Our societies have become so (extremely) polarized that I almost don't remember a time when it wasn't like that. Although I do.
Nowadays, it's either blue or green, there no more cyan, which is the combination of the two. Obviously, we are not talking about colors here.
It is my impression that polarization is the desired state, because through it, humans are kept at a high level of (generally negative, with some rushes of positive) emotions, and, this way, clouded critical thinking.
The question is, do that medium foster strong convictions based on reason, or are people more likely to have blinders on, much like horses, to only see in one direction?
I think it's more of the latter, especially after analyzing certain behaviors.
It's much easier to see this when you know enough about a topic and a zealot is trying to convince you of their point of view. It happened to me recently, and what I do in situations like these, especially if I know the person well and can't avoid the subject, is to simply listen. It is interesting to see the biases of their arguments this way, while they may have some good points too, but they get lost in the amalgam of points they argue on intensely.
However, it is more likely that at the other end there is someone as convinced of the other point of view and there is a clash, which eventually won't help either of them or their causes. That will become clearer once the "heat" dissipates.
There is a worrying tradition already in our country, "established" by the former president, to not participate in debates with rivals to the position. Without debates, every convinced voter stands with their own bias and likely never gets exposed to the messages of the other candidates. You can imagine how easy it is to brainwash people this way (from all sides).
I found something interesting at Trump administration recently. After the fiasco with Zelenski at the White House, two high-ranked officials in the administration went to give interviews. They didn't go to a favorable TV network, but to the one that is pro Democrats, to my knowledge, and by the questions they asked (CNN). Why did they do that?
First of all, in my opinion, they wanted "their version of the truth" to be heard by the democrats, who don't watch TV networks favorable to Republicans (right... how did we end up here from TV networks that reported on facts?).
Second of all, they wanted to asses what kind of mess they created then at the White House, by hearing some tough questions from the other side, and what fires they needed to put out before they got bigger.
That was smart in my opinion.
I think there's something else that can put critical thinking to sleep. An abundance of information, much of it false but seeming true. Deep fakes are so hard to navigate, and maybe that's another reason why people would rather stay in a zone of comfort and not challenge their biases. What if what they hear, read, or see is not true, right? Although, maybe we haven't even gotten there yet in human consciousness, but we will...
Posted Using INLEO
This is a strong examination of the present state of communication. The vast quantity of knowledge, much of it untrustworthy or totally wrong, renders analytical thinking very challenging. A major worry is how naturally people can fall into echo chambers and strengthen their prejudices. Your remark about the possibility of deepfakes worsely stirring this issue is especially astute. To counter this, we have to create more effective media literacy tools and approaches.
It is likely deepfakes will only be fought with other AIs, which will discover them and mark them as such. After a certain point, us won't be able to tell the difference between a fake and a real thing, even with tools at our disposal, and most people will never become experts in analyzing this deep faked content.
This is very true. People get so stuck in their own bubbles that they don’t even question if they might be wrong. It’s like arguing with someone who’s already decided the sky is green, no amount of logic changes their mind.
I respect the idea of listening instead of debating sometimes. Makes me realize how much people just repeat what they’ve been told
This is especially true if we get stuck in a conspiracy theories bubble. Some may be true, but frankly, it's very unlikely that all of them are true.
Part of it is because I want to see how people think without antagonizing them. I may contradict them here and there, but mainly, I'd rather let them lay out their theories (or rather, the theories they have been exposed to).
that's a good strategy it's usually when you allow them finish talking that's when you get to find out everything they know or have been made to believe or accept
If society is made up of more people who can't think for themselves, then common sense stops making sense even if it's presented without any fillers or filters. I try to understand both sides of the spectrum when it comes to differences in viewpoints on certain topics but even with that, sometimes, I come away with the impression that I'm just wearing two different glasses with two different colors.
Sometimes it's hard to be in the middle and look at both sides objectively. Our own biases prevent us from doing that, even when we are more open-minded than most people. Good metaphor with the different color glasses! Many viewpoints in our polarized society seem irreconcilable to begin with.
The polarization is kind of crazy, and its especially the case with politics. It's a war trying to get people on their side, and I think going to opposing media is a great idea. We need more people to hear everything, even if they might not completely agree. It helps people be a bit more open minded as both sides have their own issues.
I'd say most of them would disagree, except maybe the moderate ones, if the issue isn't very polarizing. I see it as a needed reality check from time to time for an administration with a high approval rate, to not get drunk on their own popularity and start thinking all they do is the best (and it often isn't, because they are rarely contradicted where they make mistakes when they are on high horses).
The whole "you're either WITH us, or you're the enemy" mindset is definitely not a good way to foster dialogue and create anything aside from a swamp of partisanship.
I find myself increasingly getting into the "third option," which is a form of media exhaustion where I step back and stop caring globally and just focus on planting seeds in my own back yard.
I found myself in this category for a good number of recent years, but these idiots could decide to go to war, for example (or they may be forced into one), and in this case, I can't live in my own bubble. And the war can be conventional, and is, even today, economic and hybrid.
Yea now it's either one side or the other, you can't be halfaway, and if you don't think like one of the side you are automatically of the other, recent years are all like this...
Good observation! Now, moderation is treated as the worse option by both sides of the spectrum.