Aspects of polarization and debate
Wednesday 31 May 2023
I really enjoyed reading a (very) short article by Sabrina Keinemans and Maja Ročak about how to talk to people who are unable to reason properly (my wording, not theirs) and thereby lessen the polarization. I’m not sure how effective their approach is. Perhaps it’ll prevent people that feel ignored to take a violent path. Or perhaps it’ll make an elite person realize that there are more sides to a problem than they were able to gather from other data. (The article is behind a paywal)
An attempt to rephrase key points:
- Wealthy people (such as those who can afford to buy solar panels, for example) may be more inclined to pursue ideals in an abstract sense. In contrast, less affluent individuals often have fewer options and may also see their well-being directly impacted by policies that the wealthy can push through. This creates not just a debate between differing opinions, but a debate between people living in vastly different realities.
- Ideally, a debate should take place between people who know how to debate: those who remain calm and respond to arguments rationally, and who might even change their opinions based on new facts or reasoning. However, most people aren’t equipped to debate in this way. They may struggle to stay calm, get emotional because they feel threatened, or rely on arguments based on gut feelings. The authors believe it is important to make space for these emotions, even when the conversation gets heated.
- A lack of respect for people who feel threatened but base their reactions on poorly formulated arguments leads to negative outcomes.
- Excluding people from the debate because they lack the skills to engage properly will only lead to greater polarization.