Clustering and Conflation

Can we get a little nuance up in here?

Every few days, it seems, a cultural grenade get rolled out into the public square, only to have two camps quickly form around a response to it. The reactions, as if by gravitational pull, cluster into a rather predictable conglomerate of positions taken by the two groups.

The fact that such opinion camps form so predictably and so immediately should probably give rise to suspicion that people are responding more by instinct and a priori assumptions than by reasoned inquiry and intellectual honesty. The topic being debated is often as much symbol as substance—a cultural synecdoche that represents a larger world view.

Regardless of topic, instinctive reactions form within seconds (milliseconds?), and then the effort to marshal like-minded perspectives begins. Both sides produce witnesses—experts or other individuals close to the subject—capable of disproving the opposing view. Articulate pundits begin to opine, their writings are shared on social media, and the battle lines are established.

Few if any minds are changed, because there is little interest in having one’s mind changed. Due to preconceptions already held and a lack of time to carefully study two sides of an issue, it is much easier to take a side and then find/share/post/tweet material that supports one’s preconceptions.

This situation is true of topics including affirmative action, school vouchers, transgender military service, net neutrality, government regulation, or genetically modified crops. Or take climate change as an example. Very few of us are equipped to make any kind of informed decision about the topic. We don’t have time to study it all, so we resort to intellectual shortcuts, picking a position that very likely could be predicted by the opinions we hold about other issues. And that’s where the clustering comes in. The culture camps usually line up in predictable ways, with multiple controversial topics conflated into a single worldview that pits “them” against “us.”

On one side, you have folks who seem to feel that leveling the scales of justice for all is an unfinished project requiring further compensation. That the planet and its people need protection from predatory corporations. On the other side, you have people who feel besieged by a politically correct culture and a nanny state that flouts individual liberty and traditional values, and that encroachment on free enterprise is crippling to the economy and people's ultimate well-being.

In such a fraught social climate, all it takes then, is a dynamic leader—either a charismatic gentleman (our last president) or an outspoken strongman (our current one)—to embody the conflated, clustered sentiments of one half (or maybe just a third) of the nation. Being supportive of the leader, heedless of his or her shortcomings, becomes yet one more litmus test of being in the “us” camp or the “them” camp.

This conflation and clustering is largely the result of what Daniel Kahneman calls “thinking fast” as opposed to more deliberative “thinking slow.” With too little time to deeply consider most things, we apply mental heuristics that help us quickly render opinions about any number of topics. Plausibility is sufficient. Proof unnecessary.

The mental short-cutting here is often driven by whoever the proponent of a given position might be. We find ourselves for or against a position based solely on who supports or opposes it. Or which cable news network reports it.

____________________________________________________________________

As the brash voices of public officials become increasingly shrill and irrational, the rest of us can engage in quiet, thoughtful dialog. As positions become more strident and polarized, the effort to discover nuance could go a long way.

_____________________________________________________________________

But is it possible that there is such a rare specimen living among us that she or he could take various positions from both culture camps? Can one believe in man-made climate change but be against transgender military participation? Be against animal cruelty in factory farming, yet value a strong military? Be a vegetarian member of the NRA?

This is not to say that one’s worldview is purely a handicap. It is, in fact, the primary filter for evaluating new information and ideas. It’s necessary for survival. It’s a vital coping strategy for time-constrained lives. Marketers understand that branding is exactly this kind of mental shortcut.

But perhaps the occasional suspension of assumptions could yield more nuanced thinking. In a divisive socio-political culture, we all benefit by intentionally listening to those we're pretty sure we already disagree with. Climate change deniers might want to catch Al Gore's latest movie. Social progressives might actually enjoy reading George Will or Charles Krauthammer.

As the brash voices of public officials become increasingly shrill and irrational, the rest of us can engage in quiet, thoughtful dialog. As positions become more strident and polarized, the effort to discover nuance could go a long way.

Nuance.

Not a lot of that these days. It's considered a weakness by noisy extremists on both sides. But a nuanced view of the world requires breadth of thinking. (I'd argue that's the best justification for a liberal arts degree which enables one to see nuance, subtleties, patterns, and things like cause-and-effect and long-term consequences.)

In many circles, nuanced, independent thinking takes courage. (Try expressing a conservative viewpoint among most college faculties.) Nuance rejects the simple them-us dialectic that leads to the increase in vitriol we see these days. It refuses to reflexively demonize the other. It requires a healthy dose of humility.

And that humility just might produce the civility that naturally follows in its wake.