Y Safle

In last week’s Geek Counterpoint Episode, you can hear a summary of some of the latest research about why it is that political arguments get so heated. In essence, it seems that we are predisposed to overlook the weak thinking, assumptions and problems in a view with which we agree, whilst latching on to the same problems in the arguments of those with whom we disagree.

This was tested scientifically, but it is essentially just another demonstration of an effect that I think pervades human nature. We all have certain needs. We all look for security, and when we have that security, we look to fill our needs for significance and self worth.

Now where do we go to meet those needs? As a Christian, I believe these can be met in a relationship with God, but even if that is the case, it is clear that not all Christians successfully do so. So where else do we meet these needs?

Well the answer is: wherever we can. We are sociable beings, and we form relationships and communities, and we seek to fulfill those needs in those relationships and communities.

Those involved in politics at any level are invested in a political community. If I, at some point in my life, make a decision to support the “purple party”, then I will discuss purple politics with other purples, and become immersed in the purple ideas. The problem is that a closed feedback loop develops.

As I discuss purplism with my purple friends, I assimilate their world view and internalise their cultural assumptions, so that I am not particularly aware of the inconsistencies in purple thought. If challenged on these by a hostile “yellow”, then I take the query back to my purple community and am happy to accept their answer to the issue raised, because the yellow is hostile and the purple is my friend.

If I did the opposite – arguing against the purple viewpoint then I would be opposing my friends – the ones from whom I gain feelings of significance and self worth, and as I perceive my standing in the purple community diminish, I also feel my sense of significance and self worth diminish too.

So I am all too ready to accept the line I am given by my community – to challenge it would be a personal risk, for no gain.

Furthermore, as I don’t want to accept the yellow point of view on some issue, I will latch on to problems with their thinking, and dismiss their views based on these errors – even if the argument is ad hominem. I am happy thinking of all yellows as foolish, shallow thinking and rather stupid people. In that way I do not have to engage with the substance of their thought.

Dredge through this blog and you will find my argument on capital punishment. In the comments for that article, you will see a commentator opened his criticism of my argument with this:

But I believe you’re a Christian, ain’t cha? And that I’ll be saved if I accept Cheeses Christ but not saved if I don’t?

And this is a perfect example of someone who rejects my faith community, and because he preceives me as being in a “hostile” community to his own, he attacks the community rather than the argument. The argument is clearly ad hominem (whether you accept his view or mine on Capital punishment), but the question is: why does an intelligent person think that such ad hominems will do?

The answer is that his community sees mine as an outsider, and therefore members of that community may be attacked simply for being members of the community. In so doing we do not feel the need to actually consider arguments proposed on their merits?

How do we stop this?

Not easily is the answer. As the Geek Counterpoint article points out, we are naturally predisposed to this kind of thinking. But here are some possibilities:

0. For Christians at least, recognise that our security, significance and self worth are found only in Christ.

1. Whenever presented with an argument, consider: why are we predisposed to accept or reject it? Is it that we like the person presenting the argument? Imagine putting the argument in the mouth of someone you dislike (or vice versa).

2. Always be critical of any new idea. Especially among friends. Educate your friends to know that the fact you are being critical shows that you care about what they think..

3. Avoid ad hominem arguments. There is plenty of advice on this on the Internet. In short, if you attack the person or their community rather than the argument, your argument is ad hominem.

4. Whenever you hear an ad hominem argument, reject it and reconsider the issue for yourself.

5. Try to build questioning communities.

These are just some pointers. I would be grateful to commentators who can add some more.

Be Sociable, Share!

•