
The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People - randomname2
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/02/17/the-seven-habits-of-highly-depolarizing-people/
======
alistproducer2
IMO, A large part of the problem is people of different political views don't
talk, face to face, enough. Like in war, it's easier to kill a "gook" or
"haji" than a person.

The Internet makes it easy to dehumanize the other side; they're just avatars
and words on your screen. It's a lot harder to hate an actual person,
especially just for having a different opinion than you.

[Edited]

~~~
wolfgke
Couldn't it be that it is much better that persons of very different political
views don't talk so much, face to face?

I can imagine quite well that this would easily in yelling at each other etc.
Also at least me I even get more hate to views someone says if I talk to
him/her personally than when I only have to see his/her arguments in the
internet.

In other words: That people of very different views don't talk much to each
other is in my opinion both a "self-protection" and quite plausibly rather
_prevents_ spreading even more hate.

~~~
alistproducer2
I disagree. People generally have to work themselves up to a place of such
strong opinions. This usually happens when people cocoon themselves in echo
chambers.

If you spend 4 hours a day on zerohedge or infowars, you will reach a point
where differing opinions piss you off to the point of yelling. If, however,
you were getting different perspectives from other human beings on a regular
basis, you would likely be less fervent in your views.

It's a lot harder to dismiss actual human beings as "libtards" or "rethugs" or
whatever pejorative. You might still disagree, but you usually won't outright
dismiss them like you would an article with a "heretical" viewpoint relative
to your personal echo chamber.

~~~
clock_tower
I think that when the stakes are high enough, you have to work to wind
yourself down -- not to wind yourself up. And at this point, between Roe v.
Wade and Guantanamo Bay (I oppose both, if you're curious), the stakes are
definitely high enough.

------
emodendroket
I find the idea that the current level of polarization is unprecedented kind
of questionable. McCarthyist purges? The violence of the Reconstruction era,
which followed a literal Civil War? Compared to that people calling each other
mean names seems like small potatoes.

~~~
at-fates-hands
You seemed to forget some of these gems:

\- The collapse of race relations. Everybody thought a black president would
do wonders for the issues of race in this country, it's done just the
opposite.

\- Several ongoing wars with seemingly no end in sight.

\- The illegal immigration _ahem_ "undocumented workers" (for you PC types)
issue. 42 million strong at this point and no signs of slowing down. This is
quickly approaching a crisis point.

\- Government spying, cryptography and the NSA. Snowden's leaks and how much
the government really needs to keep us safe and what they're doing with the
loads of data they're gathering every day.

\- The economy and the recent stagnation and recession already occurring in
several areas of the country. More capitalism, less government regulation, or
should government be even more involved in regulating business?

There's plenty more, but these were off the top of my head. Ask anybody about
one of these topics and they'll most likely give you a fairly polarizing view
of where they stand.

~~~
me_again
I have never heard the claim of 42 million before. I have investigated only to
the point of looking in Wikipedia, but they claim closer to 11 million, which
is down from the peak number. Where are you getting that from?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_Uni...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States)

~~~
winter_blue
The total number of immigrants (i.e. foreign-born persons) in the US is at 45
million right now:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population)

About 11 million of those are illegal/undocumented immigrants. The remaining
34 million are people on visas, people with green cards ("lawful permanent
residents"), and naturalized citizens of the United States. This does not
include the children born to them, who are natural-born citizens, and are thus
not counted as immigrants.

45 million is 14.3% of the US population, which might seem high, but if the
list on Wikipedia is sorted by % of population, the U.S. is nowhere on the top
of the list. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland,
Ireland, Austria, Singapore, etc. all have more immigrants per capita than the
United States. And gulf countries like the U.A.E. and Qatar have the highest.

------
brightball
One of my favorite quotes actually embodies this pretty well.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed
ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." \-
F. Scott Fitzgerald

~~~
RobertoG
Not without its dangers.

Doublethink:

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously,
and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely
believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then,
when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as
long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the
while to take account of the reality which one denies[..]"

1984, George Orwell

~~~
brightball
Opposed ideas doesn't necessarily mean conflicting ideas.

For example, it's possible to appreciate that in the US people need some means
of getting an education in order to get a job while at the same time realizing
the demand for quality education far outstrips supply, which when paired with
federal loans inflates the cost of education so much that it puts it farther
out of reach for people.

That's a problem with a solution that exacerbated the problem while trying to
solve it. Processing both doesn't involve telling deliberate lies, it just
means the solution is more complex than we'd like to admit.

~~~
mfoy_
To add to your point, holding opposing ideas in your mind doesn't mean you
accept both ideas as correct and valid and good (as in the Orwell quote). It
just means that you can appreciate them and understand some of the points they
try to make.

The issue with polarized politics is that it encourages one-mindedness.
Instead of trying to understand where your political opponents are coming
from, you are encouraged to reject them and their ideas as "the enemy". A very
anti-intellectual "Us versus Them" mindset.

~~~
wolfgke
> To add to your point, holding opposing ideas in your mind doesn't mean you
> accept both ideas as correct and valid and good (as in the Orwell quote). It
> just means that you can appreciate them and understand some of the points
> they try to make.

If two theses conflict each other at least one of them (perhaps even both)
must be wrong. That is basic science. This is also why physicists still try to
unify general relativity and quantum physics. So instead of accepting multiple
ideas use your mind to

1\. create predictions that each of the conflicting theses imply, such that
the two theses will do different predictions, which if they can't be observed
will convince you that the thesis was wrong.

2\. develop an experiment with which you can observe these predictions

3\. execute the experiment

~~~
ScottBurson
> If two theses conflict each other at least one of them (perhaps even both)
> must be wrong.

This is too simplistic. They can be partially right as well as partially
wrong. Is light a wave or a particle? Well, it depends.

Two opposing half-truths form a paradox. While some paradoxes can be resolved,
by finding a deeper theory that unifies them, some cannot. To draw an example
from the political realm -- more relevant to this discussion -- here are two
truths:

(1) We are all in this together.

(2) Each person is responsible for their own life.

These are both true, but conflict. And I do not think there will ever be a
final resolution of this paradox. In some situations, the first principle is
more important; in others, the second. Hashing out which is which is a never-
ending debate, and a critically important one.

~~~
wolfgke
> > If two theses conflict each other at least one of them (perhaps even both)
> must be wrong.

> This is too simplistic. They can be partially right as well as partially
> wrong. Is light a wave or a particle? Well, it depends.

In this case both statements (light is a wave and light is a particle) are
simply wrong and as current scientific matters stand the description given by
quantum physics seems to be the correct one (at least for about 70 years no
experiment could be given that has disproved it).

------
carsongross
Politeness comes from social solidarity: it is a consequence of social
harmony, not a precursor. What if the polarization represents actual,
fundamental disagreements on politics and, at root, moral axioms? Being polite
hasn't done much for the respectable right for the last fifty years.

I would rather focus on solutions like secession or federalism that allow
groups of people with different and irreconcilable moral axioms to simply
leave one another alone to build the social/political structures they would
prefer.

~~~
tryitnow
Secession and federalism are fairly naive. We already tried those solutions.
In the US context it led to slavery and ultimately to a massive armed
conflict.

And at what unit do we consider secession acceptable? The Confederacy believed
states had the right to secede but not individuals of African descent. Indeed,
it was the American South that originally wanted to interfere in the business
of the North in order to crack down on fugitive slaves.

As for people with different moral axioms leaving one another alone, good luck
with that.

The US and ISIS have different moral axioms but they're both in one another's
business.

The world is interdependent, there's just no way around that simple fact.

I don't mean to silence discussions of federalism/secession, it just seems
like this is well-trod territory that some people keep bringing up again and
again as if it will solve anything. It hasn't and it won't.

~~~
carsongross
_In the US context it led to slavery and ultimately to a massive armed
conflict._

Secession and federalism lead to neither. Slavery was a pre-existing
institution. War is politics by other means and pre-existed both. It being
associated with secessionism in one case is no more an argument against
secessionism than war being associated with democratic revolutions is an
argument against democracy.

Naive: showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment.

Heal thyself.

------
maxxxxx
How about "think for yourself"? I notice that when you discuss something with
a lot of partisan people they come to a pretty balanced view if the party
leadership hasn't already staked out a position. But they will make a 180 turn
as soon as soon as the official position is out and be totally opposed to the
view they have developed previously.

~~~
zzalpha
I suspect that's a big part of group identity. Want to solve that problem?
Stop referring to those who disagree (or agree) with you as "Democrat" or
"Republican". And stop thinking of yourself that way.

~~~
nikdaheratik
It's partially "group identity" and partially that they didn't care about
issue X enough to hold onto that idea. I feel like people identify with
parties in the U.S. based on its position on a few issues they _really_ care
about, like Global Warming or Abortion, and just go along with them on the
other issues that they don't care that much about.

------
specialist
The increasing political divide in the US is the direct result of ever more
aggressive gerrymandering.

Jurisdictions are becoming ever more partisan. So now only the most partisan
(divisive) candidates can win their primary election, which then pretty much
makes the general election moot.

The fix is California style redistricting, where citizens and not politicians
are in charge of the process.

~~~
jarjoura
That's definitely a cause for what we're seeing out of Congress, but it's not
related to what we're seeing with Trump. He is winning at the polls with his
hateful angry rhetoric and it's pretty damn strange.

~~~
specialist
Caucus results are determined by the handful of people who bother to show up.
Trump's winning because his supporters are showing up. This speaks more to the
failings of the other candidates than the success of Trump.

------
bryanrasmussen
well, first off it says that people distrust people of opposite political
parties more than of different races like that's a bad thing ( distrusting
people because of their beliefs instead of their race seems an improvement to
me), furthermore has this data been adjusted for political affiliation and
race - do white Republicans, for example, really distrust white Democrats more
than they distrust people of other races? Did this study take other parties
than the big two into account?

~~~
sillysaurus3
_it says that people distrust people of opposite political parties more than
of different races_

Yes.

 _like that 's a bad thing_

No. It did not say this.

 _distrusting people because of their beliefs instead of their race seems an
improvement to me_

Equating political party = belief is a big problem. It's basically the
definition of tribalism.

You're forced to pick a side.

~~~
RodericDay
At the point where you've picked a party, you've picked a side all by
yourself.

For example, knowing that someone is a self-described "American republican" in
2016 doesn't let me know if they are a good person or a bad person, but it
does let me know that abortion rights for women isn't one of their main
priorities.

The goal is not to do away with categorization/heuristics entirely. It's to
continually revise and improve them. Political party affiliation is on a whole
different ballpark than race.

~~~
sillysaurus3
Actually, you haven't. You are allowed to pick either group A or group B. Both
groups are idiotic in their own ways.

On the spectrum from hardcore libertarianism to hardcore conservatism, the two
political parties are huddled closely together in the middle of it.

You don't get a choice. But you get to be branded for the rest of your life as
one of those two groups.

It's a game I refuse to play.

~~~
JshWright
Do you mean liberalism? Libertarianism and Conservatism aren't that far apart
to begin with.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
Burkean conservatism and classical liberalism (modern right-libertarianism)
are leaps and bounds apart. Just go read Russell Kirk's essays chewing off
libertarians.

------
ChemicalWarfare
Polarization has a very strong tribal component to it. Once you get into the
"us vs them" mindset you become the member of the "tribe" purely based on the
labels instead of "reality".

At some point in time the label can have a strong correlation with the actual
reality,then the label becomes more important than what it actually
represents.

Politicians exploit this constantly, "us vs them" is what unites their
respective camps and promotes loyalty.

------
vardump
So, soon it's time to elect another scapegoat, a social lightning rod.

U.S. presidents seem to get blamed (and sometimes praised) for things they
can't really control.

~~~
0xcde4c3db
Absolutely. My favorite example is the price of gasoline. This often comes up
with the _seasonal_ price shifts (Americans drive much more in the summer than
in other seasons, so gas is more expensive then). We might as well blame them
for the weather.

~~~
Tiksi
>We might as well blame them for the weather.

Oh we have, remember how Bush caused Katrina?

(for broad definitions of _we_ )

~~~
mikeash
I don't recall ever seeing that sentiment, in terms of causing the actual
hurricane. Causing the bad response, on the other hand, I've seen a lot and is
not on its face an absurd thing to say.

------
norea-armozel
I can't blame the author to trying to focus on the best aspects of how to
reach across the political spectrum (even within the same party), but I'll be
honest and say that some ideas/positions are fundamentally incompatible with a
liberal society. For example, the current crop of social conservatism to seem
to be dead set on putting inspectors at the entrances of public restrooms
because of pseudo-fears over transgender people (specifically male-to-female
transsexuals). Clearly, it's not about protecting children, women, and the
elderly. It's about shaming a minority into submission since we've been making
gains in terms of the national discussion. Hell, the fact that Caitlyn Jenner
got some conservatives to rethink their ideas signals that certain virulent
ideologies are on their way out. So, all they got left is to demonize. Worse
still, there's no compromising with these people on such legislation like
ENDA. They always want more protection to discriminate in private settings
where they would be in violation of existing protected class laws. If such
people want to have a seat at the table then they need to stop assuming that
transgender people are monsters first and foremost. If that's not in their
agenda then there can be no depolarization or compromises, ever. You can't
debate the humanity of another person, either they're human or they're not.

~~~
yompers888
>Clearly, it's not about protecting children, women, and the elderly. It's
about shaming a minority into submission since we've been making gains in
terms of the national discussion.

It would be fruitless for me to speculate on the particular aversion you
mention to transsexuals, but in general you'll gain a better understanding by
looking for a motivation other than malice; that's seldom the explanation. The
real rationale may be short-sighted, ignorant, wildly unfair, and unlikely to
be advanced by the outlandish actions taken, but nonetheless there is some
underlying thought process, and most people care far too much about themselves
to go out significantly out of their ways to deliberately do harm to others.

~~~
norea-armozel
The fact of the matter is they are open about their malice. Search on Youtube
for the South Dakota senator's remarks in response to someone's skepticism of
his bathroom bill. He basically states that trans people are effectively bad
or broken people. If he's saying that sort of bunk then there's no room for
debate for him, he's made his mind up. For me, talking to or trying to
compromise with these kinds of people is like compromising with a robber: he's
still gonna steal your stuff even if he doesn't beat you up or kill you.

------
_archon_
This is an interesting article, and I think there could be a point made that
wasn't expressed. I propose that someone who embodies these methods may be
much more likely to have others judge them to have intellectual integrity.
That was an awkward sentence. I further propose that this acknowledgement is
an important aspect of having even highly polarized people have a worthwhile
conversation.

~~~
mystikal
In my experience, because they only see in black and white, polarized people
see anybody that isn't polarized as belonging to the other pole. It gets
boring after a while.

~~~
markc
So true. Half of my facebook friends think I'm a flaming liberal. The other
half think I'm a flaming conservative. This is because I dare to challenge
their silly meme posters that lie about and defame the "opposition". They
don't seem to notice that I challenge the BS on both sides. They only know
that correcting falsehoods that align with their pet belief is proof you're in
the enemy camp.

Likewise, they think it's impossible to concede any point made by the enemy,
no matter how obviously true, without being entirely aligned with them.

~~~
mystikal
It's a pain in the ass, for sure. On the other hand, it's a good filter for
finding people you want to be close to and finding people you want to avoid at
all costs, that is unless you want to be punished with tedious drama. At least
for me, many of my family members fall into the latter category... which is
tricky to negotiate...

------
agentgt
I believe many of the problems of polarization are caused by cognitive
dissonance [1] in particular "confirmation bias" (the article is sort of light
on references to academic social psychology and cognitive behavior).

Confirmation bias is often exarcebated with greater choices (as the number of
choices brings greater discomfort). An example would be the GOP primaries (ie
sheer number of candidates).

I also think certain personality types (ie myers briggs/jung) have a tendency
to behave in a polarized manner. I don't think being polarized = stupid as
another commenter posted albeit probably being ignorant does have an affect.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

~~~
RobertoG
My irony bias makes me think that attributing problems to confirmation bias
should be classified as a type of confirmation bias.

~~~
agentgt
Perhaps I'm not as knowledgable in the area as you are (and thus think my
critique/question trite). Maybe care to elaborate on the irony?

I posted it because the article doesn't bother to answer why the hell people
are polarized in the first place. Its like saying America is fat.. here are 7
tips to get in shape... I also think the # prefix tips is clearly a click bait
ploy albeit I a nice clever a play on Steven Covey's book title.

Wouldn't it be worthwhile to know why people become polarized in the first
place or why we are so much now?

~~~
RobertoG
I want to excuse myself. It wasn't an attack against your comment but I see
how it could looks like it.

In essence I share your opinion. It's just I couldn't resist the chance.

I know, childish.

------
ultramancool
I closed this almost immediately because of the giant yellow "this is your
free article for this month" banner on the top. Get your shit together web
designers, I don't need something blaring so everyone in the office sees that
it's my free article.

~~~
gyardley
Right click, delete element.

Almost as fast as closing the page, and you're no longer letting crap web
designers dictate what you read and what you don't.

~~~
ultramancool
I have uBlock which I'd reach for sooner as it'd remove the element
permanently, however I don't want to support websites like this at all, even
with just my readership. There are plenty of other places I can read similar
articles. I have no interest in reading junk and these sorts of things are a
good indicator of junk in my experience.

------
seivan
Well needed article. Trying to follow this more and more. Although it's
getting harder.

------
lintiness
he forgot one: they don't watch cable news.

~~~
mafribe
Good recommendation, but probably needs to be updated to "don't read Twitter".

140 characters don't lend themselves to sustained and depolarising argument --
quite the opposite.

~~~
danharaj
People chain tweets when making elaborate points; nuance does not require
length.

------
lez
I am thinking about what could happen if a large company with communication
platform engaged in encouraging these rules within their platform. Good world
that woulud be.

------
adwf
You could also read this is as 7 ways to lose an election ;)

------
alexashka
"Of all the mental habits that encourage polarization, the most dangerous is
probably binary thinking"

Does this article recognize it's own irony? It's a whole article about
'depolarizing' as opposed to 'polarizing' and within it, is the line I quoted
above.

Here's a thought - intelligent people don't have these problems and they don't
need 7 vague bullet points that are impossible to follow.

Dumb people lack nuanced points of view - they polarize/simplify a great deal
because that's how humans are - we first learn to think 'hitting other people
is bad', and only later learn that 'most times hitting other people is bad'.

When do people learn philosophy and different types of fallacies? For most
people, the answer is never. How many people grok fallacies, philosophy and
have emotional intelligence to boot? Even fewer.

Thank god someone wrote an article that by-passes all that though, it's just
the 10 commandments you need, oh sorry I meant 7 habits...

