Opinion: Americans are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything
Published: Mar 30, 2017
By Tom Nichols
Why can’t Americans agree about anything? The United States has survived through periods of great division and yet today we all now seem incapable of finding common ground on even the smallest issues. This is a problem that is approaching the level of a national crisis that threatens our democracy.
Some of this tendentiousness is part of an irascible American culture that is, paradoxically, woven into our greatness as a nation. Our willingness to speak our minds and rely on our own common sense has been central to an American character noted by Tocqueville and others since our founding as a nation.
Still, American politics were once characterized by a fair amount of bipartisanship and even ticket-splitting in national e******ns. Today, in public forums, we engage each other not to learn or to converse, but to fight along the harshest and most intractable partisan lines — and to win, no matter how obnoxious we must be in order to carry the day.
Of course, some of this problem is generated by human nature, especially the problem of “confirmation bias.” We want to believe that our experiences and our beliefs, including the important issue of how we view ourselves, explain the world around us. We naturally want to reject evidence that conflicts with those cherished views (especially the ones about ourselves). We all do it, and it’s why we so easily drive each other crazy in our daily conversations.
Bring up the problem of joblessness with almost any group of ordinary v**ers, and every possible intellectual problem will rear its head: stereotypes, confirmation bias, half-t***hs, and statistical incompetence.
Take, for example, a fairly common American kitchen-table debate: the causes of unemployment. Bring up the problem of joblessness with almost any group of ordinary American v**ers, and every possible intellectual problem will rear its head. Stereotypes, confirmation bias, half-t***hs, and statistical incompetence all bedevil this discussion.
One person in this discussion, for example, might hold firmly, as many Americans do, to the idea that unemployed people are just lazy and that unemployment benefits might even encourage that laziness. Like so many examples of confirmation bias, this could spring from personal experience. Perhaps it proceeds from a lifetime of continuous employment. Or maybe it’s the result of knowing someone who’s genuinely averse to work.
For this person, every “help wanted” sign— which confirmation bias will note and file away— is further proof of the laziness of the unemployed. A page of job advertisements or a chronically irresponsible nephew constitutes irrefutable evidence that unemployment is a personal failing rather than a problem requiring government intervention.
Now imagine someone else at the table who believes the nature of the American economy itself forces people into unemployment. This person might draw from experience as well: he or she may know someone who moved to follow a startup company and ended up broke and far from home, or who was unjustly fired by a corrupt or incompetent supervisor.
For this person, every downsizing and every bad boss is proof that the system is stacked against innocent people who would never choose unemployment over work. Unemployment benefits, rather than subsidizing indolence, are a lifeline and perhaps the only thing standing between an honest person and complete ruin.
We should make an effort to consider other sources that challenge us. More important, we need to start listening to each other with a greater assumption of good will.
There’s no way to win this argument because in the end, there are no answers that will satisfy everyone. It’s true that unemployment benefits suppress the urge to work in at least some people; it’s also true that some corporations have a history of ruthlessness at the expense of their workers, whose reliance on benefits is reluctant and temporary. Unable to cope with this level of nuance and unwilling to see their own biases, most people will simply drive each other crazy arguing rather than accept answers that contradict what they already think about the subject.
Education and better public information, sadly, are no cure. The problem of confirmation bias is getting worse, as our disagreements now curdle into angry refusals to listen to others and stubborn refusals to accept information that conflicts with our beliefs.
This isn't just human nature, but the result of a narcissism that took root in American society after the 1960s and has been growing ever since. Surrounded by affluence, enabled by the internet, and empowered by an educational system that prizes self-esteem over achievement, Americans have become more opinionated even as they have become less informed, and are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything.
Our republic thrives on open debate and the fair consideration of evidence. When our ability to maintain those democratic habits collapses, our system of government, along with our well-being as a people and a nation, will be in danger. There are a few steps we can take, including treating cable and the internet as we would treat our diet: by exercising portion control, healthy choices, and a varied mixture. We should especially make an effort to consider other sources that challenge us.
More important, we need to start listening to each other with a greater assumption of good will. Cable news has become a gladiatorial exercise, but that doesn’t mean each of us must approach conversation as a fight to the finish.
We must come out from behind our keyboards and smartphones and televisions and engage each other as citizens, rather than opponents. In an age of binary, win-at-all-costs politics, this is a tall order. But citizens need to be better examples to our political and media leaders than they’ve been to us.
There is still time to reconsider the path we’ve set upon in the past few decades, but one thing should be clear: we cannot continue this way much longer and survive as a vibrant democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tom Nichols is the author of the recently published “The Death of Expertise” and a professor at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. The views expressed are his own. Follow him on Twitter @RadioFreeTom
slatten49 wrote:
Published: Mar 30, 2017
By Tom Nichols
Why can’t Americans agree about anything? The United States has survived through periods of great division and yet today we all now seem incapable of finding common ground on even the smallest issues. This is a problem that is approaching the level of a national crisis that threatens our democracy.
Some of this tendentiousness is part of an irascible American culture that is, paradoxically, woven into our greatness as a nation. Our willingness to speak our minds and rely on our own common sense has been central to an American character noted by Tocqueville and others since our founding as a nation.
Still, American politics were once characterized by a fair amount of bipartisanship and even ticket-splitting in national e******ns. Today, in public forums, we engage each other not to learn or to converse, but to fight along the harshest and most intractable partisan lines — and to win, no matter how obnoxious we must be in order to carry the day.
Of course, some of this problem is generated by human nature, especially the problem of “confirmation bias.” We want to believe that our experiences and our beliefs, including the important issue of how we view ourselves, explain the world around us. We naturally want to reject evidence that conflicts with those cherished views (especially the ones about ourselves). We all do it, and it’s why we so easily drive each other crazy in our daily conversations.
Bring up the problem of joblessness with almost any group of ordinary v**ers, and every possible intellectual problem will rear its head: stereotypes, confirmation bias, half-t***hs, and statistical incompetence.
Take, for example, a fairly common American kitchen-table debate: the causes of unemployment. Bring up the problem of joblessness with almost any group of ordinary American v**ers, and every possible intellectual problem will rear its head. Stereotypes, confirmation bias, half-t***hs, and statistical incompetence all bedevil this discussion.
One person in this discussion, for example, might hold firmly, as many Americans do, to the idea that unemployed people are just lazy and that unemployment benefits might even encourage that laziness. Like so many examples of confirmation bias, this could spring from personal experience. Perhaps it proceeds from a lifetime of continuous employment. Or maybe it’s the result of knowing someone who’s genuinely averse to work.
For this person, every “help wanted” sign— which confirmation bias will note and file away— is further proof of the laziness of the unemployed. A page of job advertisements or a chronically irresponsible nephew constitutes irrefutable evidence that unemployment is a personal failing rather than a problem requiring government intervention.
Now imagine someone else at the table who believes the nature of the American economy itself forces people into unemployment. This person might draw from experience as well: he or she may know someone who moved to follow a startup company and ended up broke and far from home, or who was unjustly fired by a corrupt or incompetent supervisor.
For this person, every downsizing and every bad boss is proof that the system is stacked against innocent people who would never choose unemployment over work. Unemployment benefits, rather than subsidizing indolence, are a lifeline and perhaps the only thing standing between an honest person and complete ruin.
We should make an effort to consider other sources that challenge us. More important, we need to start listening to each other with a greater assumption of good will.
There’s no way to win this argument because in the end, there are no answers that will satisfy everyone. It’s true that unemployment benefits suppress the urge to work in at least some people; it’s also true that some corporations have a history of ruthlessness at the expense of their workers, whose reliance on benefits is reluctant and temporary. Unable to cope with this level of nuance and unwilling to see their own biases, most people will simply drive each other crazy arguing rather than accept answers that contradict what they already think about the subject.
Education and better public information, sadly, are no cure. The problem of confirmation bias is getting worse, as our disagreements now curdle into angry refusals to listen to others and stubborn refusals to accept information that conflicts with our beliefs.
This isn't just human nature, but the result of a narcissism that took root in American society after the 1960s and has been growing ever since. Surrounded by affluence, enabled by the internet, and empowered by an educational system that prizes self-esteem over achievement, Americans have become more opinionated even as they have become less informed, and are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything.
Our republic thrives on open debate and the fair consideration of evidence. When our ability to maintain those democratic habits collapses, our system of government, along with our well-being as a people and a nation, will be in danger. There are a few steps we can take, including treating cable and the internet as we would treat our diet: by exercising portion control, healthy choices, and a varied mixture. We should especially make an effort to consider other sources that challenge us.
More important, we need to start listening to each other with a greater assumption of good will. Cable news has become a gladiatorial exercise, but that doesn’t mean each of us must approach conversation as a fight to the finish.
We must come out from behind our keyboards and smartphones and televisions and engage each other as citizens, rather than opponents. In an age of binary, win-at-all-costs politics, this is a tall order. But citizens need to be better examples to our political and media leaders than they’ve been to us.
There is still time to reconsider the path we’ve set upon in the past few decades, but one thing should be clear: we cannot continue this way much longer and survive as a vibrant democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tom Nichols is the author of the recently published “The Death of Expertise” and a professor at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. The views expressed are his own. Follow him on Twitter @RadioFreeTom
Published: Mar 30, 2017 br br By Tom Nichols br ... (
show quote)
This is the same old simplistic argument "Don't read comic books". It ignores the vast amounts of propaganda being fed to the public, on a daily basis, from every source, and the polarization of political view points to such an extent that no contrary opinions are tolerated. A recent study by a Harvard Professor showed an even more alarming manifestation. Tests were conducted giving mathematical proof that one position or another was correct. The test subjects were asked to evaluate the evidence presented. In a significant percentage of responses, they decided against the evidence, based on their political and social viewpoint, while maintaining the data supported their view. The reasons for this behavior were and are complex, not fully understood but what it says in a nutshell is that it is human nature to assert what is obviously false is true if it contradicts your viewpoint.
Nice article. Have you seen what's happening to free speech, or lack there of on college campuses? Same at Town Halls. Neither side should deprive the other side of their First Amendment Right. Seems to be a tactic of the left much more than the right.
slatten49 wrote:
Published: Mar 30, 2017
By Tom Nichols
Why can’t Americans agree about anything? The United States has survived through periods of great division and yet today we all now seem incapable of finding common ground on even the smallest issues. This is a problem that is approaching the level of a national crisis that threatens our democracy.
Some of this tendentiousness is part of an irascible American culture that is, paradoxically, woven into our greatness as a nation. Our willingness to speak our minds and rely on our own common sense has been central to an American character noted by Tocqueville and others since our founding as a nation.
Still, American politics were once characterized by a fair amount of bipartisanship and even ticket-splitting in national e******ns. Today, in public forums, we engage each other not to learn or to converse, but to fight along the harshest and most intractable partisan lines — and to win, no matter how obnoxious we must be in order to carry the day.
Of course, some of this problem is generated by human nature, especially the problem of “confirmation bias.” We want to believe that our experiences and our beliefs, including the important issue of how we view ourselves, explain the world around us. We naturally want to reject evidence that conflicts with those cherished views (especially the ones about ourselves). We all do it, and it’s why we so easily drive each other crazy in our daily conversations.
Bring up the problem of joblessness with almost any group of ordinary v**ers, and every possible intellectual problem will rear its head: stereotypes, confirmation bias, half-t***hs, and statistical incompetence.
Take, for example, a fairly common American kitchen-table debate: the causes of unemployment. Bring up the problem of joblessness with almost any group of ordinary American v**ers, and every possible intellectual problem will rear its head. Stereotypes, confirmation bias, half-t***hs, and statistical incompetence all bedevil this discussion.
One person in this discussion, for example, might hold firmly, as many Americans do, to the idea that unemployed people are just lazy and that unemployment benefits might even encourage that laziness. Like so many examples of confirmation bias, this could spring from personal experience. Perhaps it proceeds from a lifetime of continuous employment. Or maybe it’s the result of knowing someone who’s genuinely averse to work.
For this person, every “help wanted” sign— which confirmation bias will note and file away— is further proof of the laziness of the unemployed. A page of job advertisements or a chronically irresponsible nephew constitutes irrefutable evidence that unemployment is a personal failing rather than a problem requiring government intervention.
Now imagine someone else at the table who believes the nature of the American economy itself forces people into unemployment. This person might draw from experience as well: he or she may know someone who moved to follow a startup company and ended up broke and far from home, or who was unjustly fired by a corrupt or incompetent supervisor.
For this person, every downsizing and every bad boss is proof that the system is stacked against innocent people who would never choose unemployment over work. Unemployment benefits, rather than subsidizing indolence, are a lifeline and perhaps the only thing standing between an honest person and complete ruin.
We should make an effort to consider other sources that challenge us. More important, we need to start listening to each other with a greater assumption of good will.
There’s no way to win this argument because in the end, there are no answers that will satisfy everyone. It’s true that unemployment benefits suppress the urge to work in at least some people; it’s also true that some corporations have a history of ruthlessness at the expense of their workers, whose reliance on benefits is reluctant and temporary. Unable to cope with this level of nuance and unwilling to see their own biases, most people will simply drive each other crazy arguing rather than accept answers that contradict what they already think about the subject.
Education and better public information, sadly, are no cure. The problem of confirmation bias is getting worse, as our disagreements now curdle into angry refusals to listen to others and stubborn refusals to accept information that conflicts with our beliefs.
This isn't just human nature, but the result of a narcissism that took root in American society after the 1960s and has been growing ever since. Surrounded by affluence, enabled by the internet, and empowered by an educational system that prizes self-esteem over achievement, Americans have become more opinionated even as they have become less informed, and are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything.
Our republic thrives on open debate and the fair consideration of evidence. When our ability to maintain those democratic habits collapses, our system of government, along with our well-being as a people and a nation, will be in danger. There are a few steps we can take, including treating cable and the internet as we would treat our diet: by exercising portion control, healthy choices, and a varied mixture. We should especially make an effort to consider other sources that challenge us.
More important, we need to start listening to each other with a greater assumption of good will. Cable news has become a gladiatorial exercise, but that doesn’t mean each of us must approach conversation as a fight to the finish.
We must come out from behind our keyboards and smartphones and televisions and engage each other as citizens, rather than opponents. In an age of binary, win-at-all-costs politics, this is a tall order. But citizens need to be better examples to our political and media leaders than they’ve been to us.
There is still time to reconsider the path we’ve set upon in the past few decades, but one thing should be clear: we cannot continue this way much longer and survive as a vibrant democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tom Nichols is the author of the recently published “The Death of Expertise” and a professor at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. The views expressed are his own. Follow him on Twitter @RadioFreeTom
Published: Mar 30, 2017 br br By Tom Nichols br ... (
show quote)
pafret wrote:
This is the same old simplistic argument "Don't read comic books". It ignores the vast amounts of propaganda being fed to the public, on a daily basis, from every source, and the polarization of political view points to such an extent that no contrary opinions are tolerated. A recent study by a Harvard Professor showed an even more alarming manifestation. Tests were conducted giving mathematical proof that one position or another was correct. The test subjects were asked to evaluate the evidence presented. In a significant percentage of responses, they decided against the evidence, based on their political and social viewpoint, while maintaining the data supported their view. The reasons for this behavior were and are complex, not fully understood but what it says in a nutshell is that it is human nature to assert what is obviously false is true if it contradicts your viewpoint.
This is the same old simplistic argument "Don... (
show quote)
It also means that people have stopped thinking critically and now believe any fallacy that supports their own position. I don't think this is complex at all. Our high school teachers are too busy teaching to the next text to teach critical thinking sk**ls. Without the ability to think critically students think via the process of affirmation vs confirmation where affirmation is a process of majority rule over actual fact. We rally people to our beliefs with the larger the crowd the more correct the belief is instead of building an argument as to why those beliefs are true. Actions have consequences and we are now looking at the consequence of standardized testing. Gee, who's idea was that?
slatten49 wrote:
Published: Mar 30, 2017
By Tom Nichols
Why can’t Americans agree about anything? The United States has survived through periods of great division and yet today we all now seem incapable of finding common ground on even the smallest issues. This is a problem that is approaching the level of a national crisis that threatens our democracy.
Some of this tendentiousness is part of an irascible American culture that is, paradoxically, woven into our greatness as a nation. Our willingness to speak our minds and rely on our own common sense has been central to an American character noted by Tocqueville and others since our founding as a nation.
Still, American politics were once characterized by a fair amount of bipartisanship and even ticket-splitting in national e******ns. Today, in public forums, we engage each other not to learn or to converse, but to fight along the harshest and most intractable partisan lines — and to win, no matter how obnoxious we must be in order to carry the day.
Of course, some of this problem is generated by human nature, especially the problem of “confirmation bias.” We want to believe that our experiences and our beliefs, including the important issue of how we view ourselves, explain the world around us. We naturally want to reject evidence that conflicts with those cherished views (especially the ones about ourselves). We all do it, and it’s why we so easily drive each other crazy in our daily conversations.
Bring up the problem of joblessness with almost any group of ordinary v**ers, and every possible intellectual problem will rear its head: stereotypes, confirmation bias, half-t***hs, and statistical incompetence.
Take, for example, a fairly common American kitchen-table debate: the causes of unemployment. Bring up the problem of joblessness with almost any group of ordinary American v**ers, and every possible intellectual problem will rear its head. Stereotypes, confirmation bias, half-t***hs, and statistical incompetence all bedevil this discussion.
One person in this discussion, for example, might hold firmly, as many Americans do, to the idea that unemployed people are just lazy and that unemployment benefits might even encourage that laziness. Like so many examples of confirmation bias, this could spring from personal experience. Perhaps it proceeds from a lifetime of continuous employment. Or maybe it’s the result of knowing someone who’s genuinely averse to work.
For this person, every “help wanted” sign— which confirmation bias will note and file away— is further proof of the laziness of the unemployed. A page of job advertisements or a chronically irresponsible nephew constitutes irrefutable evidence that unemployment is a personal failing rather than a problem requiring government intervention.
Now imagine someone else at the table who believes the nature of the American economy itself forces people into unemployment. This person might draw from experience as well: he or she may know someone who moved to follow a startup company and ended up broke and far from home, or who was unjustly fired by a corrupt or incompetent supervisor.
For this person, every downsizing and every bad boss is proof that the system is stacked against innocent people who would never choose unemployment over work. Unemployment benefits, rather than subsidizing indolence, are a lifeline and perhaps the only thing standing between an honest person and complete ruin.
We should make an effort to consider other sources that challenge us. More important, we need to start listening to each other with a greater assumption of good will.
There’s no way to win this argument because in the end, there are no answers that will satisfy everyone. It’s true that unemployment benefits suppress the urge to work in at least some people; it’s also true that some corporations have a history of ruthlessness at the expense of their workers, whose reliance on benefits is reluctant and temporary. Unable to cope with this level of nuance and unwilling to see their own biases, most people will simply drive each other crazy arguing rather than accept answers that contradict what they already think about the subject.
Education and better public information, sadly, are no cure. The problem of confirmation bias is getting worse, as our disagreements now curdle into angry refusals to listen to others and stubborn refusals to accept information that conflicts with our beliefs.
This isn't just human nature, but the result of a narcissism that took root in American society after the 1960s and has been growing ever since. Surrounded by affluence, enabled by the internet, and empowered by an educational system that prizes self-esteem over achievement, Americans have become more opinionated even as they have become less informed, and are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything.
Our republic thrives on open debate and the fair consideration of evidence. When our ability to maintain those democratic habits collapses, our system of government, along with our well-being as a people and a nation, will be in danger. There are a few steps we can take, including treating cable and the internet as we would treat our diet: by exercising portion control, healthy choices, and a varied mixture. We should especially make an effort to consider other sources that challenge us.
More important, we need to start listening to each other with a greater assumption of good will. Cable news has become a gladiatorial exercise, but that doesn’t mean each of us must approach conversation as a fight to the finish.
We must come out from behind our keyboards and smartphones and televisions and engage each other as citizens, rather than opponents. In an age of binary, win-at-all-costs politics, this is a tall order. But citizens need to be better examples to our political and media leaders than they’ve been to us.
There is still time to reconsider the path we’ve set upon in the past few decades, but one thing should be clear: we cannot continue this way much longer and survive as a vibrant democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tom Nichols is the author of the recently published “The Death of Expertise” and a professor at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. The views expressed are his own. Follow him on Twitter @RadioFreeTom
Published: Mar 30, 2017 br br By Tom Nichols br ... (
show quote)
I firmly believe that the rise of social media is responsible for this int***sigence, although not the cause of our bias, it certainly allows us to find other people who share our exact views, thus confirming them. There are those who believe the Government tries to influence us through radio waves using extraterrestrial technology. Crazy right? It depends on who you talk to; with social media, the mind control folks can find each other, confirm each others stories and theories, work together to develop defenses - and spread the word, gaining new acolytes. This is an extreme example of course, but consider this - it isn't any crazier than any other conspiracy theory, and the groups of people who find each other electronically.
We had a "heads up" about this phenomena, if we'd paid attention. The example is - established religion. A Catholic and a Baptist will never agree on certain doctrines, no matter what evidence is presented, because even of they were "almost persuaded", they'd attend another mass/worship service - and have their original theory reaffirmed. We also have the perfect example right here on OPP, where the primary purpose seems to be to find and support those with similar views - and castigate those that do not share them. Few are here for discussion, as discussion assumes the ability and/or intent to change one's mind, in the face of persuasive argument.
You may be right. Most of my family is Catholic. I am Baptist. We disagree on Doctrine but we at least disagree, we don't shout each other down like what is going on, by the left at college campuses and else where.
lpnmajor wrote:
I firmly believe that the rise of social media is responsible for this int***sigence, although not the cause of our bias, it certainly allows us to find other people who share our exact views, thus confirming them. There are those who believe the Government tries to influence us through radio waves using extraterrestrial technology. Crazy right? It depends on who you talk to; with social media, the mind control folks can find each other, confirm each others stories and theories, work together to develop defenses - and spread the word, gaining new acolytes. This is an extreme example of course, but consider this - it isn't any crazier than any other conspiracy theory, and the groups of people who find each other electronically.
We had a "heads up" about this phenomena, if we'd paid attention. The example is - established religion. A Catholic and a Baptist will never agree on certain doctrines, no matter what evidence is presented, because even of they were "almost persuaded", they'd attend another mass/worship service - and have their original theory reaffirmed. We also have the perfect example right here on OPP, where the primary purpose seems to be to find and support those with similar views - and castigate those that do not share them. Few are here for discussion, as discussion assumes the ability and/or intent to change one's mind, in the face of persuasive argument.
I firmly believe that the rise of social media is ... (
show quote)
lpnmajor wrote:
I firmly believe that the rise of social media is responsible for this int***sigence, although not the cause of our bias, it certainly allows us to find other people who share our exact views, thus confirming them. There are those who believe the Government tries to influence us through radio waves using extraterrestrial technology. Crazy right? It depends on who you talk to; with social media, the mind control folks can find each other, confirm each others stories and theories, work together to develop defenses - and spread the word, gaining new acolytes. This is an extreme example of course, but consider this - it isn't any crazier than any other conspiracy theory, and the groups of people who find each other electronically.
We had a "heads up" about this phenomena, if we'd paid attention. The example is - established religion. A Catholic and a Baptist will never agree on certain doctrines, no matter what evidence is presented, because even of they were "almost persuaded", they'd attend another mass/worship service - and have their original theory reaffirmed. We also have the perfect example right here on OPP, where the primary purpose seems to be to find and support those with similar views - and castigate those that do not share them. Few are here for discussion, as discussion assumes the ability and/or intent to change one's mind, in the face of persuasive argument.
I firmly believe that the rise of social media is ... (
show quote)
That's what I mean by affirmation vs confirmation. Instead of building an argument to prove a point (confirmation) we look for others who agree with an already formed idea (affirm what we already think). It's because we can no longer build a logical argument that we've become tolerant of ideas that aren't our own. Your example of Baptist vs Catholic is spot on...
Excellent comments/responses from each of you.
slatten49 wrote:
Published: Mar 30, 2017
By Tom Nichols
Why can’t Americans agree about anything? The United States has survived through periods of great division and yet today we all now seem incapable of finding common ground on even the smallest issues. This is a problem that is approaching the level of a national crisis that threatens our democracy.
Some of this tendentiousness is part of an irascible American culture that is, paradoxically, woven into our greatness as a nation. Our willingness to speak our minds and rely on our own common sense has been central to an American character noted by Tocqueville and others since our founding as a nation.
Still, American politics were once characterized by a fair amount of bipartisanship and even ticket-splitting in national e******ns. Today, in public forums, we engage each other not to learn or to converse, but to fight along the harshest and most intractable partisan lines — and to win, no matter how obnoxious we must be in order to carry the day.
Of course, some of this problem is generated by human nature, especially the problem of “confirmation bias.” We want to believe that our experiences and our beliefs, including the important issue of how we view ourselves, explain the world around us. We naturally want to reject evidence that conflicts with those cherished views (especially the ones about ourselves). We all do it, and it’s why we so easily drive each other crazy in our daily conversations.
Bring up the problem of joblessness with almost any group of ordinary v**ers, and every possible intellectual problem will rear its head: stereotypes, confirmation bias, half-t***hs, and statistical incompetence.
Take, for example, a fairly common American kitchen-table debate: the causes of unemployment. Bring up the problem of joblessness with almost any group of ordinary American v**ers, and every possible intellectual problem will rear its head. Stereotypes, confirmation bias, half-t***hs, and statistical incompetence all bedevil this discussion.
One person in this discussion, for example, might hold firmly, as many Americans do, to the idea that unemployed people are just lazy and that unemployment benefits might even encourage that laziness. Like so many examples of confirmation bias, this could spring from personal experience. Perhaps it proceeds from a lifetime of continuous employment. Or maybe it’s the result of knowing someone who’s genuinely averse to work.
For this person, every “help wanted” sign— which confirmation bias will note and file away— is further proof of the laziness of the unemployed. A page of job advertisements or a chronically irresponsible nephew constitutes irrefutable evidence that unemployment is a personal failing rather than a problem requiring government intervention.
Now imagine someone else at the table who believes the nature of the American economy itself forces people into unemployment. This person might draw from experience as well: he or she may know someone who moved to follow a startup company and ended up broke and far from home, or who was unjustly fired by a corrupt or incompetent supervisor.
For this person, every downsizing and every bad boss is proof that the system is stacked against innocent people who would never choose unemployment over work. Unemployment benefits, rather than subsidizing indolence, are a lifeline and perhaps the only thing standing between an honest person and complete ruin.
We should make an effort to consider other sources that challenge us. More important, we need to start listening to each other with a greater assumption of good will.
There’s no way to win this argument because in the end, there are no answers that will satisfy everyone. It’s true that unemployment benefits suppress the urge to work in at least some people; it’s also true that some corporations have a history of ruthlessness at the expense of their workers, whose reliance on benefits is reluctant and temporary. Unable to cope with this level of nuance and unwilling to see their own biases, most people will simply drive each other crazy arguing rather than accept answers that contradict what they already think about the subject.
Education and better public information, sadly, are no cure. The problem of confirmation bias is getting worse, as our disagreements now curdle into angry refusals to listen to others and stubborn refusals to accept information that conflicts with our beliefs.
This isn't just human nature, but the result of a narcissism that took root in American society after the 1960s and has been growing ever since. Surrounded by affluence, enabled by the internet, and empowered by an educational system that prizes self-esteem over achievement, Americans have become more opinionated even as they have become less informed, and are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything.
Our republic thrives on open debate and the fair consideration of evidence. When our ability to maintain those democratic habits collapses, our system of government, along with our well-being as a people and a nation, will be in danger. There are a few steps we can take, including treating cable and the internet as we would treat our diet: by exercising portion control, healthy choices, and a varied mixture. We should especially make an effort to consider other sources that challenge us.
More important, we need to start listening to each other with a greater assumption of good will. Cable news has become a gladiatorial exercise, but that doesn’t mean each of us must approach conversation as a fight to the finish.
We must come out from behind our keyboards and smartphones and televisions and engage each other as citizens, rather than opponents. In an age of binary, win-at-all-costs politics, this is a tall order. But citizens need to be better examples to our political and media leaders than they’ve been to us.
There is still time to reconsider the path we’ve set upon in the past few decades, but one thing should be clear: we cannot continue this way much longer and survive as a vibrant democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tom Nichols is the author of the recently published “The Death of Expertise” and a professor at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. The views expressed are his own. Follow him on Twitter @RadioFreeTom
Published: Mar 30, 2017 br br By Tom Nichols br ... (
show quote)
What we have here is a conflict of good vs evil. There can be no compromise.
Mr Bombastic wrote:
What we have here is a conflict of good vs evil. There can be no compromise.
Really
Explain how the article touches on good vs. evil. On the surface, your comment injects them, needlessly. Not all disagreements are regarding good vs. evil possibly leading to Heaven or Hell. I've seen Americans arguing vehemently over the taste of Coke as to that of Pepsi or the New England Patriots vs. the Dallas Cowboys.
In essence, the article is about arguing just for the sake of argument, often excluding facts or evidence, in clinging to pre-conceived beliefs.
slatten49 wrote:
Really
Explain how the article touches on good vs. evil. On the surface, your comment injects them, needlessly. Not all disagreements are regarding good vs. evil possibly leading to Heaven or Hell. I've seen Americans arguing vehemently over the taste of Coke as to that of Pepsi or the New England Patriots vs. the Dallas Cowboys.
In essence, the article is about arguing just for the sake of argument, often excluding facts or evidence, in clinging to pre-conceived beliefs.
Really img src="https://static.onepoliticalplaza.... (
show quote)
My beliefs are grounded in a firm understanding of good and evil. I have noticed that the majority of what liberals want is evil.
slatten49 wrote:
Published: Mar 30, 2017
By Tom Nichols
Why can’t Americans agree about anything? The United States has survived through periods of great division and yet today we all now seem incapable of finding common ground on even the smallest issues. This is a problem that is approaching the level of a national crisis that threatens our democracy.
Some of this tendentiousness is part of an irascible American culture that is, paradoxically, woven into our greatness as a nation. Our willingness to speak our minds and rely on our own common sense has been central to an American character noted by Tocqueville and others since our founding as a nation.
Still, American politics were once characterized by a fair amount of bipartisanship and even ticket-splitting in national e******ns. Today, in public forums, we engage each other not to learn or to converse, but to fight along the harshest and most intractable partisan lines — and to win, no matter how obnoxious we must be in order to carry the day.
Of course, some of this problem is generated by human nature, especially the problem of “confirmation bias.” We want to believe that our experiences and our beliefs, including the important issue of how we view ourselves, explain the world around us. We naturally want to reject evidence that conflicts with those cherished views (especially the ones about ourselves). We all do it, and it’s why we so easily drive each other crazy in our daily conversations.
Bring up the problem of joblessness with almost any group of ordinary v**ers, and every possible intellectual problem will rear its head: stereotypes, confirmation bias, half-t***hs, and statistical incompetence.
Take, for example, a fairly common American kitchen-table debate: the causes of unemployment. Bring up the problem of joblessness with almost any group of ordinary American v**ers, and every possible intellectual problem will rear its head. Stereotypes, confirmation bias, half-t***hs, and statistical incompetence all bedevil this discussion.
One person in this discussion, for example, might hold firmly, as many Americans do, to the idea that unemployed people are just lazy and that unemployment benefits might even encourage that laziness. Like so many examples of confirmation bias, this could spring from personal experience. Perhaps it proceeds from a lifetime of continuous employment. Or maybe it’s the result of knowing someone who’s genuinely averse to work.
For this person, every “help wanted” sign— which confirmation bias will note and file away— is further proof of the laziness of the unemployed. A page of job advertisements or a chronically irresponsible nephew constitutes irrefutable evidence that unemployment is a personal failing rather than a problem requiring government intervention.
Now imagine someone else at the table who believes the nature of the American economy itself forces people into unemployment. This person might draw from experience as well: he or she may know someone who moved to follow a startup company and ended up broke and far from home, or who was unjustly fired by a corrupt or incompetent supervisor.
For this person, every downsizing and every bad boss is proof that the system is stacked against innocent people who would never choose unemployment over work. Unemployment benefits, rather than subsidizing indolence, are a lifeline and perhaps the only thing standing between an honest person and complete ruin.
We should make an effort to consider other sources that challenge us. More important, we need to start listening to each other with a greater assumption of good will.
There’s no way to win this argument because in the end, there are no answers that will satisfy everyone. It’s true that unemployment benefits suppress the urge to work in at least some people; it’s also true that some corporations have a history of ruthlessness at the expense of their workers, whose reliance on benefits is reluctant and temporary. Unable to cope with this level of nuance and unwilling to see their own biases, most people will simply drive each other crazy arguing rather than accept answers that contradict what they already think about the subject.
Education and better public information, sadly, are no cure. The problem of confirmation bias is getting worse, as our disagreements now curdle into angry refusals to listen to others and stubborn refusals to accept information that conflicts with our beliefs.
This isn't just human nature, but the result of a narcissism that took root in American society after the 1960s and has been growing ever since. Surrounded by affluence, enabled by the internet, and empowered by an educational system that prizes self-esteem over achievement, Americans have become more opinionated even as they have become less informed, and are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything.
Our republic thrives on open debate and the fair consideration of evidence. When our ability to maintain those democratic habits collapses, our system of government, along with our well-being as a people and a nation, will be in danger. There are a few steps we can take, including treating cable and the internet as we would treat our diet: by exercising portion control, healthy choices, and a varied mixture. We should especially make an effort to consider other sources that challenge us.
More important, we need to start listening to each other with a greater assumption of good will. Cable news has become a gladiatorial exercise, but that doesn’t mean each of us must approach conversation as a fight to the finish.
We must come out from behind our keyboards and smartphones and televisions and engage each other as citizens, rather than opponents. In an age of binary, win-at-all-costs politics, this is a tall order. But citizens need to be better examples to our political and media leaders than they’ve been to us.
There is still time to reconsider the path we’ve set upon in the past few decades, but one thing should be clear: we cannot continue this way much longer and survive as a vibrant democracy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tom Nichols is the author of the recently published “The Death of Expertise” and a professor at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. The views expressed are his own. Follow him on Twitter @RadioFreeTom
Published: Mar 30, 2017 br br By Tom Nichols br ... (
show quote)
While it's true that most people suffer to some degree from confirmation bias, it is the l*****ts who've raised it to an art-form with safe spaces and trigger warnings.
PeterS wrote:
It also means that people have stopped thinking critically and now believe any fallacy that supports their own position. I don't think this is complex at all. Our high school teachers are too busy teaching to the next text to teach critical thinking sk**ls. Without the ability to think critically students think via the process of affirmation vs confirmation where affirmation is a process of majority rule over actual fact. We rally people to our beliefs with the larger the crowd the more correct the belief is instead of building an argument as to why those beliefs are true. Actions have consequences and we are now looking at the consequence of standardized testing. Gee, who's idea was that?
It also means that people have stopped thinking cr... (
show quote)
I was a product of the fifties education system and thus predated standardized testing. There was no formal education in critical thinking and I did not encounter such teaching until I took college level courses in logic, philosophy, metaphysics and the sciences. What we have is an apathetic populace, they do not know and have no desire to know what the root causes of our current malaise are. They simply do not want to expend the effort to acquire such information and indeed, there is no simple set of facts to be presented. All of our problems have their roots in actions taken up to 100 years ago. The Law empowering the Federal Reserve System of Banking to control our nations money enacted under Woodrow Wilson is one example
There have been glaring signposts along the way such as NAFTA; it didn't require enormous intellect to understand that business will always seek to maximize profits and the fastest way to do that is to reduce labor costs. Opening up free trade meant that the vast, Mexican, cheap labor market will suck jobs out of this country, usually manufacturing jobs which tend to pay better than average. Loss of jobs means loss of buying power and reduced consumer demand which further reduces employment.
Another such milepost was the Affordable Care Act. The horror stories about Government incompetence and slavish rigor in enforcing demented rules are legion. Couple that with no evaluation or debate over the requirements implemented in a law that affects an industry that represents such a large percent of our GDP and you have a recipe for disaster. The average man feels the pinch of higher medical costs and doesn't like it; the real horror of this act is how profoundly it has altered the business paradigm.
Businesses attempt to make all employees part timers because the burdens of this law for having full time employees, are so onerous they could not survive otherwise. Employees are now faced with reduced hours, non-existent benefits and the need for two jobs to survive. And again, reduced income equates to reduced demand which equates to Depression.
Standardized testing was another government concept gone wrong. What it was supposed to do was insure that students got at least a minimal education but what it actually did was assure that only minimal education would be provided. This is what was to be tested and if the biases of the test writers dictated that the precepts of socialism were the correct answers than socialism is what is taught. Any viewpoint not tested for, was discarded. It only made sense, no one wanted to appear incompetent because a stupid test said you couldn't teach.
Slavish adherence to the group opinion then is apathy, born of lethargy in learning and antipathy towards intellectualism brought about by canned teaching. If you don't know historical fact and you weren't taught to reason for yourself there is no foundation for evaluating currently held opinions or discarding what does not conform to reality. The group defines your reality.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
