ON POLARIZATION

If you think that "the other side" has bad intentions, you're polarizing. Your actions will cause the other side to react defensively.

If you think that "some people in the other side" have bad intentions, you're de-polarizing.

Let me explain.

(thread, 1/13)

2/ Clearly, during the last elections, some people from both sides acted in bad faith.

Just as clearly, many people from both sides acted in good faith.

Referring to one side as if they were all in bad faith will only cause some of its good-faith members to turn bad.

Example:

3/ It might be true that some Republicans threw accusations that they knew were false.

But saying "Republicans threw false accusations" causes good-faith Republicans to feel attacked.

It will cause at least a few of them to react defensively.

4/ Moreover, saying "Republicans threw false accusations" provides fertile grounds for extremization.

Now, bad-faith Republicans can say, "see the Democrats? They're saying you're a liar, they don't take you seriously."

Treating good apples as if they were bad turns them bad.

5/ Naturally, this doesn't apply to everyone.

But in general, I believe it does, at least in some measure.

Every time that a media outlet group attributes bad intentions to Republicans as a whole, it makes at least a few of them more likely to react more violently or enragedly.

6/ Of course, this is true for both sides.

It might be true that some Democrats dismissed requests for audits after the elections. Many others did investigate, tho.

Saying "Democrats neglected our concerns of fair elections" is likely to make more people dismiss claims later on

7/ Something similar occurs when bad apples from your side are let roam free.

It provides extremization hooks to the other side. Their bad apples can say, "See! A bad apple on their side. And they're playing along. They must all be bad apples."

8/ So this is the story of polarization.

The result of back-and-forth generalizations, where one spots a bad apple on the other side and treats the whole side as if they were bad apples, causing some of their good ones to turn bad eventually.

9/ Polarization has two causes:
– seeing a bad apple from the other side and assuming they are all bad apples,
– not taking care of the bad apples on your own side, increasing the likelihood that the other side sees a bad apple and believes you're all bad apples.

10/ Of course, there's plenty to blame to throw around.
This doesn't mean it should be thrown; not without taking care of one's own problems too.

Polarization and the blame game are rat races.
You lose even if you win.

11/ So, what can we do to de-polarize?

– Call out the bad apples on your side. This will take away "extremization hooks" from their bad and will gain you the respect of the good on the other side.

– Call out the good on the other side. It will gain you their respect.

12/ You'll help dispelling the dangerous idea that teaming up with the bad apples from your side is more beneficial than teaming up with the good apples from the other side.

This is only true if you're a bad apple.

So, bad apples peddle this idea. Don't listen to them.

13/ I'll push this concept even further. Letting bad apples from your side win is more likely to be detrimental to you than letting the good ones from the other side win.

(If you don't think so, it's because you're looking at their bad apples. Look at their good ones.)

14/ Can all bad apples be turned good? No.

Can all good apples work together in harmony? Unlikely.

Can we avoid bad apples from taking over? Probably.

How do we do so? One necessary but not sufficient condition is to avoid polarization.

Let's work towards that.

15/ Last thing. I'm not claiming the moral high ground here. At times, I've been polarizing myself (and I apologize for that).

But de-polarization is so important than I'd rather share this even if I didn't practice it perfectly rather than staying silent.