It seems everyone who wants to communicate an opinion these days must conform to one “side” or another. This is especially evident in comments posted in response to Facebook posts, blogs, or online media articles. You see very few “rational” posts. By that I mean that most posters go for the shock value of name-calling, expressing knee-jerk, hotheaded reactions that represent the most extreme version of their world view. I am convinced beyond doubt that very few of those people, when pressed in a face-to-face debate would say anything remotely as incendiary as what they are willing to post in a one paragraph comment. However, the result of this overheated back and forth bickering is that the perception of a deeply divided civilization edges closer to becoming reality.
Heated debates, complete with name-calling, are not new, of course. But the combination of technology and the exercise of free speech — a concept that is, historically, a relatively recent development — has created the opportunity for anyone, anywhere to respond almost instantly to current events as reported by whatever entity they choose to regard as an authoritative source. In many cases, these entities have their own agendas and derive influence through “confirmation bias”. Simply stated, confirmation bias is the tendency to only trust sources that provide “information” that is consistent with what is already believed. Conversely, any source that provides data that does not confirm a bias is considered to be untrustworthy because it is biased against existing beliefs.
I should emphasize that confirmation bias is not necessarily a bad thing. It serves a valuable purpose in that it helps us create a stable world view. But it can be detrimental when we dismiss the possibility that we may not have the whole picture and that our limited set of sources may not be able or willing to expand our belief systems to include new data.
This could be just a philosophical problem except that policy issues that affect everyone are increasingly driven by the extreme rhetoric that feeds the confirmation bias machine. Examples are easy to come by:
* Global Warming
* Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Foods)
* Gun Control
* Gay Marriage
* Government Spending
And that’s just some that start with a “G”.
I believe that, whether they realize it or not, most ordinary citizens (and politicians for that matter) hold views that are far more nuanced and balanced than the cute/clever/cutting comments they post. It’s easy to react and just go along with (or against) the sentiments that have already been expressed (via a meme, or a posted article). But time and again I have been relieved when discussing hot button issues in person. Not that people agreed, but that they actually stopped to think about their responses and showed respect to the person who expressed an opposing view. In most cases, each party will allow that the other view could have some merit under certain conditions. This is embodied in the inevitable question that starts with “But what about…..?”.
So, rather than waste valuable energy on reacting online, I intend to capture my opinions on the topics that invite the “But what about….?” questions. Debate is healthy — over the years, I have had my world view expanded by repressing my reflex to automatically shoot down an opposing view and committing to actually listening then researching using the best available sources, not just those that tell me what I already think I know.
I would like to think that readers can comment with genuine responses. But I will unapologetically censor comments that I deem to be hateful, disrespectful or that otherwise do not contribute to the discussion. I will never censor comments just because I disagree with them. My hope is that such comments will include a rational explanation that helps me and others to understand the position whether or not minds are changed.
