Think Again: How to Reason and Argue

by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong

  DO YOU HATE YOUR OPPONENTS?

  The problem is not only that people confidently hold strongly opposing views with such confidence. I am a philosopher, so some of my closest colleagues think that my philosophical views are necessarily false—that my claims could not possibly be true. They hold philosophical views that are as strongly opposed to mine as any view could be. They also hold their views with great confidence. Nonetheless, we can still be friends. They do not think that I am stupid, dangerous, or immoral—I hope—just because I take some stands that are mistaken, in their opinion. They listen carefully to me as I develop my positions, and they try their best to understand my perspective. They do not engage in verbal abuse or vicious jokes that distort my views for their fun at my expense. Instead, they give arguments and think carefully about how I would or could best reply. At least many of them do. When opponents remain civil, we can learn from each other and stay friends.

  Polarization understood simply as distance and homogeneity is not the fundamental problem. Indeed, a different problem would arise if there were too little distance between the parties. Previous generations sometimes complained that the Republican and Democratic parties were so similar that voters did not have any significant choice between policy alternatives.6 Moreover, polarization understood as distance and homogeneity has not always led to intense conflict and gridlock, even when the presidency and Congress were divided between parties.7

  Two people who hold views at opposite ends of the political spectrum might still be able to cooperate if they share enough common goals, are humble enough to admit that they do not know the whole truth, and like each other enough to listen to each other, understand each other, and work toward mutually beneficial agreements. In contrast, they won’t be able to accomplish anything if they despise each other, refuse to listen, are too overconfident, and lose all willingness or ability to reach a compromise. What creates the practical problem, then, is not simply polarization understood as distance plus homogeneity but, instead, antagonism and the resultant inability to move past roadblocks.

  Unfortunately, increasing polarization in the United States does engender more and more hatred or at least antagonism between the major political parties.8 In 1994, only 16% of Democrats and 17% of Republicans held a very unfavorable view of the other party. By 2016, majorities in both parties expressed very unfavorable views of the other party: 58% of Republicans and 55% of Democrats. Even more alarmingly, 45% of Republicans in 2016 saw policies of the Democratic Party as “so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being,” and 41% of Democrats in 2016 felt the same about Republican Party policies. These percentages are much higher among consistently conservative Republicans and consistently liberal Democrats. Those who care about their country will fight what they see as threats to their country’s well-being, so they will have little or no incentive to work and live together with people whom they see as so dangerous.

  This antipathy exists not just between parties and politicians. It extends into personal life. In 2010, 49% of Republicans and 33% of Democrats in the United States reported that they would be displeased if their child married outside of their political party, whereas less than 5% of both parties had said this in 1960.9 Polarized politics has infected personal relations.

  It also affects where Americans live. In 2014, 50% of consistently conservative Republicans and 35% of consistently liberal Democrats agreed with the statement, “It is important to me to live in a place where most people share my political views.”10 As a result, consistent conservatives and consistent liberals often end up living in different locations, so they do not run into each other as often as they would if they lived next door to each other. Similarly, 63% of consistently conservative Republicans and 49% of consistently liberal Democrats agreed that “Most of my close friends share my political views.” None of these figures was nearly as high twenty years earlier. This geographical and social segregation makes it hard to see how these groups can ever start talking with each other or overcome their mutual antagonism.

  HAS THE EPIDEMIC GONE GLOBAL?

  So far my statistics and examples have focused on the United States, but the same problems exist elsewhere. Polarization runs rampant in many other countries throughout the world. Surprisingly, “On average, Americans view their parties as much further apart than voters in other countries.”11 However, the reverse is true: “On the economic dimension, the distance between Democrats and Republicans is not especially large relative to other countries. On the social dimension, the distance is quite small in comparative perspective.”12 Of course, even if distance between political parties is greater in other countries than in the United States, other aspects of polarization, such as gridlock, still might be worse in the United States than in those other countries, partly because of the many checks and balances written into the United States Constitution. Nonetheless, many examples show that distance between, coherence within, hatred of, and lack of reasoning between political parties is at least as fierce in other countries.

  One example is the recent Brexit vote in the United Kingdom, which revealed deep and widespread social and ideological divisions. The recent migrant crisis has also produced extreme antagonism between left and right on the European continent. This unfortunate trend is not confined to Europe. Political polarization in Sri Lanka has led to outrageous hate speech on both sides.13 Polarization in Thailand has led to massive protests.14 Interestingly, South Korea and Taiwan exhibit high levels of affective polarization—antagonism toward political opponents—despite low levels of ideological polarization.15 Why would people within a country dislike each other so much when their political views are not very far apart? I cannot help but suspect that part of the cause is refusal to listen to the other side’s reasons.

  This problem is not universal. Iceland might be an exception. There is “no sign of real polarization in Icelanders’ left-right self-placement.”16 Nonetheless, even in Iceland, “The media paints a picture of [Iceland’s] Parliament as increasingly divided,”17 and the public has a false impression of increasing polarization: “Not only did both liberals and conservatives exaggerate how much the other group would espouse certain stereotypical values (moral values), but they also estimated that their own group would be more extreme on stereotypical traits than it actually was.”18 Cases like Iceland must make one wonder whether polarization in other countries is really as bad as it seems.

  But even the impression of polarization can lead to antagonism and undermine understanding, empathy, and cooperation. If I think you hold an extreme view that is diametrically opposed to my own, and if I think that anyone who disagrees with me must be either ignorant or immoral, then those assumptions together can be enough to make me despise and avoid you. It can surely make it hard for us to understand each other and to talk, reason, and work together. The impression of polarization is a kind or source of polarization—or at least it is almost as harmful.

  2

  TOXIC TALK

  WHY HAVE WE MOVED SO FAR APART and become so antagonistic? These cultural phenomena are massively complex. No single explanation can do justice to all of the many influences that push opponents apart. Still, we can learn a lot by focusing on one factor, which is often overlooked. Here it is: Instead of listening to and trying to understand our opponents, we interrupt, caricature, abuse, and joke about them and their views. This toxic way of talking exemplifies the aspect of polarization that I labeled “incivility.”

  CAN WE BE CIVIL, PLEASE?

  Like “polarization,” the term “civility” is used in several different ways. Moreover, civility and incivility are in the eye of the beholder. One person’s spirited criticism is another person’s incivility. Civility also comes in degrees. Some words and actions are more or less civil than others. Despite these complications, civility can be understood as a vague ideal that we can approach more or less closely. Incivility is significant deviation from this ideal.

  Speech is civil when people talk in way
s that are tailored to bring about constructive mutual exchange of ideas. An extreme model of civility is suggested by Anatol Rapoport, a mathematical psychologist who was famous for his insights into social interactions:

  1. You should attempt to express your target position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks. I wish I had thought of putting it that way.”

  2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of widespread agreement).

  3. You should mention anything that you have learned from your target.

  4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.1

  How many times have you heard or participated in a conversation that obeys these rules? These rules have gone out of fashion recently, if they were ever obeyed. Luckily, we do not need to go so far in order to maintain minimal civility. We can be civil to the degree that we approach this ideal.

  That’s not all there is to civility, of course. Timing is also important. While you are explaining your view to me, if I interrupt and prevent you from finishing what you were saying, then it won’t help much if I express your position clearly, vividly, and fairly. You wanted to express it yourself. Interruption is a paradigm of incivility because it sends the signal that I do not want to listen to you or at least that what you say is less valuable than what I say. Civility, thus, requires the virtue of patience while we wait for our audiences as they take time to speak their minds. It also requires forgiveness when others refuse to concede our best points.

  None of this is easy, but we have a choice. We can express civility by following or at least approaching the Rapoport Rules, by speaking and listening at the right times without interrupting, and by cultivating patience and forgiveness. Or we can practice incivility by interrupting, insulting, and abusing our opponents. Your style is up to you.

  WHO DOESN’T LIKE A GOOD CARICATURE?

  Instead of civilly asking why people adopt their positions, today we tend to assume that we already know their reasons. Of course, the reasons that we ascribe to them are rarely their real reasons, and they are rarely the best reasons for their views. Instead, we too often try to beat opponents by putting them in a bad light.

  Consider financial inequality: Poor people accuse the wealthy of greed and demand higher taxes. Rich people accuse poor people of laziness and see taxes as theft by government or, worse, communism. Each side claims to understand the other, but only because they both think that their opponents are out for short-sighted selfish gain. Poor people ask: What can a super-wealthy person do with an extra billion dollars? Don’t they see that the whole country needs extra tax revenue? But then the wealthy respond: Don’t they see that I worked hard for my money? Don’t they realize that higher taxes will hurt the entire economy, especially the poor? As long as neither side understands the other, they will continue to see their opponents as stupid, misinformed, short-sighted, and selfish. That will make cooperation difficult or impossible. Such caricatures are harmful.

  They are also inaccurate. Some wealthy people are greedy and selfish. Others are generous, hardworking, and fair to their employees and customers. Similarly, poor people are not generally lazy. Some are. Some unemployed people who live on welfare would not accept a job if you offered them one. However, they are exceptions to the rule that most poverty results from bad circumstances with no options. There is truth on both sides. We need to recognize that complexity and determine which poor people fall into which group—the lazy and the disadvantaged—if we are ever to devise a program that helps those in real need without rewarding and encouraging those who misuse the system.

  The same pattern recurs with the refugee crisis. While visiting Oxford, I heard supporters of allowing more refugees into the United Kingdom asking how their opponents could be so cruel. Didn’t they realize how desperate the refugees were? Didn’t they know how dangerous their home countries were? In such ways, they suggested that their opponents were ignorant and heartless. In return, opponents of allowing more refugees into the United Kingdom asked how others could be so naïve. Didn’t they see how many refugees there were? Didn’t they care about British citizens who could lose jobs if more refugees arrived? Didn’t they care about security? Did they want to bring more terror attacks to British soil? Thus, they also suggested that their opponents were ignorant and heartless. Instead of trying to understand each other, both sides spread inaccurate caricatures of their opponents. When opponents make such assumptions and toss around such misleading stereotypes, it becomes hard for them to understand each other properly.

  ARE WE ALL CRAZY CLOWNS?

  Such (intentional?) misunderstanding fuels exaggeration and verbal abuse. One particularly pernicious form of verbal abuse is fake psychiatric diagnosis. Of course, psychiatric diagnoses can be fine when done properly on the basis of evidence by trained psychiatrists in order to help patients with real mental illnesses. The problem is that political and cultural commentators today diagnose their opponents with no evidence or training, and their goal is not to help them but only to abuse them. Books by conservative commentators have titles like Liberalism is a Mental Disorder (by Michael Savage), The Liberal Mind: Psychological Causes of Political Madness (by Lyle Rossiter), and Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth (by Ben Shapiro). Liberals return the favor with titles like How the Right Lost Its Mind (Charles J. Sykes). Mika Brzezinski, a liberal news commentator on MSNBC, openly expressed grave concern that President Donald Trump was mentally ill.

  To see the purpose and effect of such exaggeration, let’s consider some simple examples from the popular conservative commentator, Ben Shapiro:

  The democrats are fully extreme. They are fully insane. They are nutcases, they are nuts.

  The democrats are out of their damn minds. They are out of their damn minds.2

  Why does he call his opponents crazy? It is obvious that not all Democrats are crazy, insane, nutcases, or out of their damn minds. So what is the goal of such extreme language? One goal is to get laughs from his audience. It also signals his solidarity with Republicans and hatred for Democrats. What matters here is that it cuts off conversation. When people really are “fully insane” or “out of their damn minds,” then there is no reason to listen to them. It might be useful for therapists to listen to them in order to find out which mental illness they have, and it might be calming to them for friends and relatives to listen to or talk with them. But that is not really having a conversation in the sense of an intentional exchange of information and reasons. When people are “fully insane,” we do not bother to tell them what is wrong with their views or give them reasons to change. We try to cure them instead of reasoning with or learning from them.

  Other forms of verbal abuse impose similar costs. If I tell my friend that her position is wrong, she can ask me why it is wrong, and then we can still have a fruitful discussion in many cases. However, if I tell her that her position is ridiculous, that means that it deserves ridicule instead of reason. If she does not want to be ridiculed, why should she ask me why I think that her position is ridiculous?

  And if I call her a clown, that suggests that her view deserves laughter instead of serious consideration. It ruins a clown’s jokes to take them seriously and ask what they really mean. Similarly, if I call my interlocutor an idiot, that means that she is too stupid to deserve any reason. But then why should she keep talking with me? I just told her that I am not going to listen to her.

  Some views really are ridiculous, and some people really are idiots or crazy—though very rarely. Also, sometimes people asked for reasons and try to understand before they resort to verbal abuse out of frustration after their initial attempts fail. Nonetheless, fake psychiatry of this abusive kind is a reliable indicator that the speaker has nothing better—and hence nothing very insightful—to say in favor of his position. Such verbal abuse also signals the end of fruitful discussion. When polar opposites resort to it, they cease to be able to learn from
each other. Nobody gains.

  ARE INSULTS FUNNY?

  Sometimes abuse can be fun and funny. Don Rickles—the famous comedian—developed insult humor into a popular art. Many people today imitate his comedy routines in real life and on the Internet. The recent presidential primaries in the United States were filled with demeaning jokes by Donald Trump and his followers about “Little Marco” (Rubio, who was one of Trump’s competitors in Republican primaries). After Trump was elected, liberals (and some of Trump’s conservative opponents) engaged in silly jests about the size of Trump’s hands. Such humor is so juvenile that it is hard to believe anyone takes it seriously.

  What exactly do we gain from a joke at our opponent’s expense? Of course, we get pleasure. It feels good to laugh. But that is only the start of an explanation, because we could also get such pleasant feelings from jokes about our own limitations. Why make fun of opponents instead of ourselves?

  Maybe such jokes affect voting. Who wants to support a candidate who will be a laughingstock? Still, it is hard to believe that anyone who supports Trump would turn to the other side because of the size of his hands.

  The real goal of such jokes, I suspect, is to build group solidarity. Making fun of opponents is rewarded by laughter and praise from like-minded audiences who agree with us. This reaction signals to us all that we share certain values, which motivates us to hang together as a group or as a movement. Joking about a view also shows that we do not take it seriously, so we are unlikely to be swayed onto that opposing side. That signals our stability, which gives people confidence in cooperating with us. Finally, the ability to make the best joke at opponents’ expense also gains us status as a leader in the group. That is why some members of the group compete to tell the funniest or most vicious joke at the expense of outsiders.