Perhaps it is all about polarisation, and a tendency to see the other as the enemy. I think that the psychoanalyst makes a useful point in speaking about the paranoid schizoid position, as a development in the way we make splits in order to defend our position and this probably becomes apparent in groups, with projection of hostility onto the perceived others.

So what you are saying is that in a group setting, there is an effect like a paranoid schizoid would have, where we make delusions about the other side?

No, I am not referring to the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia at all. I apologise, because I didn't explain what I meant at all. Melanie Klein spoke of two stages of development in infancy, in the child's relationship with the mother and the anxieties relating to her. It forms the basis for projective processes in other relationships in life. It may come into play in groups, especially in how we defend ourselves and our points of view.

Is a difference in language an accurate way to perceive this divide? — FlaccidDoor

Are you involved with these "explosive misunderstandings" with your own family, friends, and acquaintances? How do you behave? Do you participate in the vituperation or are you a voice for calm and understanding? If you participate in the melee, why? What does it feel like?

Melanie Klein spoke of two stages of development in infancy, in the child's relationship with the mother and the anxieties relating to her. — Jack Cummins

I'm not too familiar with these concepts. If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that the reason for the polarization might be like a baby that is stuck in the paranoid schizoid position, where the "bad" other group and the "good" current group is split? So we might be missing something we need to go into the depressive position?


My experience has been generally mild, although sometimes it definitely gets passionate. I think the more explosive instances is when my partner and I would have an argument, Maybe we got on each other's nerves and decided to confront the other about it.

However I haven't had nearly as much for political topics, funnily enough. I don't support vituperation, because a defensive person is not an informative person. If you aren't trying to learn about the other person, I see no reason to talk about such topics.

How about you?

How about you? — FlaccidDoor

I am a recreational thinker and I'm pretty competitive, so at times in the past I've been a... minor-league jerk. I've become more even-tempered as I've gotten older. The forum has had a lot to do with that. I am a strong liberal and I get involved in political discussions on the "American Conservative." It's a website and magazine I strongly recommend. This past 6 months has been ugly. As I'm sure you know, there is bitter anger on both sides.

I found I could have civil, sometimes friendly, discussions with strong supporters of President Trump, even though it felt like we lived in two different worlds. We were able to find common ground on some issues even though we didn't move on the primary ones. It's almost as much fun trying to calm an angry shouting match as it is to call someone a "dick."

So:

• State your positions strongly but civilly. Clearly.
• Show some respect.
• Take the other guys ideas seriously.
• Look for areas of agreement.
• Look for common values.
• Be self-aware about what's going on inside yourself while you're arguing.
• Be willing to change your mind.
• If it gets too hot, bail.

It is almost always completely in your power not to get involved in bad arguments. If you do, it's your fault.

The list of tips is very cool. Yeah I think we may forget that a conversation gone wrong is just as much our fault as the other as any conversation is like a dance with the other.

I don't think I was that competitive per se although I understand it. I was interested in how I could be wrong and there is big satisfaction in not being wrong. I was known to be a provocateur around the 2016 election in my circle because there were many topics in which I was curious about how my friends can believe what I thought was indubitably wrong. So my conversations centered around trying to pry into the inner workings of the other, which while not quite explosive, may have been just as uncomfortable.

Perhaps the divide we feel in politics is just a lack of manners we have as a whole in a conversation and debate. So that brings up another question: Are we losing our ability to be civil?

I remember watching a discussion with Peterson dude and Ben Stiller look-a-like a while back. They each tried to voice the other’s position as clearly and precisely as possible and then tried to correct each other.

No ‘putting words into the mouths of others’ - an all too common experience. Some people get so riled up they only ever hear exactly what they expect to hear regardless of what is being said to them. If that happens it is usually best to ‘bail’ as stated by someone else above.

They each tried to voice the other’s position as clearly and precisely as possible and then tried to correct each other. — I like sushi

I assume those two had different enough views on a contentious issue to warrant such care in their discussion. Ideally we would all do that in every conversation as time permits.

Some people get so riled up they only ever hear exactly what they expect to hear regardless of what is being said to them. If that happens it is usually best to ‘bail’ as stated by someone else above. — I like sushi

Is this something we just have to give up and leave for? Is there no other choice but to let someone like that to polarize further? What is it that makes talking to them so futile?

@FlaccidDoor People will only change their views if they do so by themselves. You can try and force a horse to drink water and it will just resist you regardless of how thirsty it is. Leave it alone and it will quench itself.

Judging the mood and temperature of the discussion is something we do get better at with time and experience. Some react well to conflict and others just dig in. Given the OP is about family members I’m assuming these people know each other well enough to be reasonable. With strangers more care and caution is required.

Strong disagreements come because people either believe other should think like they do (egotism) or because they think they understand the other’s point when they don’t understand actually understand them (egotism).

Either way, breathing space is necessary. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try another approach.

Today (St. Patrick's Day) there was a long article in either the New York Times or Washington Post showing how segregated conservatives / Republicans and liberals / Democrats are. Liberals tend to occupy urban areas, conservatives tend to occupy suburban and rural areas.

Whether people moved to be with people whose thinking was congruent, or whether after moving their thinking changed to become congruent with their neighbors, I don't know. The movement of white people to the suburbs was completed maybe... 40 years ago, or more. By the mid-80s, there were some very strong conservative trends in the suburbs. Strong liberal trends have been present in urban areas since the 70s.

So, it's no surprise that family members shift to opposite sides of the debate table, depending on their circumstances. All of my conservative family members are rural. They are politically, religiously, and socially conservative. All my urban friends are liberal in the same ways, pretty much. Education doesn't account for this as well as geography does. Neither does economic status.

I do not get very far talking politics with very conservative people, especially blood relatives.

Where does this lack of empathy for the other side stem from? — FlaccidDoor

Politics and politicians do not have empathy. So don’t expect empathy from something that never had it. They divide people and family because these are so ignorant to get angry due to other has a different point of view. It sounds so wacky splitting families and friends apart just for the leviathan.
Politicians do not have ideology. They just have it in campaign. Afterwards, do not expect so much. But some people (sadly) see them as their saviours.
Politicians only use emotion not knowledge. So I guess this is why a lot of people is faced because of them.

Given the OP is about family members I’m assuming these people know each other well enough to be reasonable. — I like sushi

The family and friends was a contrast I wanted to make to enemies of war. It would make much more sense to hate enemies of war, and less scuffles with family and friends But here it seems like much more that the opposite is true. But I wouldn't mind exploring this topic beyond just family and friends either.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try another approach. — I like sushi

I guess that's fair enough. We get hot headed but a bit of time to cool off can change the result the next time you engage in a conversation

Liberals tend to occupy urban areas, conservatives tend to occupy suburban and rural areas.

Whether people moved to be with people whose thinking was congruent, or whether after moving their thinking changed to become congruent with their neighbors, I don't know. — Bitter Crank

I lean slightly conservative as a libertarian and I personally might prefer a slightly rural environment, not because the people who live there might think the same way I do. Rather because I'm a bit of an introvert, and I feel like I would appreciate the quiet atmosphere away from the busy cities. Perhaps the more you lean conservative, the more you tend to feel that way.

So, it's no surprise that family members shift to opposite sides of the debate table, depending on their circumstances. All of my conservative family members are rural. They are politically, religiously, and socially conservative. — Bitter Crank

Do you believe that your family members' conservative views are due to their environmental upbringing? Do you think these environments create echo chambers where people radicalize?

Politics and politicians do not have empathy. — javi2541997

I agree that politics doesn't have empathy, but politicians are still people. They have their own ideology they work off, which isn't to say it can't be a corrupt one. You can run for office too if you wanted to try to change things with your own hands, for example. I bet you might face a lot of temptations and hardships, but I doubt you would say you had no empathy then.

Politicians only use emotion not knowledge. So I guess this is why a lot of people is faced because of them — javi2541997

Maybe you have a good point there, in that politicians may have an incentive to keep the conversation about emotion rather than anything else, although naming all politicians is probably too broad of a stroke. Is this radicalization that we see in our friends, families, and beyond something that was deliberately sought after? Maybe I'm getting too conspiratorial, but perhaps there is a force in politics that seek radicalization.

but politicians are still people. They have their own ideology they work off, which isn't to say it can't be a corrupt one. You can run for office too if you wanted to try to change things with your own hands, for example. I bet you might face a lot of temptations and hardships, but I doubt you would say you had no empathy then. — FlaccidDoor

Yes. They are people as us but not normal citizens. Keep in mind that before getting the power all of those politicians had previously to win “primaries” between them to choose a leader which will make the direction of the political party. Inside this situation there is a lot of toxicity and cheats. All of those who don’t want bear this situation end up leaving or criticising the system. Instead of convincing people with rhetorics they use a formula of how powerful they can be and somehow this is attractive for voters. Remember Thomas Hobbes: Homo homini lupus

Is this radicalization that we see in our friends, families, and beyond something that was deliberately sought after? Maybe I'm getting too conspiratorial, but perhaps there is a force in politics that seek radicalization. — FlaccidDoor

You are not conspiratorial. You are right. They are only know how to use emotions because there are lot of ignorant people with low paid jobs who are really easy to persuade them. If I say “Foreigners are taking your jobs” I am obviously lying. But somehow this argument gives hope to all of those rubbish citizens who never made something interest in their lives but watching junk TV. They feel better and “different” when their politicians tell them despite they are trash somehow are “better” than immigrants.

What do you guys think? Is a difference in language an accurate way to perceive this divide? — FlaccidDoor

No. It's a difference in stances. It is to be expected that people holding different stances cannot be friends or form a harmonious family.

IOW, it's not (bad) discussion of politics that tears families and friendships apart. It's that discussion of politics reveals the irreconcilable differences that are there between the people, and which have possibly been there from the start of the relationship.

So my conversations centered around trying to pry into the inner workings of the other, which while not quite explosive, may have been just as uncomfortable. — FlaccidDoor

Sometimes, though, I've found that sincere interest in another's way of seeing things will open up a conversation, even if it's with someone I have strong, important disagreements with.

Inside this situation there is a lot of toxicity and cheats. All of those who don’t want bear this situation end up leaving or criticising the system. — javi2541997

Do you believe that these toxicity and cheats you mention, are enough to deter any honest or good-willed person trying to get into office? I want to believe that there are strong and good-willed people who are determined enough to go through despite the hardships.

They are only know how to use emotions because there are lot of ignorant people with low paid jobs who are really easy to persuade them. If I say “Foreigners are taking your jobs” I am obviously lying. But somehow this argument gives hope to all of those rubbish citizens who never made something interest in their lives but watching junk TV. They feel better and “different” when their politicians tell them despite they are trash somehow are “better” than immigrants — javi2541997

So I'm not really sure, other than that you seem to have a much more pessimistic view of society than I do. Am I right to say that you see politicians and the "ignorant people" as a puppeteer/puppet relationship? Politicians pull on the 'strings' of pathos to control the puppet that is those people. How do you prevent yourself from being one of the puppets, or know you aren't one?

It's that discussion of politics reveals the irreconcilable differences that are there between the people — baker

Interesting! So the shock of realizing the differences in our opinions are what tears people apart. That seems similar to what was mentioned previously about the paranoid schizoid position. The person that was "good" now is revealed to be partly "bad" through an irreconcilable difference in opinion.

However the philosophy forum is filled with people with just that, but even seem to be happy to continue butting heads for exactly that reason. If a community exists with only irreconcilable differences in opinion to bring them together, I don't see how they can't be accepted by friends or family.

Perhaps they are like differences in physical characteristics like race or gender. Nonnegotiable, but can be looked past or accepted to still be friends.

I agree that people generally speak different languages when discussing opinions, thoughts and ideas, specifically pertaining to politics. In my own life I've noticed that the way you phrase something is very important if you want someone to agree with you! If you phrase something with a specific person in mind, even if the argument you're making has been established as wrong by that person, you are more likely to get them to contradict themselves. Unless of course they have thought their opinion out thoroughly and rationally.

Unfortunately most people around the dinner table have not, they are usually reacting to emotive arguments and moral gut feelings. I've found people can feel so strongly that it's almost impossible for them to test out their arguments and the topic itself on a cold rational plane. Anyone attempting to do so with them will be met with anger. People have a tendency to think that anything that comes out your mouth is an absolute statement. So these individual languages of people reach further than just theoretical or rational questions, there is a strong emotional element there which often ties in with a whole bunch of things. Basically people aren't just discussing an opinion they thought out in a cold rational way, but rather theyre discussing (in often a very covert way) their past experiences, associations they've made through these past experiences, their emotions towards a subject, and the emotive arguments they've heard from other around them throughout life.

When you take the example of abortion, you have two very emotive arguments. Both of them have very extreme consequences, it's basically murder Vs women's rights. Therefore instead of a discussion about abortion in itself, the argument turns immediately to murder Vs rights. These two arguments are so strongly attached to what is at gut level wrong and right, that it becomes impossible to actually discuss the issues surrounding abortion. It is very easy for politicians or whoever to take a topic like abortion and say 'murder!' and have people running around like headless chickens.

Essentially people want simple explanations for difficult subjects, often people are either too lazy, too overwhelmed, or just too stupid to want to even sift through all the different perspectives, issues, consequences, connections, positives, negatives and grey areas that such topics demand. Creating a balanced and throughout out opinion takes a lot of thinking, many people are intelligent enough to be able to think like this, but not all of them know how to.

Like someone said here, if people are open to understanding others perspective, it's usually a lot easier. Unfortunately when arguments are reduced down to 'MURDER Vs RIGHTS' that's less likely to happen.

Sometimes, though, I've found that sincere interest in another's way of seeing things will open up a conversation, even if it's with someone I have strong, important disagreements with — T Clark

I suppose a part of radicalization is just that. A loss of interest in the other side's way of seeing things. That seems pretty bad though, since that would make radicalization a positive feedback loop.

So I'm not really sure, other than that you seem to have a much more pessimistic view of society than I do. Am I right to say that you see politicians and the "ignorant people" as a puppeteer/puppet relationship? Politicians pull on the 'strings' of pathos to control the puppet that is those people. How do you prevent yourself from being one of the puppets, or know you aren't one?

I guess we live in different countries and this is why we have different perception of politicians. At least in my homeland they don't anything properly to do but divide the society and being corrupts.
You say how we can know we are not the puppet ones. Easy. When you are not the politician. Every politician is somehow a puppet. It is true that some of them can end up controlling a lot of power and that stuff... But they are not free at all to take their own decisions. It is impossible.
The leviathan is always observing from the shadows...

Basically people aren't just discussing an opinion they thought out in a cold rational way, but rather theyre discussing (in often a very covert way) their past experiences, associations they've made through these past experiences, their emotions towards a subject, and the emotive arguments they've heard from other around them throughout life. — Experi

I believe it was Jordan Peterson who I heard describe emotions as a low resolution "conclusion" to what should be done for situation where rational thought is inadept. For example, if you see someone destroying your property for a reason unrevealed to you or can't comprehend, rational thought isn't useful in this situation. Rather you would probably work off of an emotion of anger and which tells you to remove that person making you mad.

I can see what you are trying to say with the emotive arguments. I wonder if those can be thought of as a low resolution words, describing too little in reality for what they're meant to convey. So when they are used, we feel like we should be understood but when we inevitably aren't, we get upset.

Perhaps for some reason then, people are more likely to use emotive arguments than before causing the perceived increase in radicalization. My first guess to the reason why is the increased participation of politics in general (at least in the US), so people who aren't used to debating are joining for the first time in record numbers.

A civil debate seems to be getting ever rarer (other than on the philosophy forum, of course). Where does this lack of empathy for the other side stem from? — FlaccidDoor

Unfortunately, politics has taken on the role of religion in the West.

In order for Western politics to function properly, you need a robust debate between the progressives who see the need for change and conservatives who would like to preserve what they feel works.

At differing times, each of these strategies is the more efficacious path so the purpose of the political debate is to figure out which course makes the most sense with that particular issue at that particular time. It is not that one side is always right and the other is always wrong, but that's the way the true believers see it.

Politics needs to be returned to the secular realm and away from groups who believe that their way has been handed down from (not God) but from the gods of moral superiority.

If you believe that your way is The Way, you're wrong. Each situation requires careful consideration and sometimes changing policy this way makes the most sense, and sometimes changing it that way makes the most sense. After all, the United States did not become the most powerful nation in the world by always making the wrong decisions.

Interestingly, we are going to see what happens when one side controls all three branches of government. If the catastrophe unfolding at our southern boarder portends coming events, people are going to beg for balance in politics once again.

I guess we live in different countries and this is why we have different perception of politicians. At least in my homeland they don't anything properly to do but divide the society and being corrupts.
You say how we can know we are not the puppet ones. Easy. When you are not the politician. Every politician is somehow a puppet. — javi2541997

I live in the US and politics here can be summed up as everyone saying, "my politicians are the heroes and yours are the supervillains."

I see what you mean about politicians being puppets. There are a lot of rules, codes and people you need to abide by in order to stay in your position. Perhaps you see them kind of like parasites in a way, where they harm the system they attach to, but they need to do so in order to survive.

I'm curious then how you characterize the "ignorant people with low paid jobs" you mentioned. You talk about them rather harshly but what differentiates you and other enlightened people from them?

Politics needs to be returned to the secular realm and away from groups who believe that their way has been handed down from (not God) but from the gods of moral superiority.

If you believe that your way is The Way, you're wrong. Each situation requires careful consideration — synthesis

So you see zeal as the main proponent to why conversation between the two sides seems to be degenerating. I agree that dogmatism is the wrong creed to standby. How do you think people even got religious about it? Perhaps our schools, in an attempt stay away from religion just ended up becoming a new one? Can we prevent it? Maybe by exclusively having the political elites have the discussion.

If the catastrophe unfolding at our southern boarder portends coming events, people are going to beg for balance in politics once again. — synthesis

Or do we have to bite the bullet and wait until something terribly bad happens to wake ourselves up every time?

I'm not sure I would call them low resolution though I understand what you are saying. Emotional responses are very useful, they can be used as signposts to broader issues though they don't necessarily work on their own as conclusions. If something deeply effects me emotionally I know there is something wrong, it's now my place to analyse what that is. The example of acting angrily to someone destroying your property is useful, though when it comes to abortion people are reacting to the automatic 'murder!' or 'rights!" conclusions, the emotional reaction to these two things is somewhat akin to hearing someone say they're going to destroy your property despite the two examples not being the same. People definitely feel some kind of moral ownership over ideas such as murder, their emotional reactions to murder (disconnected from the wider issue of abortion) are very deep and personal. People react often as if you have personally insulted them (or destroyed their property!) When it comes to such issues..

However like I said the emotive argument of murder is disconnected from the complex and broader issue that is meant to be discussed (abortion). So yes, they can definitely be 'low resolution' words, especially used by politicians. Like you said these buzzwords are important in radicalisation, they override any rational discussion.

And yes of course people have different emotional reactions to certain words, the emotional experience of them is subjective so talking through buzzwords is not going to have any kind of universal understanding

I'm curious then how you characterize the "ignorant people with low paid jobs" you mentioned. You talk about them rather harshly but what differentiates you and other enlightened people from them?

We live in the capitlism era. This means having money or at least a decent salary can provide you enter in the culture circle (books, theaters, universities, etc...)
Imagine having a low paid job like 700 euros or even less per month working in a boring job that nobody wants but the low qualification ones. When these citizens come back home they do not have time to question anything because their time is wasted (sadly) paying the bills. So when these populists politicians randomly appear in their lives is like a resurrection. They start not feeling that bad despite their mediocrity.

note: It is true that there are people with high income whose behaviour is similar to those. This situation is even worse