DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Are Americans Intolerant of Being Wrong?

Opinion: Americans are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything

Published: Mar 30, 2017 3:14 a.m. ET


By
TOM
NICHOLS

Why can’t Americans agree about anything? The United States has survived through periods of great division and yet today we all now seem incapable of finding common ground on even the smallest issues. This is a problem that is approaching the level of a national crisis that threatens our democracy.

Some of this tendentiousness is part of an irascible American culture that is, paradoxically, woven into our greatness as a nation. Our willingness to speak our minds and rely on our own common sense has been central to an American character noted by Tocqueville and others since our founding as a nation.

Still, American politics were once characterized by a fair amount of bipartisanship and even ticket-splitting in national elections. Today, in public forums, we engage each other not to learn or to converse, but to fight along the harshest and most intractable partisan lines — and to win, no matter how obnoxious we must be in order to carry the day.

Of course, some of this problem is generated by human nature, especially the problem of “confirmation bias.” We want to believe that our experiences and our beliefs, including the important issue of how we view ourselves, explain the world around us. We naturally want to reject evidence that conflicts with those cherished views (especially the ones about ourselves). We all do it, and it’s why we so easily drive each other crazy in our daily conversations.


Bring up the problem of joblessness with almost any group of ordinary voters, and every possible intellectual problem will rear its head: stereotypes, confirmation bias, half-truths, and statistical incompetence.

Take, for example, a fairly common American kitchen-table debate: the causes of unemployment. Bring up the problem of joblessness with almost any group of ordinary American voters, and every possible intellectual problem will rear its head. Stereotypes, confirmation bias, half-truths, and statistical incompetence all bedevil this discussion.

One person in this discussion, for example, might hold firmly, as many Americans do, to the idea that unemployed people are just lazy and that unemployment benefits might even encourage that laziness. Like so many examples of confirmation bias, this could spring from personal experience. Perhaps it proceeds from a lifetime of continuous employment. Or maybe it’s the result of knowing someone who’s genuinely averse to work.

For this person, every “help wanted” sign— which confirmation bias will note and file away— is further proof of the laziness of the unemployed. A page of job advertisements or a chronically irresponsible nephew constitutes irrefutable evidence that unemployment is a personal failing rather than a problem requiring government intervention.

Now imagine someone else at the table who believes the nature of the American economy itself forces people into unemployment. This person might draw from experience as well: he or she may know someone who moved to follow a startup company and ended up broke and far from home, or who was unjustly fired by a corrupt or incompetent supervisor.

For this person, every downsizing and every bad boss is proof that the system is stacked against innocent people who would never choose unemployment over work. Unemployment benefits, rather than subsidizing indolence, are a lifeline and perhaps the only thing standing between an honest person and complete ruin.

We should make an effort to consider other sources that challenge us. More important, we need to start listening to each other with a greater assumption of good will.
There’s no way to win this argument because in the end, there are no answers that will satisfy everyone. It’s true that unemployment benefits suppress the urge to work in at least some people; it’s also true that some corporations have a history of ruthlessness at the expense of their workers, whose reliance on benefits is reluctant and temporary. Unable to cope with this level of nuance and unwilling to see their own biases, most people will simply drive each other crazy arguing rather than accept answers that contradict what they already think about the subject.

Education and better public information, sadly, are no cure. The problem of confirmation bias is getting worse, as our disagreements now curdle into angry refusals to listen to others and stubborn refusals to accept information that conflicts with our beliefs.

This isn't just human nature, but the result of a narcissism that took root in American society after the 1960s and has been growing ever since. Surrounded by affluence, enabled by the internet, and empowered by an educational system that prizes self-esteem over achievement, Americans have become more opinionated even as they have become less informed, and are now utterly intolerant of ever being told they’re wrong about almost anything.

Our republic thrives on open debate and the fair consideration of evidence. When our ability to maintain those democratic habits collapses, our system of government, along with our well-being as a people and a nation, will be in danger. There are a few steps we can take, including treating cable and the internet as we would treat our diet: by exercising portion control, healthy choices, and a varied mixture. We should especially make an effort to consider other sources that challenge us.


More important, we need to start listening to each other with a greater assumption of good will. Cable news has become a gladiatorial exercise, but that doesn’t mean each of us must approach conversation as a fight to the finish.

We must come out from behind our keyboards and smartphones and televisions and engage each other as citizens, rather than opponents. In an age of binary, win-at-all-costs politics, this is a tall order. But citizens need to be better examples to our political and media leaders than they’ve been to us.

There is still time to reconsider the path we’ve set upon in the past few decades, but one thing should be clear: we cannot continue this way much longer and survive as a vibrant democracy.

Tom Nichols is the author of the recently published “The Death of Expertise” and a professor at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. The views expressed are his own. Follow him on Twitter @RadioFreeTom

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-rea...&yptr=yahoo

It was also understood that the onus was mainly on yourself to prove that your position was the right position while simultaneously poking holes in the other person's argument. Positions were often staked in the form of: I believe this, for these reasons. I do not agree with your beliefs of ___ for these reasons. You often asked clarifying questions or for examples.

I agree, with one caveat.

Far more people than you realize still do argue/think this way (at least somewhat). It's a very vocal minority that doesn't/can't tolerate differing viewpoints.

As someone who tries to keep a very open minded. I often search for ways to be wrong.

Positions were often staked in the form of: I believe this, for these reasons. I do not agree with your beliefs of ___ for these reasons. You often asked clarifying questions or for examples.

But the social dialogue started changing. And I think it was after 9/11. Under the Bush era our gov't took advantage of the can of whoopass the Nation wanted to open up in response to 9/11 by passing the Patriot Act. Anyone who opposed or questioned it was deemed as being un-patriotic and that type of social peer pressure was often used to silence people on that topic.

Move forward to President Obama's tenure. We start to see a ramping up of labels such as racist/bigoted/homophobic being used to silence anyone who disagreed or simply questioned what was going on. Same tactic, same desired end, just different words and different topics.

Looking at things as they are, I'm not very confident that if you put a teenage DevilDawg and his best friend together NOW that we'd end up being friends at all.

When people return back to arguing with logic and reason instead of what they FEEL I can listen to them. When they follow logic and reason instead puking at me with media lies as justification for what they think just has to be right I will listen more. When people put the interests of the country ahead of what makes them feel good I will take them more seriously.

For the most part all I see are selfish people who only want what they want and they don't care about anyone. Just don't offend anyone because they will mob you with tar and feathers if you hurt the feelings of a group of people in any way. The smaller and least important that group of people the better to rile them up because they have no real purpose to their own life so they find some one else's to bandwagon on. And don't you dare have faith in God because if you believe in God then you must be a devil and the enemy of all man kind ...

Yeah I had enough of pc trash telling me that I should give up god, accept pot, and screw anything that moves because I am stupid if I let someone else have control over me ... just let them have control over me instead...

What we really need is just for everyone to stay out each other's business unless they physically hurt someone or hurt someone mentally by direct hostility and verbal abuse with the full intent to harm. Stating what you believe in is NOT verbal abuse unless you're screaming at someone like a lunatic.

Liberals don't believe in smaller government, so thats a really wierd comment to make.

What we really need is just for everyone to stay out each other's business unless they physically hurt someone or hurt someone mentally by direct hostility and verbal abuse with the full intent to harm.

This is an issue involving obeying the Law. Pot is illegal, that is the Law.

Which laws would you have others ignore or break?

Where does it end? Many others feel some laws are good and some are bad, would it be ok for them to follow your example to just ignore or break those laws?

Liberals don't believe in smaller government, so thats a really wierd comment to make.

40's never drove over the speed limit.

Pit doesn't smoke weed so it has no impact on me. Nice dodge on answering the question though. lmao

So since 40 is so vague, I'll ask you. Do you support enforcing federal marijuana laws on a national basis or do you believe it's better left to the states to decide?

So, can states totally ignore federal law? Are you in favor of that?

Vague? How many times do I have to answer this?

Let me try answering this time with my own question... WHAT IS THE CURRENT LAW OF THE LAND?

Then that right there is what I believe. Change it and that will be what I believe. Ignore it and go to jail for breaking the law.

Why is so hard so hard for you to comprehend?