Comfort Thoughts: Shaping Minds

We are all prejudiced in the sense that the very act of learning trains our neural networks to rapidy pattern-match based on experience; using this common brain machinery, we all naturally pre-judge. Every new experience slightly alters the brain's connections, "deepening the grooves" of those concepts that are re-assured by new information, and transforming neural connections involving conceptions we find to be errant in some way. In this manner, we use our ever-changing neural programming to make rapid judgements at first glance, sometimes leading to serious and important problems.

Consider someone who pets the same black cat every day. The cat is lovely – always purring affectionately as it rubs itself on the person's leg – and this person quickly develops a bond with the cat. Everyone has heard the superstitious belief that black cats are bad luck, but this person's experience is quite the opposite. One day, our friend encounters another black cat. Having had such pleasant experiences before, the person reaches out to pet the new furry feline only to be hissed at and violently scratched. Shocked and befuddled, this new experience has a dramatic effect on the person. Not all black cats are as nice as the first one, and this is a lesson that won't be forgotten very soon. The neural connections literally change and adapt given this new information, so that future encounters will be handled with much more caution. Now replace black cats with a certain race, gender, age, appearance, or any other imaginable group identity. These learned patterns can be extremely useful in dangerous situations, but they can also lead to all manner of bigotry.

The fact that we all use this sort of reasoning – that is, we make snap judgements about absolutely everything we encounter every day – makes us all the more susceptible to "echo chambers". An echo chamber is a metaphorical cage of the intellect wherein only ideas that agree with our current beliefs are sought, and any that imply an error in our current understanding are immediately dismissed. Dismissal of such invading ideas has taken the form of accusations of "fake news", "bad science", or "stupidity", among countless others. The discomfort felt when a deeply held belief is challenged is enough to dissuade the masses from ever seriously considering those ideas that don't seem orthodox to them. This is the newest plague of our society.

As the political landscape becomes more and more polarized, and as all manner of opinion begins to seep into domains where politics do not belong, stability becomes fragile. Hatred festers, and the gaps between those of opposing echo chambers only widen as each person's neural "grooves" deepen with new information that is carefully selected to appease, rather than displease. Even those thinkers who pretend that they are listening to all sides are lost, since this group of people becomes its own echo chamber, or fragments into multiple new chambers. It is very difficult to separate oneself from a group, being the social animals that we are. Being open-minded is the new holy grail; everyone claims it, but hardly anyone's mental grooves are shallow enough to escape. But escape them we must.

How can we truly begin to open our minds to the other possibilities? How can we give someone the benefit of the doubt without immediately deciding to dismiss everything they say upon hearing a single unsavoury idea? The recent trend being championed by the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) is the notion of steel-manning. The steel-man version of someone's argument is exactly the opposite of the widely used logical fallacy called a strawman argument. "Strawmanning" means painting a weak caricature of the opponent's argument and proceeding to dismantle it. This, of course, resolves nothing; the original argument is not addressed at all, rather the terribly pathetic argument that is conjured up in its placed is attacked (which no one believes to begin with!). Instead, steel-manning seeks to argue against the strongest possible version of the other's argument – strong enough that the other person would agree with what is presented as their view – so that any argument against it directly addresses the true nature of the disagreement. Thus far, this tactic seems useful (e.g., see debates between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson). Personally, this feels a bit contrived when "performed" on stage, although I deeply respect the practice and would encourage it in all forms of conversation, albeit in a less explicit form. Having to steel-man someone's argument forces the debater to deeply understand and consider the opposing perspective and to formulate their own argument as well as possible. Disagreements can certainly still arise, but at least they are more likely to be productive and meaningful, unlike most conversations involving differing opinions.

Having difficult conversations is important, and understanding how people's opinions are derived is part of attaining true progress. Every time a person is seriously attempting to have a worthwhile conversation, empathy – truly attempting to see an idea from another's perspective – is an absolutely vital component. Perhaps if we all tried this, as opposed to blindly attacking another based on our ideological trenches, we could all co-exist just a little bit better.