US democracy's ailments and balms
There is an FB thread about US democracy that refers to an article in The Atlantic titled "Why the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid". Joseph C highlighted the impact of confirmation bias and hints at what we need to do to undo that damage:
""The most reliable cure for confirmation bias is interaction with people who don’t share your beliefs. They confront you with counterevidence and counterargument. John Stuart Mill said, “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that,” and he urged us to seek out conflicting views “from persons who actually believe them.” People who think differently and are willing to speak up if they disagree with you make you smarter, almost as if they are extensions of your own brain. People who try to silence or intimidate their critics make themselves stupider, almost as if they are shooting darts into their own brain."
My response to that conciliatory approach is:
There is a huge assumption and a major flaw in this "listen to both sides of the argument" approach:
1. Assumption: The other side has something valuable to say (e.g. counterevidence and counterargument) that we are missing. Note that most of what the right says is not silenced nor intimidated by the left. Given the pettiness of MAGats and their GOP ilk, their continuous assault on democracy, human rights and decency, I would dare say, that the chance of us missing out some invisible truths, is quite low. I would really like to see one major counterpoint named that we are blind to and that the right has a genuine grievance about (and I don't consider their screeching carps about #BLM and their Defund the Police slogan, or overblown cancel culture wars as genuine grievances, but merely deflections, redirection and reframing of the public conversation on their terms).
2. Flaw: By accepting as valid the other side's arguments,
- we are compromising on issues that we should not compromise on (e.g. human rights, or being completely honest about US' darker past) and
- the other side is effectively moving the Overton window yet again (as they have consistently done since 1980 with their inoculation of the Democratic Party's platform in the form of Third Way complete defeatism).
Preferably, I would take a closer look at Mr Haidt's suggested remedies (none of which touch directly on confirmation bias):
"Redesigning democracy for the digital age is far beyond my abilities, but I can suggest three categories of reforms--three goals that must be achieved if democracy is to remain viable in the post-Babel era.
[1] We must harden democratic institutions so that they can withstand chronic anger and mistrust [e.g. open primaries, fight gerrymandering],
[2] reform social media so that it becomes less socially corrosive [by restricting the amplification of far left and far right voices], and
[3] better prepare the next generation for democratic citizenship in this new age
[3a] [restricting access to social media for younger Americans or
[3b] promoting more free play with minimal supervision]." or
[3c] join "groups and organizations dedicated to building trust and friendship across the political divide, including BridgeUSA, Braver Angels [...], and many others listed at BridgeAlliance.us"
Personally, I fully agree with 1, 2b, 3a, 3b, and 3c. I consider 2a to be an overblown problem. More fundamentally, I think that
- [3b] is a bit inconsequential in the grand scheme of things,
- [1] and [3a] are almost intractable in the current climate unless [3c] takes off, and
- [2] is a non-starter in a democracy that still values free speech.
My crystal ball shows that the US democracy will continue to erode and polarize to the point of no return. I would gladly like to be proven wrong.