In a February 16, 2014 speech in Indonesia, Secretary of State John Kerry derided climate change skeptics as members of the Flat Earth Society for doubting the reality of catastrophic climate change. He said, “We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts” nor be allowed to “hijack” the debate of “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.” An environmentalist quoted in The Guardian coined the term “climate denier” linking climate change dissenters with those who deny the Holocaust. More recent refrains label dissenters as “anti-science” suggesting they belong to a luddite mob of lower intelligence.
Rhetoric from climate change skeptics is no less vitriolic: in a two-hour address on the floor of the Senate, Republican James Inhofe argued: “With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) labeled the push for climate change action as “environmental jihad.” One climate scientist was compared to a child molester, “except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.”
Perhaps we reached a new low when both sides of the debate called for prosecutorial legal action against the other for “criminally and morally negligent” actions by those “guilty of fraud”, “high treason” and a “willful disregard for human life.” Apparently, impugning the character of those with whom we disagree is insufficient; we must also criminalize their motivations.
The rancor of the climate change debate is illustrative of all our national debates: healthcare, immigration, fiscal policy, social programs, foreign policy, gun control, education, etc. In each case, opposing proponents use name calling, insults, and rhetoric designed to diminish and undermine the other. Public discourse has de-evolved such that heads of state, industry leaders, and vocal proponents on both sides of these debates constantly engage in obvious – even egregious – attempts to sway public opinion using vitriol wrapped in ad hominem attacks, ad populum arguments, false dichotomies, and a host of other logical fallacies.
The issues at the core of these debates are more complicated than can be explained in soundbites and slogans by talking-heads and special guests. The media caters to our TL;DR-afflicted nation with over-simplified lowest common denominator journalism which completely fails us when the issues are not black-or-white or when the answers require caveats. Nuanced discussions don’t make attention grabbing headlines or dramatic journalistic copy so media reporting disproportionately accentuates extreme perspectives to create the conflict-drama that drives viewers and readership. The resulting rhetoric polarizes rather than convinces.
While its easy to blame the media for our national polarization, the greatest damage to the national discourse comes when we – individually and collectively – rely on these distorted forms of communication as the basis of our personal opinions. Too few of us go beyond the clickbait headlines, TL;DR-condensed articles, or one-sided opinion pieces. The result is pervasive dysfunction in the way we form, validate, and reinforce our opinions.
In reality, most of us depend on others to articulate the issues, to interpret data, and to explain the implications. Few of us have the time or interest to read background reports for ourselves; even fewer have the inclination or ability to examine primary data. The volume, breadth, and complexity of our national issues defy casual understanding and frequently overwhelm sincere seekers of deeper insight.
As a result, we substantively rely on the opinions of others to form our own. Yet, many of those on whom we rely as the basis of our opinions are doing the exact same thing. This isn’t a new problem. Mark Twain noted “people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”
Unfortunately, most of us gravitate to the arguments and ‘facts’ that support our existing beliefs. Scientists call this confirmation bias: a distortive filter through which we see a reality that matches our expectations or the tendency to favor information that confirms our beliefs or hypotheses. Whatever your opinion, you’ll find plenty of affirmation somewhere in the media, press, social networks, or blogosphere. Columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote, “we generally don’t truly want good information — but rather information that confirms our prejudices. We may believe intellectually in the clash of opinions, but in practice we like to embed ourselves in the reassuring womb of an echo chamber.”
Dysfunction in the ways we form and validate our opinions is a major contributor to our national discord. Compounding the issue is a common subconscious tendency to substitute the conviction, forcefulness, or decibel level of opinionators as a proxy measure of their comprehension of the issues or veracity of their statements – such correlations are imaginary and often inverse.
Even as the world becomes saturated with seemingly unlimited information, “the benefit that ought to come with having a variety of opinions” writes author Bill Bishop, “is lost to the righteousness that is the special entitlement of homogeneous groups.” The result is divisiveness, polarization, and rancor in our national discourse – First World tribalism – with crowds gathering at the poles of every issue. The truth, however, is generally found – inconveniently – somewhere between polar extremes portrayed as incontrovertible facts.
Until we become more self-critical of our opinions and inherent biases, the only forecast that can be made with absolute certainty is that it will be cloudy with a 100% chance of conflict.
CommonSense 