Depolarizing within

In our pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, we note an article from NPR discusses a program from Braver Angels called "Depolarizing within."

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2024/10/14/nx-s1-5057929/anxiety-stress-politics-election-2024-polarization?utm_id=23122126&orgid=213&utm_att1=

Excerpts:

Here’s a question to ask yourself:

“How often do I feel a rush of pleasure with friends when we ridicule those ‘crazies’ on the other political side?”

This comes from an exercise in a course called Depolarizing Within, created by Braver Angels, a group that aims to help Americans bridge the political divide.

Be honest with yourself if the answer is “often.” Another part of the course asks you to consider the words you use: If you lean blue and words like “anti-immigrant” or “bible-thumper” come to mind, or if you lean red and you’re thinking “elitist” or “unpatriotic,” then your inner polarizer is alive and well.

Labels can dehumanize the opposing side especially when they don’t reflect the complexity of people’s views.

.....

“We’re not trying to get people to start agreeing,” Staehli says. The goal is to turn down the temperature, “to stop hating each other,” she says. And, through dialogue, to see past labels, stereotypes and division.

Christensen says this works because “they’re not criticizing the other side. They’re not putting them down. They’re not adding to the problem. They’re working on actually resolving it.”

Oftentimes, Staehli says, people will find common ground as they consider others’ beliefs and values. They start to see how compromise might be possible.

.....

If this election cycle is causing you distress or tension with people you know, here are ways to depolarize yourself and talk to those you disagree with.

1. Notice stereotypes in your own thinking

Braver Angels’ Staehli says stereotyping, dismissing, ridiculing and contempt are “the four horsemen of polarization.” The group’s online depolarizing workshop teaches how to counter these attitudes in yourself.

.....

2. Next, ‘edit the story’

Once you see your own attitudes clearly, Braver Angels has you rethink the story you tell yourself about people with opposing views. Here are a few starting points, adapted from the course:

Acknowledge that the other side is more varied than the stereotype and that their views are more complicated than the rhetoric you’ve been hearing.

.....

3. Limit consumption of polarizing news

“We are absolutely drawn to the “us versus them narratives,” Israel says. Through evolutionary hardwiring we tend to adopt a team sport mentality, she says. And much of cable news reinforces this polarizing storyline, emphasizing controversy and division.

“The more people tune into news that caters to one side or the other, the more skewed their perceptions of people on the other side is going to be,” Israel says.

.....

4. Curate your social media feed and watch for misinformation

Research finds some social media limits your exposure to viewpoints that differ from your own. So it's important to take control of what you are seeing on these platforms.

It’s easy to share or like messages that reinforce our biases. If the message slams a person on the other side, but fails to teach you anything or offer a solution, ask yourself if it’s really helpful, says Israel. If the answer is no, don’t like or share it. And consider unfollowing groups or individuals that repeatedly spew one-sided or scornful messages or misinformation.

.....

5. Get engaged in community groups

The opposite of scrolling is to actually engage with other humans.

“It turns out, that’s a wonderful thing for us to do,” Israel says. And not only can we spend more time with family and friends, but we also get involved in our community. This may help counter political – and social – isolation. Plus, “it’s actually good for our mental health to volunteer,” she says.

.....

6. How to talk through difference

When it comes to resolving conflict, people are not going to hear you – or your point of view – until they feel heard. This is why listening and acknowledging is so key to the Braver Angel’s approach to bridge-building. “You do it over and over again,” Staehli says until the other person feels heard. This can help establish good will.

So here’s the Braver Angels’ process for how to have a productive conversation with someone across the political divide.

The first step is to listen. Then ask questions with curiosity, Braver Angels’ Elizabeth Christensen suggests. “What was behind that? Why did you do that? Where are you coming from?” 

Next, acknowledge what the other person said. You don’t have to agree, just acknowledge that you've heard them, Christensen says.  Ask: Did I hear you correctly? Is this what you’re saying? “It’s acknowledging that you understand where they are at,” she explains.

And then there’s the pivot. Ask if you can share a different perspective. It’s like the turn signal on a car – you give people a heads up you may have a different viewpoint. “Then they are prepared to listen to you instead of responding to you – hopefully!” Christensen says.

Then offer your perspective. Use non-polarizing language. Finally check in with them to make sure they’ve heard you.

Both Christensen and Staehli have used these skills in conversation with their own families. “They work incredibly well,” Christensen says.

7. Cultivate empathy and compassion

In a polarized situation, people are very empathetic toward people on their own side, but very not empathetic toward people on the other side, Israel says. This can work against the goal of bridge-building.

.....

Practicing loving-kindness meditation has been shown to improve social interactions and increase happiness which can lower symptoms of anxiety and depression. It’s also been shown to reduce stress.

People are undiscovered countries

 

Robert Greene

@RobertGreene

The greatest danger you face is your general assumption that you really understand people and that you can quickly judge them. Instead, you must begin with the assumption that you are ignorant and that you have natural biases that will make you judge people incorrectly. Each person you meet is like an undiscovered country, with a very particular psychological chemistry that you will carefully explore.

Shiv Om

@imshivom

·

Sep 26

True understanding requires humility. Instead of assuming we know others, we should approach each person as an undiscovered world. Recognizing our biases opens the door to deeper, more meaningful connections. Exploration leads to growth. L

Context and decisions

In a new study, "The researchers aimed to investigate whether context consistently influences our decisions or whether the degree of human rationality varies depending on socioeconomic and cultural factors such as country of origin, status, religion, political system, and others." 

https://phys.org/news/2024-09-wrong-context-human-rationality-decisions.html

The right to be wrong: How context or human rationality may influence our decisions | Phys dot org Conventionally, decision-making is portrayed as a rational process: individuals calculate potential risks and aim to maximize benefits. Yet, our brains do not always endorse rational action, particularly when an immediate response is required. Sometimes, individuals mistakenly choose objectively worse options because of how these options are perceived in a given context. For instance, if an investor is presented with the opportunity to purchase a portfolio of shares with a 60% probability of yielding profit, they are likely to accept. However, if informed that there's a 40% chance of the portfolio incurring losses, they will probably decline the offer. Similarly, two circles of identical diameter may appear different in size depending on the shapes surrounding them. The context is what determines our evaluation of the available options. ... An international team of authors, including researchers at the HSE Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, conducted a study involving volunteers across eleven countries of remarkably different socio-economic and cultural makeup. More than 500 nationals of Russia, France, Argentina, India, China and some other countries performed a decision-making task consisting of two phases. The research is published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour. During the first phase, participants were asked to choose between two options, each linked to either obtaining a reward or facing the risk of losing it. In each round, the options were reiterated, forming various combinations to establish contexts in which these options were perceived as either more or less rewarding. Thus, participants had the opportunity to maximize their rewards based on learning from previous rounds; however, all participants without exception, irrespective of nationality, made suboptimal decisions and incorrectly evaluated the options in certain contexts. To assess the reproducibility of context-dependent results from the first phase of the experiment, the study authors instructed participants to perform a second task involving a choice between two options presented in the same contexts but with known variables. For instance, the participating volunteers were informed that they could either receive a substantial reward with a 50% probability or opt for a guaranteed but small reward. By consistently administering such lotteries, it becomes possible to identify the threshold at which individuals cease taking risks and choose the safe option. This threshold is individual and depends on a person's risk preference, which, as revealed, is a culture-specific characteristic. Thus, Russian nationals exhibited average risk preferences, Chinese and Japanese participants demonstrated the highest risk propensity, while residents of India and Chile emerged as the most risk-averse. "Previously, it was believed that the primary factor influencing our decisions was our willingness to take risks. However, through our research, we discovered that this is not always the case. Our decision-making primarily depends on how we receive information: whether we experience the situation first-hand or are informed about it," explains co-author of the study Oksana Zinchenko, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, HSE University. "We have demonstrated that human consciousness exhibits a certain cognitive limitation, which is a shared characteristic not contingent on our beliefs, attitudes, or nationality."

(click to enlarge)

People can change their minds

In the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, there's an excellent article in the Deseret News by Jacob Hess on how people change their minds.

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2024/08/28/overcoming-persuasion-skepticism/

Hess discusses a book by David McRaney that I greatly enjoyed titled How Minds Change.

https://www.davidmcraney.com/howmindschangehome

The understanding element consists of not seeking to persuade, convince, or convert, but instead seeking to understand one another. By sharing information and thought processes, people can make informed decisions for themselves.

_____

The article describes the steps for changing one's mind:

Conditions supporting persuasion

The podcast summarized a few key conditions making it more likely that people will feel comfortable changing their minds.

1. I’m not threatening you

2. I’m willing to listen with empathy and compassion

3. Acknowledging good reasons to resist persuasion

4. Appreciation that persuasion is normal and happens every day

5. There is more to your identity than even you may think

6. We have more in common than we may realize

7. I respect that you have to decide on your own perspective

N. T. Wright on how to get along

Q&A with N.T. Wright:

Esser: What advice would you give to us as a community to better work in an interfaith way with other denominations?

N. T. Wright: We make the distinction between ecumenical discussions, which are specifically between different ideas or Christian groups, and interfaith discussions, which would be, say, Christian with Muslim or Christian with Buddhist or Christian with Jewish, but whatever you are doing, I would say the primary thing is making friends. We Anglicans tried to do dialogue with the Romans by having theologians sitting around discussing dogmas, and of course, the first thing that happens is, “We believe this and you believe that,” the clashing. 

But actually, the best way of doing it is what I did as bishop in Durham, which was I got my opposite Catholic number and we played golf together, and then we got our clergy and we had a Catholic-Anglican golf game, which was great. Then we’d go out for dinner and have a pint of beer. At the end of the day, you’ve created a context within which other conversations are going to be much more healthy.

And I would say the same about working with a Buddhist group or a Jewish group or Muslim group. We say, particularly in our country at the moment, about Muslim communities that who knows what the next flashpoint is going to be globally or locally. It’s vital that, say, the Anglican vicar of the parish gets to know the local Muslim representative so that if there is something really bad that happens, they can appear on the street linking arms and saying, “Not in our name.” Doesn’t mean they’re agreeing about everything; they’re not. It just means they’re sending a signal to the community that we ought to be working together on this. So friendship.

  https://www.deseret.com/faith/2024/06/21/latter-day-saints-meet-nt-wright/

An organization called UNITE has developed what they call the Dignity Index. Their concept has a lot of promise.

Here's their explanation (https://www.dignityindex.us/about):

Ease Divisions.
Prevent Violence.
Solve Problems.

We formed UNITE in 2018 to find ways to help ease divisions in the country. In 2021, we began developing the Dignity Index, an eight-point scale for measuring how we talk to each other when we disagree. Our faith in the Index is grounded in a few core beliefs: 

• Contempt causes division; dignity eases division.

• If we put a spotlight on dignity and contempt, we will use more dignity and less contempt.

• If we show Americans how they can help ease our divisions, they will jump on it.

https://www.dignityindex.us/

THE DIGNITY INDEX

The Dignity Index is an eight-point scale that scores speech along a continuum from contempt to dignity in as unbiased a manner as possible. By focusing on the sound bites, not the people behind them, the Index attempts to stay true to its own animating spirit: that everyone deserves dignity.

The have several graphical resources that convey the principles of the Dignity Index. The're available here: 

https://www.dignityindex.us/resources

Here are some examples:

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

Dignity Principles:

1. Dignity is the inherent worth we all have from birth. We all deserve to be treated with dignity no matter what. 

2. Along with our survival instincts, the longing to be treated with dignity is the single most powerful force motivating our behavior. 

3. If we violate someone’s dignity repeatedly, we will get a divorce or a war or a revolution, because a desire for revenge is an instant response to a dignity violation. 

4. Treating people with dignity means seeing ourselves in them; treating people with contempt means seeing ourselves above them. 

5. When contempt tears us apart, dignity can bring us together, whether we’re talking about our friends, our family, our community or our country. 

6. Treating people with dignity helps bring out their best and discourage their worst. 

7. Treating people with contempt makes both sides angry, anxious and depressed. 

8. When we use contempt, we create enemies for ourselves and the causes we care about. 

9. Contempt gives us an addictive buzz, and people exploit our addictions to get rich, famous and powerful. 

10. When people use contempt, they claim noble motives because contempt needs excuses and disguises. When we expose contempt, it loses its power. 

11. When we put a spotlight on dignity and contempt, we use more dignity and less contempt. 

12. When we create communities that reward dignity and challenge contempt, we can change the culture.