smith and all his wives or the multiple accounts of the first vision or that top Church leaders are paid or lack of DNA support for the Book of Mormon].
Stupidity:
- Believer: That person doesn’t understand the nature of spiritual things, that facts aren’t the most important thing, that God lives, etc. They just don’t get the point of it.
- Non-believer: That person doesn’t understand the implications of the lack of steel and horses. That person doesn’t grasp the problems with polygamy or truth claims. They are sheeple.
Immoral:
- Believer: That person believes, deep down, but they just don’t want to follow it. They got an answer but they were too selfish or wrapped up in wanting to sin.
- Non-believer: That person is judgmental, sexist or homophobic and happy to stay in a Church that makes them feel better about their morally bad positions.
The difficulty isn’t in getting the other person to see things your way, but rather in questioning whether your own views are really right. They may be right, but questioning is the root of eliminating confirmation bias.
And obviously, sometimes (not infrequently) people ARE ignorant of facts (or operating from different facts), or they are not able to understand complex information. They also are sometimes acting in bad faith as a screen to cover their own desires, even if they aren’t aware they are doing this.
Consider these common US political tropes, statements you hear from either side in our increasingly polarized parties:
Ignorant:
- Right: They have been duped by the deep-state! They don’t see that the Ukrainians were really trying to frame Trump by making it look like he had sandbagged Hillary’s campaign using Russian bots! They are duped by the liberal biased media!
- Left: They are only watching one, really bad news source that is in the President’s pocket! They are operating from alternative facts! They believe lies told by their leader that are obviously false and easily disproven.
Stupid:
- Right: The other side doesn’t understand how economics or business works! They want things they can’t pay for! They are impractical! Actual quote from a political fight on a friend’s FB wall: “If ignorance was a sport you would be a champion!”
- Left: The other side doesn’t understand what the Mueller report really means. They don’t understand the framers’ intent. They don’t see that they are just doing the bidding of corporations and big oil. Actual quote from same political fight on same friend’s FB wall: “Your low rate insults usually come from low education.”
Immoral / Bad Actors:
- Right: The left is corrupt. The Clintons have murdered dozens of people! The PC police are just trying to make themselves look good, but they don’t really care about those causes. They are just trying to manipulate stupid people. They are so condescending! They are trying to overturn the will of the people! That same FB argument continues with: “Why do ALMOST ALL DEMOCRATS have pics of their poor pets as PROFILE PICS yet none of themselves 🤔🤔🤔……NUFF SAID……Let that sink in people……” (I mean, what?)
- Left: The right is corrupt! They are sexists, misogynists and homophobes! They apply double standards to everything because they are hiding their own wrong-doing. They hate the poor! They are selfish and greedy!
The other thing that adds to the complexity is that our sense of being right is bolstered by the social groups we choose to join. When you are surrounded by like-minded thinkers, your assumptions are shared, not questioned. Your views, including the more outlandish ones, aren’t challenged from outside sources. You can go further and further down your own rabbit hole. This is why the Russian interference in the 2016 election was so successful, and why Facebook’s willingness to post inaccurate political ads enables people believing whatever they want to believe.
We only have so much time in life, so fact-finding, consuming alternate views, staying friends with people whose views we find repugnant, being critical of our own beliefs–all these things are going to get deprioritized. I know I have defriended or blocked people I’ve known my whole life whose views I find unpleasant. It’s hard for me to continue to respect them when I see how ignorant and stupid (I think) they are. I’m sure they would feel the same way about me, and I wouldn’t even be offended by that given how stupid I think they are. We are on two completely different sides. We accept different facts. We interpret some of the same facts differently. We have different political or religious priorities.
Here are some tactics that can help us overcome this bias that we are right:
- Be Aware of Your Biases. We are all biased in favor of some things or groups and against other things or groups. If you know what your biases are, that can give you a reason to listen more closely when those issues (or groups) come up.
- The IAT test can show you if you are biased against people of color–even if you don’t consider yourself “racist” (or in my case, biased toward people of color).
- Recent political polling is trying to determine if voters are biased against women running for POTUS using a “likable” question. People are more willing to question a woman’s likability (which sounds like her character flaw) and less likely to admit they are sexist (which sounds like their character flaw). Around 40% of voters express this soft sexism in admitting that essentially they don’t like any women candidates.
- Diverse Perspectives. Recently I started listening to a podcast called Left, Right, and Center that at least tries to present arguments from each perspective. Podcasts like that are rare, though.
- Be aware of the slant of the person you are reading or listening to.
- Biased people are better at presenting their own arguments than they are at presenting the other side’s arguments. And everyone is biased, no matter how impartial they try to be.
- Direct Sources. Try to avoid the spin you get when someone interprets facts or adds their own subjective impressions.
- Let people speak for themselves.
- Listen to experts more closely than pundits.
- Read things for yourself. As a Church example, sometimes if I listen to a talk I feel fairly neutral about it until I realize it was controversial and why. We shouldn’t just feed on outrage. There needs to be some personal experience, too.
- Multiple Sources. If you are trying to gather facts, not just opinions, sometimes the more evidence that supports a conclusion can help you determine what is accurate.
- Conspiracy theories usually have fewer sources and those sources are often missing or indirect.
- Even among disagreements, there’s usually a set of facts around which everyone coalesces and agrees.
- Apply Occam’s Razor to gauge the likelihood of an outlandish theory or interpretation.
What do you do to avoid the pitfalls of your own smug sense of superiority?
- Do you catch yourself going through these mental processes to explain why others are wrong?
- How do you talk to someone who is convinced they are right and you are ignorant, stupid or immoral?
- Can you set aside your belief in your superior beliefs long enough to understand the opposing view?
- Will our country continue to become more partisan or less partisan in the future?
Discuss.
I actively attempt to avoid either/or thinking. When I encounter these arguments I urge participants to “find at least 3 other possibilities. Make one option really stupid so when you evaluate them you don’t feel any guilt eliminating something.” It doesn’t always work, but at least it stops the rants for a minute.
Hopefully our country will become more spectrumed instead of extremist. Thank you for your well reasoned and well written posts.
Regardless of what you believe, it’s got to extremely difficult being a Republican these days. The sort of mental and ethical gymnastics you have to do to defend Donald Trump deserves a gold medal.
Wally, There is no good reason to suppose that being a Republican means defending Donald Trump. In many cases, it does not.
I don’t think that defending Donald Trump is any harder than defending his opponents, though I long ago gave up on both tasks – life is so much more enjoyable when you aren’t trying to rationalize other people’s sins.
I tend to look at people who disagree with me as valuing different things. Well, I *try* rather than jumping to any of the conclusions you mentioned. For example, many people who oppose abortion under any circumstances, tend to value human life, no matter how miserable that life may be. I tend to look at quality of life, rather than just existence of life. They tend to value the life of the fetus as much if not more than the life of the mother. My SIL even voiced the idea that the mother “has had a chance at life” so it was OK to put her life at risk in the off chance the baby (who was “innocent”) could be saved. Yet she feels it is perfectly alright to shoot someone who is on your property.
But this attitude keeps me on better terms with family and friends with whom I might otherwise want to end the relationship.
The best way to avoid uncharitably judging those you disagree with is to discuss disagreements face to face.
I think that Anna is basically correct in that a lot of disagreement is simply the result of people valuing different things: once you get past the simplistic tendency to dismiss your opponents worldviews as the result of stupidity, I think you’ll realize more and more that they’re just indifferent to the things you value, or that the value something else more.
For instance, in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus makes it clear that the Priest and the Levite weren’t ignorant of the wounded man lying on the road beside them, they just had other things that concerned them more than helping him. Obviously, even within the indifference paradigm, the various sides of our political divisions are going to conclude that what they value is more important than what the other side values.
That is how, for instance, the Religious Right was able to get behind Trump so easily once all the other Republicans lost to him in the primary: his rudeness, self-aggrandizing ways, and various sex sins all bothered them, but when push comes to shove, they are going to vote for the (relatively) anti-abortion candidate no matter what, because some things are just more important than money and sex.
“This is why the Russian interference in the 2016 election was so successful, and why Facebook’s willingness to post inaccurate political ads enables people believing whatever they want to believe.”
How successful was the Russian interference in the election? Facebook reported that the Russians spent $46,000 on ads in the run-up to the election, while the Trump and Clinton campaigns were spending a total of $81 million.
Or are you suggesting that James Comey, whose October surprise letter may well have pushed Hillary off the rails, was a Russian agent?
So, I see that my last comment has garnered two down votes so far. Is that because they disagree with my implication that the Russian “interference” didn’t amount to much, given the fact that their spending was a piddling fraction of what the candidates themselves spent? Or were they so lacking in a sense of humor that I was serious about Comey being a Russian agent? And, by the way, Nate Silver has said that the October surprise from Comey did cause a measurable drop in support for Clinton, whereas he couldn’t ever tell if the Russkies moved the needle at all.
I find that (for me at least) if I do my best to assume “good intent” on the part of the other person (even if they disagree) with my position…..it can create a positive foundation from which to build some kind of understanding. Of course, the initial assumption of “good intent” has to be reciprocal….or things fall apart pretty quickly. It takes a certain amount of courage for both parties to “step off of the cliff” ..so to speak.
Mark B.
For the record, I did not down vote you.
But I do think the Russian interference was successful beyond their wildest dreams. Not because Trump won, although that seemed to favor them.
From the analysis I heard, the goal of the Russian interference from the beginning was not necessarily to favor a certain candidate, but rather to undermine the integrity and confidence in the election process. Perhaps later in the game they favored Trump specifically because they thought he could win, but initially that probably wasn’t the goal. I think they were wildly successful in reducing confidence in the election result, partly because they got caught. (I should cite a reference here. Sorry, I won’t.)
The effect of the Comey letter could also be seen as influenced by Russian interence, due to timing. I say this because some of the hacked email releases seemed to have been timed to reduce the impact of negative news about Trump (i.e. leaked Access Hollywood audio about grabbing women) and not Clinton (Comey letter). Specifically, from my memory, Mueller report showed that hacked DNC emails were released within hours of the Access Hollywood audio release. The timing favored Trump, but it may have been Assange and WikiLeaks that chose the timing, rather than the Russians.
That bit may have been a bit if a threadjack, because I think the interference referenced in the OP is the Facebook and Twitter posts on social media, a whole different ballgame. On that note, the “interference” was at least successful in getting many items shared on social media by people who had no idea they were spreading Russian influenced propaganda. Not sure if that influenced the election, but it did influence individuals.
I am very concerned for the future of democracy. If both sides are so extreme and believe the other side is terrible that they should be kept out of government at all costs. Then anything goes.
Last night in UK they had a debate between the conservative leader Boris, and the labor leader Corben. The conservatives set up, before the debate, a debate fact check site, so they could correct anything Corben said that didn’t suit their purposes. Lying so their side wins. Luckily it was exposed, which might backfire.
Not sure what can be done when you have governments that just lie through their teeth. You have Trump the world champion, but right leaning governments around the world are watching and copying. Democracy round the world is being undermined. 10 years ago it was damaging to a governments reputation to be caught lying, since Trump, it is becaming standard practice.
If Trump looses in 2020, will he accept the result, will he go peacefully?
I have a republican in my Stake in Australia, who regularly posts anti abortion stuff on facebook, when I pointed out that making it illegal does not reduce it, and in fact increases it, he just changes the subject, and continues.
There are lots of false equivalents presented, and lots of , the other side are just as bad.
It would be nice to think we could have resptful debate of facts, but I am not sure how to get there?
We were on a cruise from Florida via Alaska to Seattle, so we got US news channels, Fox and CNN, and we were not sure what the truth was. In Australia we have a national broadcaster ABC which is gov funded, no advertising, and required by their charter to be ballanced, and truthful. I watch them for news and discussion.
Americans have a big responsibility, and I’m not sure you are up to the job.
The people in Oceania knew nothing about the world except what their government wanted them to know, too. How nice to know that Australia is following Oceania’s lead!
Geoff—
“In Australia we have a national broadcaster ABC which is gov funded, no advertising,”
In the U.S. we have CSPAN, which carries the daily happenings in Congress, book reviews and other programs. I like watching CSPAN for things such as the hearings and debates because there is little or less commentary. They also allow people to call in and make comments which is interesting (and entertaining at times).
“Americans have a big responsibility, and I’m not sure you are up to the job.”
I’m not sure anymore either, Geoff. There are far too many people who insist on persisting in beliefs that are demonstrably based on self-serving lies and reject any effort required to test the transparent bombastic statements of known liars and would be despots.
And you’re right! Democracy itself is in the balance. You’d think people would consider the fate of their children and grandchildren and choose character, truth and integrity. But that Just. Isn’t. Happening.
There’s at least a fourth category: Persons that know perfectly well what is the truth but say otherwise for any of several reasons. Trying to persuade someone of truth, when he or she already knows the truth, is obviously futile and revealing that YOU know the truth can at times be harmful to your career (or worse).
Geoff – Aus: I’m not sure how a cruise from Florida goes through Alaska to arrive in Seattle. Regardless, I think your caution about the willingness of Americans to blow up democracy for their own ends is a very real threat right now. A recent podcast I listened to showed that at Trump rallies there were plenty of his supporters wearing shirts that said they’d rather be Russian than vote liberal. Demonizing the other side of the political divide is more important than voting for something. It’s partly about different values, but mostly about vilifying the other party.
Angela, Through the panama canal then up west coast to Alaska. So when Trump looses, if he denies that he has lost and refuses to leave many supporters will believe him and not sure what happens then.
What causes some issues is when people raise a point triumphantly that is somewhat off.
Eg the Holley Maps (https://wheatandtares.org/2017/12/06/ces-letter-2-0-and-the-holley-maps-when-shock-value-trumps-truth/).
Or the now dated to the Book of Mormon times horse bones found in the Americas. Or the existence of worked meteoric iron as extremely valuable steel 1000 BCE.
When people raise those points you have to realize they may not be in bad faith. There is just too much out there for everyone to be on top of all of it.