Good people don't have to be ideologically polarized

[Pete in Panama]

The trend for the past few decades has been more and more polarization --everyone's taking sides and the gap's widening. We're not working together because we can't communicate and we can't stand each other. The solution has to be that we change ourselves so we can communicate and that we like each other.

OK so we want to think we're smarter than that moron who disagrees with us. Like, food fights are fun --we're hard wired for conflict. At the same time we can reason out that we'd be better off if we decided what we want. and chucked that long list of things we don't want. Our instinct is to hang around folks like ourselves --our faction. The problem is we learn nothing because we're just talking to ourselves.

So we change our instinct; we instead find people that we know intellectually we can work with. Here's how some folks are doing just that:

There's lots out on the subject, fwiw another good/quick video is Conscious vs. subconscious thinking

Our 'brain-wiring' is not a problem because we have the ability to review/revise our unconcious beliefs. We can spot check and change what needs to be corrected.

For years Baha'i's have been getting on to a thing they like to call "Baha'i Consultation", imho it can be as risky as pacifist disarmament. Ever notice how everyone wants the other guy to disarm first? My worry is that some folks push non-partisan cooperation so they can push their agenda on folks they've conned into wanting to appear 'open minded'. That's old world thinking tho and I overcome my fears knowing that most of us can see thru ulterior motives.

We can't refuse to work w/ folks just because they think different. Here's a video showing how difficult it is for many to interact w/ others when the focus is on differences and not commonality:

The guy's frustrated that he can't share w/ many people something that he's deeply concerned about. He asks for input. The easy answer is that (if you agree w/ him) the deniers are idiots and there's no talking w/ 'em --or (if you disagree w/ him) that he's a close-minded partisan and there's no talking w/ 'im. The easy answer gets us nothing but more polarization.

A better answer is drop the conflicting conclusions and instead list our common values + moves we agree on. If we get to a choice we're not together on we can instead assemble an agreed method or standard for choosing the next move.. We stay on the same side, we can't solve everything so instead our goal is to solve something.

imho we can do this, after all we're all good rational people aren't we?

 

[Audie]

Ya gots unbiased data for your first line therr?

 

[Pete in Panama]

Ya gots unbiased data for your first line therr?

u mean the Pew link? We can change that if u want

 

[Audie]

u mean the Pew link? We can change that if u want

Just because I didnt read yr post dont mean
ya can get cute with me!!!

 

[Nakosis]

The trend for the past few decades has been more and more polarization --everyone's taking sides and the gap's widening. We're not working together because we can't communicate and we can't stand each other. The solution has to be that we change ourselves so we can communicate and that we like each other.

OK so we want to think we're smarter than that moron who disagrees with us. Like, food fights are fun --we're hard wired for conflict. At the same time we can reason out that we'd be better off if we decided what we want. and chucked that long list of things we don't want. Our instinct is to hang around folks like ourselves --our faction. The problem is we learn nothing because we're just talking to ourselves.

So we change our instinct; we instead find people that we know intellectually we can work with. Here's how some folks are doing just that:

There's lots out on the subject, fwiw another good/quick video is Conscious vs. subconscious thinking

Our 'brain-wiring' is not a problem because we have the ability to review/revise our unconcious beliefs. We can spot check and change what needs to be corrected.

For years Baha'i's have been getting on to a thing they like to call "Baha'i Consultation", imho it can be as risky as pacifist disarmament. Ever notice how everyone wants the other guy to disarm first? My worry is that some folks push non-partisan cooperation so they can push their agenda on folks they've conned into wanting to appear 'open minded'. That's old world thinking tho and I overcome my fears knowing that most of us can see thru ulterior motives.

We can't refuse to work w/ folks just because they think different. Here's a video showing how difficult it is for many to interact w/ others when the focus is on differences and not commonality:

The guy's frustrated that he can't share w/ many people something that he's deeply concerned about. He asks for input. The easy answer is that (if you agree w/ him) the deniers are idiots and there's no talking w/ 'em --or (if you disagree w/ him) that he's a close-minded partisan and there's no talking w/ 'im. The easy answer gets us nothing but more polarization.

A better answer is drop the conflicting conclusions and instead list our common values + moves we agree on. If we get to a choice we're not together on we can instead assemble an agreed method or standard for choosing the next move.. We stay on the same side, we can't solve everything so instead our goal is to solve something.

imho we can do this, after all we're all good rational people aren't we?

I'm happy to find common ground with you. The people who get elected often are not. Their rationale is getting reelected.

If only we didn't have politicians running the country.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The trend for the past few decades has been more and more polarization --everyone's taking sides and the gap's widening. We're not working together because we can't communicate and we can't stand each other. The solution has to be that we change ourselves so we can communicate and that we like each other.

OK so we want to think we're smarter than that moron who disagrees with us. Like, food fights are fun --we're hard wired for conflict. At the same time we can reason out that we'd be better off if we decided what we want. and chucked that long list of things we don't want. Our instinct is to hang around folks like ourselves --our faction. The problem is we learn nothing because we're just talking to ourselves.

So we change our instinct; we instead find people that we know intellectually we can work with. Here's how some folks are doing just that:

There's lots out on the subject, fwiw another good/quick video is Conscious vs. subconscious thinking

Our 'brain-wiring' is not a problem because we have the ability to review/revise our unconcious beliefs. We can spot check and change what needs to be corrected.

For years Baha'i's have been getting on to a thing they like to call "Baha'i Consultation", imho it can be as risky as pacifist disarmament. Ever notice how everyone wants the other guy to disarm first? My worry is that some folks push non-partisan cooperation so they can push their agenda on folks they've conned into wanting to appear 'open minded'. That's old world thinking tho and I overcome my fears knowing that most of us can see thru ulterior motives.

We can't refuse to work w/ folks just because they think different. Here's a video showing how difficult it is for many to interact w/ others when the focus is on differences and not commonality:

The guy's frustrated that he can't share w/ many people something that he's deeply concerned about. He asks for input. The easy answer is that (if you agree w/ him) the deniers are idiots and there's no talking w/ 'em --or (if you disagree w/ him) that he's a close-minded partisan and there's no talking w/ 'im. The easy answer gets us nothing but more polarization.

A better answer is drop the conflicting conclusions and instead list our common values + moves we agree on. If we get to a choice we're not together on we can instead assemble an agreed method or standard for choosing the next move.. We stay on the same side, we can't solve everything so instead our goal is to solve something.

imho we can do this, after all we're all good rational people aren't we?

Well, a rational person would think if something is not working quite right then it might not be the way to go about it.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I'm happy to find common ground with you. The people who get elected often are not. Their rationale is getting reelected.

If only we didn't have politicians running the country.

There was this great line I heard the other day:

"How come the same people who complain about all the acrimony in government turn right around and vote for a candidate who promises to fight for them?"

What I'm seeing is that first we need to decide what policies we want. We can talk it over on threads like these and see if a consensus comes up. Then all we need to do is let the hired help in government know what we want 'em to do. All complaining aside, the tendency is for populations to get the kind of governance they ask for.

So. Which policy issue u want to hash over first?

 

[Pete in Panama]

...Well, a rational person would think if something is not working quite right then it might not be the way to go about it...

Help me out here, I'm in a timezone that's got me up past my bedtime.

• What is this "something" that's not working?
• How is it you'd imagine that whatever-it-is is supposed to work?
• Do you want whatever-it-is to work like it's supposed to work (whichever way that is)?
• So if it's really broke, you interested in us fixing it?

 

[sayak83]

The trend for the past few decades has been more and more polarization --everyone's taking sides and the gap's widening. We're not working together because we can't communicate and we can't stand each other. The solution has to be that we change ourselves so we can communicate and that we like each other.

OK so we want to think we're smarter than that moron who disagrees with us. Like, food fights are fun --we're hard wired for conflict. At the same time we can reason out that we'd be better off if we decided what we want. and chucked that long list of things we don't want. Our instinct is to hang around folks like ourselves --our faction. The problem is we learn nothing because we're just talking to ourselves.

So we change our instinct; we instead find people that we know intellectually we can work with. Here's how some folks are doing just that:

There's lots out on the subject, fwiw another good/quick video is Conscious vs. subconscious thinking

Our 'brain-wiring' is not a problem because we have the ability to review/revise our unconcious beliefs. We can spot check and change what needs to be corrected.

For years Baha'i's have been getting on to a thing they like to call "Baha'i Consultation", imho it can be as risky as pacifist disarmament. Ever notice how everyone wants the other guy to disarm first? My worry is that some folks push non-partisan cooperation so they can push their agenda on folks they've conned into wanting to appear 'open minded'. That's old world thinking tho and I overcome my fears knowing that most of us can see thru ulterior motives.

We can't refuse to work w/ folks just because they think different. Here's a video showing how difficult it is for many to interact w/ others when the focus is on differences and not commonality:

The guy's frustrated that he can't share w/ many people something that he's deeply concerned about. He asks for input. The easy answer is that (if you agree w/ him) the deniers are idiots and there's no talking w/ 'em --or (if you disagree w/ him) that he's a close-minded partisan and there's no talking w/ 'im. The easy answer gets us nothing but more polarization.

A better answer is drop the conflicting conclusions and instead list our common values + moves we agree on. If we get to a choice we're not together on we can instead assemble an agreed method or standard for choosing the next move.. We stay on the same side, we can't solve everything so instead our goal is to solve something.

imho we can do this, after all we're all good rational people aren't we?

I am not ideologically polarized.
But I have learned from experience that for a person who is ensconced in his/her ideological box, there has to be a desire from his end to reach out and explore "unsafe" ways of thinking before the dialogue can actually work. Without that desire, there is no point. And I don't want to push a person outside of his safe zone without such an inner desire as there may be other unintended consequences...(anger, bitterness, depression etc.).

 

[Milton Platt]

The trend for the past few decades has been more and more polarization --everyone's taking sides and the gap's widening. We're not working together because we can't communicate and we can't stand each other. The solution has to be that we change ourselves so we can communicate and that we like each other.

OK so we want to think we're smarter than that moron who disagrees with us. Like, food fights are fun --we're hard wired for conflict. At the same time we can reason out that we'd be better off if we decided what we want. and chucked that long list of things we don't want. Our instinct is to hang around folks like ourselves --our faction. The problem is we learn nothing because we're just talking to ourselves.

So we change our instinct; we instead find people that we know intellectually we can work with. Here's how some folks are doing just that:

There's lots out on the subject, fwiw another good/quick video is Conscious vs. subconscious thinking

Our 'brain-wiring' is not a problem because we have the ability to review/revise our unconcious beliefs. We can spot check and change what needs to be corrected.

For years Baha'i's have been getting on to a thing they like to call "Baha'i Consultation", imho it can be as risky as pacifist disarmament. Ever notice how everyone wants the other guy to disarm first? My worry is that some folks push non-partisan cooperation so they can push their agenda on folks they've conned into wanting to appear 'open minded'. That's old world thinking tho and I overcome my fears knowing that most of us can see thru ulterior motives.

We can't refuse to work w/ folks just because they think different. Here's a video showing how difficult it is for many to interact w/ others when the focus is on differences and not commonality:

The guy's frustrated that he can't share w/ many people something that he's deeply concerned about. He asks for input. The easy answer is that (if you agree w/ him) the deniers are idiots and there's no talking w/ 'em --or (if you disagree w/ him) that he's a close-minded partisan and there's no talking w/ 'im. The easy answer gets us nothing but more polarization.

A better answer is drop the conflicting conclusions and instead list our common values + moves we agree on. If we get to a choice we're not together on we can instead assemble an agreed method or standard for choosing the next move.. We stay on the same side, we can't solve everything so instead our goal is to solve something.

imho we can do this, after all we're all good rational people aren't we?

Neither good nor bad people "have" to be polarized. Nonetheless, some good AND bad people are. Now what?

 

[Pete in Panama]

I am not ideologically polarized. But I have learned from experience that for a person who is ensconced in his/her ideological box, there has to be a desire from his end to reach out and explore "unsafe" ways of thinking before the dialogue can actually work...

We cant get anywhere if we sit back and blame failure on the other guy. What can work is everyone starting together, listing common values, and agreeing on how to more forward.

How about we start a thread on say, religion in schools, abortion, climate change, income inequality or minimum wages or gay marriage --or some other topic? We decide what where we are, where we want to go, and agree on how to think together.

If our goal is a search for the truth we're bound to find somethingnew. A goal of just winning the argument is a recipe for disappointment.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Neither good nor bad people "have" to be polarized. Nonetheless, some good AND bad people are. Now what?

Absolutely, now what!!

What we're doing here is I'm saying what I want and you're saying what you don't like. I make a suggestion and u think up ways the suggestion won't work. That doesn't get us anywhere although I'll admit that it seems to be the preferred mode for billions of people around the world.. Maybe a better way is for u and me to agree to work together on something we both want and we both think up ways to make it work.

How about it?

 

[sayak83]

We cant get anywhere if we sit back and blame failure on the other guy. What can work is everyone starting together, listing common values, and agreeing on how to more forward.

How about we start a thread on say, religion in schools, abortion, climate change, income inequality or minimum wages or gay marriage --or some other topic? We decide what where we are, where we want to go, and agree on how to think together.

If our goal is a search for the truth we're bound to find somethingnew. A goal of just winning the argument is a recipe for disappointment.

I am happy to participate in any such thread.

 

[Jim]

@Pete in Panama ((I wouldn’t be interested in discussing what any policies should be. Is that all that you’re interested in discussing, in relation to those issues or any others? Some examples of issues that would interest me would be:
- What any of us might be able to do about those issues.
- How we might be able to get ideas and encouragement from each other, for whatever good each of us is doing or hoping to do.
- Other ways to bring out the best possibilities in forum discussions, for all of us and for all people everywhere.
- What any of us might be able to do for the current U.N. sustainable development goals.
- Ways of practicing forum community service.
- What any of us might be able to do about people distancing themselves from each other across ideological divides. I see that as currently the most urgent issue of all, the issue that is causing the most grief, and threatening the most to blow up the world.
- The good news of what is happening horizontally around the world, at the lower levels of collective action including neighborhoods and villages, cities, and islands and other subdivisions of nations.))

 

[Jim]

@Pete in Panama I sent you a PM.