The Dying Art of Disagreement

Tribalism. We seem to be hardwired for it, to seek it out. As the immediate bonds in family/religion/neighborhood/etc are being torn down by modern individualism, so new tribal bonds are formed.

In the age of the internet, as you said, you can find a voice that validates any belief. A community forms around the smallest nugget of common belief.

And so tribes are formed.

Mind you we also seem to be living in a society that increasingly believes that anything you think, you immediately believe to be true. That to hold opposing beliefs, or at least to inspect and consider thoughts that are “wrong”, immediately makes you ... I dunno. Almost like thinking something immediately makes it your sole belief.

So it becomes impossible, dangerous even, to allow opposing beliefs to even be expressed lest they take you over.

Thought police basically.

This bothers me so much. In my social circle (and I expect many of yours) simply understanding the other side is demonized. It's a sin to admit that, despite their conclusions being terrible, these human beings have some sense somewhere.

When you hear a view you disagree with, instead of disagreeing, first try to understand. These are intelligent human beings who will surprise you. Most often, it turns out the point they are making isn't quite the one you thought, or at least it has some nuance and the truth is somewhere in between you.

It's bad even here on HN. There was a post last week about using genetic algorithms to solve jigsaw puzzles. It looks like this: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nemanja-m/gaps/master/imag... .

One commenter was disappointed at the test image used, because:

> At best, it's crass and tasteless. At worst, it's openly disrespectful and hostile to women.

Another commenter asked:

> Why is it crass and tasteless? And why is it openly hostile and disrespectful to women?

The response was:

> If I need to explain to you why using a nude image of a model (taken from a pornography magazine, no less) is hostile and disrespectful, then I suspect you are part of the problem.

As typical, treating your "opponent" as an intelligent moral person, trying to understand them first, applying the slightest bit of empathy, then even if you agree that the picture is crass/hostile/whatever, it's much more respectful and likely that the asker simply did not know the history of it, rather than the asker being immoral (from that POV).

Jumping straight to "you are part of the problem" is an extreme version of what happens in most of these disagreements. There's no respect or effort towards empathy and it makes me really sad.

But seriously, thoughtful comments take time; and are often formed by trying to explain why the thoughtless comments are wrong.

I firmly believe in the idea that the tools that we shape shape us in turn as we use them. I don't think it's a coincidence that we're seeing an greater upsurge in rancor as social media becomes more entrenched in our day to day lives. If a system rewards people for doing something, you can bet that people will adapt their thought processes to maximize their gains. Nuance is going to be the first thing jettisoned in a short format that rewards instant emotional gratification.