Polarisation, the process where by one’s perspective is either wholly at one extreme of the spectrometer, or it is as far the other way from the equilibrium. For folks now it seems that commitment, surety projected, subjective position stated strongly as if it stands as a fact (an objective, demonstrable, and measurable reality), is what will carry the day and win over those persons to the cause that would not lend it credence, because that would be more likely produced by objectivity, but lend it the weight that relativism, a false position, provides in many instances.

For me, there can be no objective truth in the twinned perspectives that immigrants are both stealing from the welfare state by living on benefits, and taking all the jobs. These are mutually exclusive postulates, meaning if one then not the other. The people who peddle this nonsense rely on your lack of ability to reason, and since there is so much adoption, and action, that then follows assertions of this kind, the rising support for the right wing and the protests against people expressing their desire to be free and wanting the same as you have, then we must conclude that our reasoning is faulty.

Two men were arrested this week for plotting a terrorist style attack on members of a religious group, I would like to examine their reasoning and our reasoning concerning them. I first assume that in the act they plan to carry out they perceive and hope that its impact will cause some sort of change when others view it. It is in this false assessment on their part that I see maladapted thinking. The result of terror is not to highlight the persecution or geopolitical position of the persons carrying it out, quite the opposite happens. People who carry out acts of terror on behalf of a cause will foster resentment toward that cause and allow their alleged persecutors a greater ability and scope to get away with further persecutions. The reason for this is that it is a form of collective self-dehumanization. No onlooker can justify an act of barbarism in response to acts of oppression, this is proven in the lack of support for the people of Palestine, and the scope of retribution that seemed to be allowed for on the part of the Israeli government.

More interesting is the fact that we are so certain about these rights and wrongs, even when we have only a smattering of information concerning what Donald Trump referred to as the “Oranges” (the nitwit meant origins) of a conflict. I occupy a position of doubt in all things, mainly because I know there will be interesting arguments out there that I am yet to hear that might sway me. I think this way because it has happened many times already, so why wouldn’t it happen again? I realise that I do not know all things, and I know the Dunning-Kruger effect well (the one where people who have little to no knowledge believe that they have great knowledge because they don’t know why they are wrong) so I can’t take fixed positions. Prof Rick Roderick described this as “fallibilism”, stating that one must feel strongly about important things yet hold a meta belief that one might be wrong.

What people are is unreasonable, obdurate, unwilling to bend a perspective they hold because of their will to have objective truth align with what they feel emotionally should be the truth. Unfortunately what can be asserted can usually be measured, but also unfortunate is the method of measure often finds the perspective that is sought. It is for this reason that no science (measurement) should ever be allowed to be directed by vested interests such as governments and powerful people/institutions. There are some things though, like the assertion I mentioned on welfare/jobs that cannot be carried by even sophisticated arguments. You would think that my assertion on that was correct, but look at the phenomenon in action, people do actually believe and argue that point, sometimes in contiguous sentences!!

If we want to be thought of as reasonable people then we need to first be reasonable. “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” – Christopher Hitchens, one of my favourite quotes from the great man when facing an argument from faith. And it must be faith that overrides reason because reason needs evidence that compels perspectives to change. Imagine you believe that humans have never been to the moon, or human made machines, and then NASA deposits a mirror on the surface of the moon that many space agencies, and amateurs with good enough equipment, can use to bounce a laser beam off to measure the distance between this celestial body and Terra Firma (our soil). Would you not then have to change what you believe? What about the flat earther, how does he hold on to his belief when he stands at the shore and sees the mast of the ship appear before the body of the ship, thus proving a horizon?

Sometimes it’s not reasonable to be reasonable, and sometimes power must be expressed like in the case of the parent or the Sergeant Major who needs not to explain or negotiate, but most of the time outside a workplace or family setting we only recognise power when underpinned by a reasonable buy-in. I believe my father has reasoned his position because he is a thinker and a reader and he is never that fixed in position and I have seen him learn, therefore I react to his perspective with reasonableness when we are somewhat opposed. I have some friends that do this also, yet I have some family members and friends who outright refuse to absorb any information that might disagree with what they have come to hold as a perspective that enables and validates them. This is not how we move forward, this is not how we develop better ways to live and share scarce resources, this is how we drive toward conflict with a giddy pleasure at the prospect of being proved correct by winning a conflict (might is right) replacing our rational fear of the consequences of unnecessary and unreasoned actions.

This is where we are now, conversation is conflict, hatred of other thinkers is normalised, others that disagree are dangerous, media must be controlled, people’s thoughts must remain unknown and prevented from being expressed, opinion rather than action can be a crime.

I’d love to understand how we got to this point..

Paul S Wilson