We have to talk
politics
calmly,
with respect and humility
in a friendly, supportive manner
with humans1 with whom we may vehemently disagree,
because the alternative is killing people over misunderstandings.
When we are born, our brains are masses of neurons with no ability to make sense of the signals received from eyes, ears, touch, taste, smell. Gradually, we make neuronal connections that allow us to create and use cerebral representations of objects like “Mama” that help us interpret signals from eyes, ears, touch, etc. That pattern of neuronal connections is more unique than a fingerprint and changes over time.2 The same word does not mean the same thing to two different humans or to the same human at two different times. The differences are usually negligible, but not always.
We live and act in a shared reality, but we think, feel and decide in realities of our own individual construction.3
Show me a human who knows the “truth”,
and I will show you someone who is deceived.
Our survival depends on acting quickly in many circumstances. On average, most of the things our ancestors have done have contributed to our survival. However, some actions have been counterproductive, and it is often difficult to tell the difference.
We can do better
by talking
politics
calmly,
with respect and humility
in a friendly, supportive manner
with humans with whom we may vehemently disagree,
because the alternative is killing people over misunderstandings.
Call to action
Every human can help reduce political polarization and violence, accelerate progress against the most pressing problems facing humanity, even ending war, by pushing themselves to talk politics with anyone and everyone, including with humans with whom we may vehemently disagree. Focus on sharing concerns and the sources of those concerns: What documents (the Bible, some other book, a news article, …) or comments by others support our beliefs?
Can we check those sources?
Example: One human complained to another about massive shoplifting by illegal aliens reported by a mutual acquaintance. Upon checking with that acquaintance, the problem with shoplifting was confirmed, but by humans who looked to be of European extraction and not the image of “illegal aliens”.
We may not change anyone’s mind by identifying and pointing out discrepancies, because any given belief is likely supported by more than one thing. However, by engaging others in friendly, supportive conversations about potentially contentious issues — and by encouraging others to do likewise — we can gradually shift the social psychology of the humans with whom we interact. If more humans talk politics more and do more fact checking, it will likely reduce the hate and anger used by major media to convince their audience to do things contrary to their best interests. If enough humans do this, it will accelerate progress against the problems of greatest concern to most humans.4 We can even end war including the threat of nuclear Armageddon.5
spencer graves
Secretary, PeaceWorks Kansas City; this is his personal opinion and not an official position of PeaceWorks Kansas City.
_______
- We use the word “human” here, because in US law, a corporation is a “person”, per, e.g., Citizens United (2010) and other decisions of the US Supreme Court and Acts of the US Congress. This persists in part, because the major media in the US have a conflict of interest in honest discussions of it: They would doubtless offend many of the humans who control most of the money they receive. For more on this, see Wikiversity, “Information is a public good: Designing experiments to improve government“, “Information is a public good per communications prof Pickard“, and “Category:Media reform to improve democracy“. (Links accessed 2025-02-05.)
- For more, see the section on “The social construction of conflict” in the Wikiversity article on, “Confirmation bias and conflict“.
- Paraphrased from Walter Lippmann (1922) Public Opinion (Harcourt, Brace & Co., pp. 16, 20), discussed in Wikiversity, “Confirmation bias and conflict“.
- For more, see Wikiversity, “Information is a public good: Designing experiments to improve government“.
- An article written in 2019 gave several different estimates of the threat of a nuclear war. The most credible estimate was 20 chances in a million that a nuclear war might start in the next 24 hours. This was roughly equivalent to saying that each hour begins a new game of Russian roulette played by the leaders of the world’s nuclear weapon states with one chance in a million that this hour will see the start of a crisis that ends in a nuclear war. For more, see Wikiversity, “Time to nuclear Armageddon” and “Responding to a nuclear attack“.
Copyright text: 2025 Spencer Graves; image: 2022 Spencer Graves and Ann Suellentrop, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) 4.0 international license.