Is bringing nuance into the public debate actually killing it?
Lucien Engelen
Health(care) Strategy & Digital Transformation Maven. International Ambassador Nursing Innovation. (im)Patient. Speaker. Makes things happen.
For a long it seemed something was black or white. Either, or. More and more nuances however are added in many public debates. I think this actually encourages polarization because everything is nuanced, and the boundary between what is and what is not acceptable, between right and wrong, and between tradition and excess becomes seriously diffused. At first glance, this seems like a positive development, as it could help to create more understanding and acceptance between people from different backgrounds. But a closer look shows that adding nuances to the public debate can lead to polarization. If too many nuances are added to the public debate, people can become confused about what is and what is not acceptable. People can no longer determine what is right and wrong and where the boundary lies between tradition and innovation. As a result, this leads to confusing opinions and ideas about what is right, causing people to polarize and divide into different camps.
Another consequence of adding nuances to public debates is that it becomes more challenging to reach a consensus. Instead of focusing the debate on achieving a common goal, the debate is confused and fragmented by the addition of too many nuances. The boundaries are blurring, making it difficult to reach an agreement.
Finally, adding nuances to the public debate can also lead to more uncertainty about what the right answer is. Nuances can make a situation more complex, making people more unsure about what the right answer is. This uncertainty can confuse people and reinforce their opinions, thus promoting polarization.
Adding nuances to the public debate is a tempting option to create more understanding and acceptance between people from different backgrounds. But adding too many nuances can actually lead to confusion, polarization, and uncertainty. Therefore, it is essential to carefully consider whether nuances should be added to the public debate.
By nuancing everything to pieces, it sometimes seems as if there are no clear boundaries between what is and what is not acceptable, between right and wrong, and between tradition and innovation. This can lead to polarization as people feel they can no longer defend their points of view without being dismissed as unbalanced or unreasonable.
An example of this is the debate on climate change. There are those who argue that we need to take drastic measures to combat global warming, while others believe that there is no need to hurry and that the impact of humans on the climate may not be too bad. Both points of view may be based on scientific facts, but due to the increasing nuance, it sometimes seems as if there is no clear answer to the question of what exactly we should do. This can lead to frustration and polarization as people feel that they are not being heard or that their views are not being taken seriously.
It is, therefore, important to keep looking for a balance between nuance and clarity. We need to make sure that we consider certain situations' complexities and do our best to respect different perspectives. Still, at the same time, we also need to set clear boundaries for what is and what is not acceptable. Only in this way can we prevent the public debate from leading to polarization and frustration.
Chief & founder, Sparckel ?? The light that makes you feel alive.
1 年You're giving 'the answer' yourself: being nuanced and clear at the same time. Clear on where your opinion on a subject comes from and nuanced on the arguments underpinning an opinion. Then both extremes on the spectrum, though reason, should be able find the middle ground and act.
Business Developer Vistage Benelux B.V. | Success Coach & Ambassador | Positive Impact | Steward | Board Advisor | Thought Leader Future Strategies
1 年This article needs a lot of nuances itself. In living systems polarity is a core principle. If we reach an equilibrium, a system is dead. Polarity keeps a system healthy. Nuances are vital factors that we e.g. witness in the progress of sciences. Experimentation brings nuances to hypotheses. Diversity (nuances) of thoughts and experiences is the only way we learn. Generally speaking, the level of diversity is directly proportional to a system's health (our planet). That's the foundation of what we are. Critical thinking (my life purpose) in the fast-changing world has become crucial. Due to (the overload of) information, the world has become a mystery as opposed to a puzzle in the old days, where only one solution was correct. Therefore there are more roads to reach (common) goals, and yes, you must continuously evaluate whether your current path is still the right one or needs some nuances to progress better. Way more nuances to add to your strain of thoughts. I'll leave it with this, ending with the statement: 'Hell YES to nuance. No nuances are recipes for suicide!'
Health Professional & Co-director at Future How
1 年In my experience, people dont really listen to each other during debates. They typically come with preformed opinions. Whoever facilitates a debate or conversation about any topic like climate change needs to be able to practise and embody the key elements of active listening: 1. Paying attention: Focus on what the other person is saying, and try to minimize distractions. 2. Show that he/she/they are listening: Using nonverbal cues such as nodding your head or making eye contact to show that they are paying attention. 3. Avoid interrupting: Letting the other person speak without interrupting them. 4. Clarify: If unsure whether they understand what the other person is saying, asking for clarification. 5. Empathise: Trying to understand the perspective of the other person, and considering their feelings and experiences. What is the inner space and experience from which the person is speaking? 6. Respond: When it is your turn to speak, reflect back on what the other person has said and respond in a way that shows you have heard and understood their perspective. By practising these elements of active listening, we can improve our communication skills and create a more collaborative and constructive atmosphere for discussions.
Senior Manager - Oracle Applications lead at Accenture
1 年bringing "nuance" in the debate was the tactic used by tobacco industries to hide what they new already for decades: that their product kills 50% of their customers. The same tactic worked a long time for keeping uncertainty on climate change and delaying climate action.
Let’s go from connectivity to connection, from relevance to legitimacy
1 年Nuance is rich, sometimes complex … and white. At contrary, not knowing ‘spot on’ and crossing the line by making superficial general statements is definitly a source of unproductive complicatedness… and polarized black.