Dan Marcus teaches at John Stark High School in Weare.
I recently watched a documentary about George Carlin and I was reminded of a routine he used to do about “stuff.”
At one point he said, “Have you ever noticed that someone else’s stuff is sh*t and your sh*t is stuff?” After they showed Carlin’s routine in the documentary, John Stewart commented on the importance of this line. “[this routine] really is the throughline for the lack of empathy of people… my opinion is valid and your opinion is ‘cancel culture’…”
I have written in this column previously about the importance of having tools to find valid, truthful information. This, of course, remains important, but I think perhaps there is another, foundational component. People have to want to find truthful information and when it is presented to them, they have to be open to receiving it.
Seems simple enough, but I think many of us are less open than we think to other people’s “stuff” or just truthful information in general that doesn’t jive with our “stuff.”
Why is this happening?
There is an interesting concept in social psychology called cognitive dissonance. Dictionary.com defines it as, “anxiety that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible attitudes, beliefs, or the like…” In other words, when people hear credible information that disagrees with their beliefs, it causes anxiety.
I believe this explains some of what we are seeing politically today. Many people have given their faith and loyalty to a party or even an individual. When they read or hear truthful, but negative, facts about this party or individual, they experience cognitive dissonance. Their chosen party or person can’t be in the right if the new information is correct, and this causes anxiety and stress.
To resolve the stress caused by this dissonance, I think people often do one of two things. First, since there is an avalanche of information facing us each day, some choose to simply ignore those facts or news sources that tend to have information that causes them cognitive dissonance. Alternatively, when they are exposed to contrary facts, even if the reporting is stellar, they dismiss the contrary information as “fake news.”
Both of these methods of resolving the internal conflict are made easier by politicians and commentators that frame bad faith arguments to provide a model for how to disregard anything causing dissonance. The unfortunate outcome is that more and more people are basing conclusions on something other than objective truth.
One recent example of this at work happened during the New Mexico primary in June. Officials on the Otero County board initially refused to certify the results because of lingering doubts that they had about voting machines. When finally compelled by a court to certify the election, since no actual defect or fraud was shown, one official, Couy Griffin, still refused to vote to certify, saying, “My vote to remain a ‘no’ isn’t based on any evidence. It’s not based on any facts.”
While I appreciate Mr. Griffin’s honesty here, trusting your gut feelings over truthful evidence can’t be how we do our governance. If you rely on your gut and I rely on mine and we disagree, there is no way to resolve it. We remain at an impasse with no way forward.
You have your “stuff” and I have mine. Either you will win or I will. There is no place for working toward a common understanding or a compromise.
How do we stop this from happening? Two words: critical thinking.
According to dictionary.com, critical thinking is, “disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence.” This means you set aside your existing loyalties. You give up the notion that the party or individual you generally support is always right. You set aside the bias you have against certain sources of information or that you have with regard to facts that don’t support your worldview. Instead, you look at the information objectively for what it is and consider it on its merits.
If you think about it, we generally benefit from employing critical thinking in most (if not all) contexts. If you buy a product and you find it to be poorly made, you will probably think twice before buying a product from that manufacturer again. If you have a friend who begins to act in a harmful manner toward you, at some point, you will likely set aside your bias in favor of that person and look at their actions objectively in order to protect yourself.
When people get married they often vow until “death do us part” but yet a significant percentage of people, if they become unhappy in the marriage, reevaluate and choose to divorce. Doesn’t it seem odd that people will think critically about whether a product or even their marriage is good for them, but then fail to do this with regard to leaders or societal issues? Does a political leader deserve more unbreakable, unquestionable loyalty than your spouse?
Disagreements don’t have to divide us. They can lead to enlightenment when we are committed to fact-based analysis and an openness to different perspectives. No one party or individual has all of the answers. If you really have faith in that party or that individual you generally support, you should have enough confidence in them that you are unafraid to test what they say against credible evidence.
Truthful information may support what they say and, if so, then you know that your support is well placed. If the facts don’t support the leader’s position, then you are helping them to be a better leader by holding them accountable and not just accepting illogical or dishonest arguments.
We all love our “stuff,” but being open to other people’s “stuff” and more importantly truthful information, will improve our national dialogue and this will likely lead to better leadership and better outcomes for our country.
There is one other benefit to consider. Having a true exchange of ideas with another person, or with a group, can be enjoyable and satisfying. Among my fondest memories of growing up are animated kitchen table discussions with my family.
When a debate or discussion in one of my classes is going well, I’m reminded of why I decided to become a teacher. When I reflect on good, evidence-based, discussions I’ve had in the classroom or outside of it, I see images of passionate gestures, and I hear raised but not angry voices and often, shared laughter.
3-Minute Civics is a column that explores and examines concepts to help readers understand and participate in state and national political conversation. It runs every other week in the Sunday Forum. The authors of this column are not members of the Monitor’s staff.