#Political Polarization

[alwaysbewoke]

x

[commonsensecommentary]

“Given how often our nation’s elites today use their power and influence to rob us of our freedom of speech and rights to self-determination—because we are apparently not to be trusted to govern ourselves without their malign interference—we cannot continue to allow our current crop of misguided and deeply un-American leaders to remain in control of our nation and its vital institutions.”

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Rob Henderson

Published: Apr 25, 2024

Perhaps counterintuitively, gender equality is leading to greater gender-related differences.

In most wealthy nations, women have been steadily closing the gap with men on several fronts. In the United States, women now earn the majority of the bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees. Women now receive more than half of STEM college degrees, and the proportion of women in the tech sector has risen in recent years, to 35 percent in 2023 from 31 percent in 2019. Among Americans younger than 30, women’s earnings rival or even surpass men’s in many metropolitan areas, including Boston, New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C.

As these gaps have narrowed, we might have expected men and women to become more alike in other ways, including their cultural values and politics. Yet we are seeing the reverse.

This is especially true when it comes to political orientation. Recent polls have highlighted increasing polarization along gender lines on various political issues. Since 2014, women younger than 30 have become steadily more left-leaning each year, while young men have remained relatively static in their political views. In 2021, 44 percent of young women in the United States identified as liberal compared with just 25 percent of young men — the biggest gender gap in 24 years of polling.

In the Financial Times, John Burn-Murdoch recently articulated this stark contrast in a piece titled “A new global gender divide is emerging.” He observes that while older women and men are similar in their political views, young women have veered sharply to the left of young men.

Burn-Murdoch cites the influence of the #MeToo movement, suggesting it empowered young women to address longstanding injustices.

The Washington Post’s editorial board suggested that such polarization is to be expected in the United States, “a large, unwieldy democracy.” The Guardian proposes that digital spaces and social media influencers are luring young people into disparate online platforms that cultivate more extreme political views. No doubt these all play some role.

However, I’d like to propose an idea from my home discipline of academic psychology: the gender-equality paradox. This emerged as one of the most mind-blowing findings that researchers published while I was pursuing my recent doctoral studies at the University of Cambridge.

The paradox is straightforward: Societies with higher levels of wealth, political equality, and women in the workforce show larger personal, social, and political differences between men and women. In other words, the wealthier and more egalitarian the country, the larger the gender differences.

The pattern exists not just for political ideology but also for things like academic preferences, physical aggression, self-esteem, frequency of crying, interest in casual sex, and personality traits such as extraversion. In all these categories, the differences have been largest in societies that have gone the furthest in attempting to treat women and men the same.

Of course, there is an overlap for all of these attributes — aggression, for example, is a trait that both women and men can exhibit.

But there’s less overlap — meaning greater differences — in more-equal societies. In China, which scores low on gender parity, the overlap between men and women in personality traits such as extraversion and openness to experience is actually very high, 84 percent. In the Netherlands, which is among the most gender-equal societies, the overlap is just 61 percent.

More recently, a study of 67 countries found that although women generally tend to hold stricter moral views, gender differences in verdicts in hypothetical court scenarios are largest in wealthier and more equal societies. Specifically, women view misconduct more unfavorably than men in most places, but this difference in judgment is larger in richer and more equal countries.

This gender gap has also been found for physical differences in things like height, BMI, obesity, and blood pressure. Across societies, men tend to be taller, heavier, and have higher blood pressure than women. But in rich and relatively equal societies, gender differences are particularly large.

The gender-equality paradox might also help to explain why the gender gap in political orientation has grown among young people. One natural explanation is that young women are outpacing men in higher education, with men now making up just 40 percent of college students. Some evidence suggests that college tends to cultivate more liberal attitudes.

However, even among college students, women are more left-leaning than men. A Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression survey of 254 colleges and universities found that 55 percent of female students identify as liberal, compared with only 40 percent of male students. Interestingly, at schools ranked below 200 by US News and World Report, 45 percent of women and 33 percent of men identify as liberal. At top 25 schools, though, the difference is more pronounced, with 71 percent of women and 54 percent of men identifying as liberal.

The gender-equality paradox can help to explain why the gender gap is largest at the most selective US colleges, where family income tends to be higher and sociopolitical equality tends to be especially highly prized.

In an interview in The Times of London, the psychologist Steve Stewart-Williams succinctly summarized the paradox: “Treating men and women the same makes them different, and treating them differently makes them the same.”

There are a variety of possible explanations for the gender-equality paradox, but one prevailing view is that as societies become relatively more prosperous and equal, people more fully express their underlying traits and preferences.

Of course, culture matters in explaining gender differences — just not in the way most people think.

In less affluent and less egalitarian societies, gender differences in physical traits are flattened due to scarcity — that is, the absence of food and other resources stunts growth, especially for men, leading to smaller physical disparities. Moreover, gender differences in psychological traits narrow in response to rigid social expectations.

In the most equal nations of the world, it’s not harsh gender socialization by parents and media, strict societal expectations, or institutional forces that widen the differences between men and women. In the absence of dire poverty and strict social expectations, people are in a position to express their intrinsic attributes and preferences.

The freer people are and the more fairly they are treated, the more differences tend to grow rather than shrink. Thus, we shouldn’t be surprised that Gen Z men and women are diverging along political lines to a greater extent than earlier generations did.

Rob Henderson has a PhD in psychology from the University of Cambridge and is the author of “Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class.”

[ Via: https://archive.today/zzoqm ]

--

Abstract

Men's and women's personalities appear to differ in several respects. Social role theories of development assume gender differences result primarily from perceived gender roles, gender socialization and sociostructural power differentials. As a consequence, social role theorists expect gender differences in personality to be smaller in cultures with more gender egalitarianism. Several large cross-cultural studies have generated sufficient data for evaluating these global personality predictions. Empirically, evidence suggests gender differences in most aspects of personality-Big Five traits, Dark Triad traits, self-esteem, subjective well-being, depression and values-are conspicuously larger in cultures with more egalitarian gender roles, gender socialization and sociopolitical gender equity. Similar patterns are evident when examining objectively measured attributes such as tested cognitive abilities and physical traits such as height and blood pressure. Social role theory appears inadequate for explaining some of the observed cultural variations in men's and women's personalities. Evolutionary theories regarding ecologically-evoked gender differences are described that may prove more useful in explaining global variation in human personality.

==

For reference, "liberal" is used here in the American sense of "left-wing," rather than the sense of classical liberalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, constitutional government and privacy rights. Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.

Much of what constitutes modern day "leftism," such as Critical Theory, modern "color conscious" conceptions of "antiracism," and gender ideology is extraordinarily illiberal.

[ngdrb]

The Political Polarization of Democracy: A Comprehensive Analysis

In contemporary democratic societies, political polarization has emerged as a critical issue influencing governance, public discourse, and societal cohesion. This essay seeks to explore the multifaceted nature of political polarization within democracies, examining its causes, manifestations, and consequences.

Understanding Political Polarization

Political polarization can be defined as the divergence of political attitudes to ideological extremes. Within democratic frameworks, polarization often manifests in heightened partisan conflicts, ideological rigidity, and a breakdown of consensus-building mechanisms. It fundamentally alters the dynamics of democratic governance by exacerbating divisions among citizens, politicians, and institutions.

Causes of Political Polarization

Several factors contribute to political polarization in democracies. Firstly, socio-economic disparities and inequality can amplify political divisions, as differing economic interests lead to contrasting policy preferences. Secondly, media fragmentation and the rise of digital platforms have facilitated echo chambers and filter bubbles, reinforcing pre-existing beliefs and reducing exposure to diverse viewpoints. Thirdly, identity politics, characterized by the mobilization of groups based on shared identities such as race, ethnicity, or religion, has intensified political cleavages.

Manifestations in Democratic Processes

Political polarization manifests prominently in democratic processes. It impedes legislative efficacy as partisan gridlock obstructs consensus on policy-making. Moreover, polarization influences electoral behavior, with voters increasingly aligning along ideological lines rather than evaluating candidates based on policy outcomes or qualifications. This trend erodes trust in democratic institutions and electoral integrity, thereby undermining the legitimacy of elected governments.

Consequences for Governance and Society

The consequences of political polarization are far-reaching. In governance, polarization hinders effective policymaking and compromises the ability of governments to address pressing societal challenges. It fosters a climate of hostility and distrust among political adversaries, limiting opportunities for bipartisan cooperation. Socially, polarization contributes to societal fragmentation, diminishing social cohesion and fostering animosity between different segments of the population. Furthermore, it can lead to the erosion of democratic norms and values, as political actors prioritize partisan interests over democratic principles.

Addressing Political Polarization

Addressing political polarization requires a concerted effort from various stakeholders. Firstly, promoting civic education and media literacy can equip citizens with critical thinking skills necessary to navigate diverse sources of information and engage in constructive dialogue. Secondly, fostering inclusive political discourse that emphasizes shared values and common goals can mitigate divisive rhetoric and promote mutual understanding. Additionally, electoral reforms aimed at reducing the influence of money in politics and enhancing transparency can mitigate polarization's impact on democratic processes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, political polarization poses significant challenges to the health and vitality of democracies worldwide. By understanding its causes, manifestations, and consequences, policymakers and citizens alike can work towards mitigating its adverse effects. Upholding democratic principles of tolerance, inclusivity, and deliberation remains essential in fostering a political climate conducive to consensus-building and effective governance. Ultimately, combating political polarization is integral to safeguarding the democratic ideals of representation, accountability, and the pursuit of the common good.

Polarization and Democracy:

Definition: Political polarization refers to the increasing divergence of political views and attitudes between different groups or individuals within a society.

Effects on Democracy:

Positive Aspects:

Vigorous Debate: Some level of polarization can lead to robust debates, diverse perspectives, and creative problem-solving.

Clear Choices: It helps voters differentiate between parties and candidates, making electoral choices more distinct.

Negative Aspects:

Gridlock: Extreme polarization can lead to legislative gridlock, hindering effective governance.

Erosion of Trust: When parties demonize each other, public trust in institutions declines.

Us vs. Them Mentality: Polarization fosters an “us vs. them” mentality, undermining cooperation.

Threats to Democratic Norms: Extreme polarization can weaken democratic norms, such as respect for the rule of law and peaceful transitions of power.

Mitigation Strategies:

Intergroup Contact: Encourage interactions between opposing groups to reduce prejudice.

Perspective Taking: Foster empathy by encouraging people to see issues from others’ viewpoints.

Superordinate Goals: Emphasize shared goals that transcend partisan divisions.

Ranked Choice Voting: Implement electoral reforms that encourage moderation and positive elections.

Media Literacy: Promote critical thinking and media literacy to combat misinformation.

Social Media Kindness: Encourage respectful online discourse and defuse hateful speech.

Institutional Reforms: Strengthen democratic institutions to withstand polarization12.

Historical Impact:

19th Century: The 19th century witnessed transformative changes in democracy. Industrialization, abolitionism, and women’s suffrage contributed to expanding democratic ideals3.

Renaissance Humanism: The Renaissance shifted focus from monarchs and the Church to individual potential, laying the groundwork for democratic development4.

Recent Examples:

United States: A resurgence of civil society movements impacted democratic attitudes. Even failed movements leave enduring effects on participants and bystanders5.

Global Spread: Polarization affects democracies worldwide, from Brazil and India to Poland and Turkey6.

Long-Term Effects of Social Movements:

Case Study: China’s democracy movement.

Findings: Exposure to the movement during college led to significant attitudinal differences, especially among alumni of universities closely connected to the movement7.

In summary, while polarization can have both positive and negative effects, addressing it through informed strategies is crucial for maintaining healthy democracies.

[tmarshconnors]

Stop Using "Nazi" Out of Context!

Today's polarised political climate, it’s become all too common to see accusations being thrown around with little regard for their actual meaning. One of the most alarming trends is the misuse of the word "Nazi" to discredit or silence opposing viewpoints. In Germany, this is particularly evident when discussing the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. Many supporters of the AfD are often labeled as Nazis, but this oversimplification is not only unfair but also dangerous.

As someone living in the UK who supports the Alternative for Germany (AfD), I find it frustrating that political discourse so often descends into name-calling and false associations. Simply supporting a political party like AfD, which focuses on issues like national sovereignty, immigration control, and Euroscepticism. Nobody with these values should ever be called “Nazi”

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) is a right-wing political party that advocates for stricter immigration controls, preservation of national identity, and skepticism towards the European Union. It appeals to those who feel that traditional political parties have ignored their concerns—especially about issues like immigration, national sovereignty, and economic policy.

Seriously what I ask you what has that got to do with being a Nazi?!?! Oh I know. I shall tell you NOTHING!

Us AfD supporters come from diverse backgrounds. Some are disillusioned former voters of centrist parties who feel that their views are no longer represented by the political mainstream. Others are concerned about the cultural and economic impacts of mass migration. Still, others are simply advocates of a more limited government and national pride.

None of these positions automatically equate to Nazism. In fact, they represent opinions that are shared by many people across Europe and the world, regardless of their political alignment.

Why "Nazi" is a Dangerous Label?

I don’t know why you wouldn’t know why it’s dangerous but for the less educated out of The term "Nazi" refers to members of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP), led by Adolf Hitler, responsible for one of the darkest chapters in human history the Holocaust and World War II. To casually throw around such a loaded term diminishes the horrors that actual Nazis inflicted and distorts historical memory. It also shuts down meaningful discussion.

Labeling AfD supporters as Nazis is a form of intellectual laziness. It avoids engaging with the real issues they care about and reduces complex political debates to crude name-calling. This tactic not only alienates people who might be open to dialogue, but it also entrenches divisions and fuels resentment.

Moreover, calling someone a Nazi is an accusation with serious implications. In Germany, Nazism is not just a political slur it carries legal weight. The country has strict laws against Nazi symbols, speech, and activities, which makes the label even more inflammatory. If every right-wing or nationalist stance is equated with Nazism, it dilutes the power of these laws and makes it harder to identify actual neo-Nazis who do pose a threat.

A REAL THREAT!

It’s vital to differentiate between political disagreement and extremism. Not every conservative or nationalist is an extremist. AfD supporters, like those of any political party, have a range of motivations and beliefs.

Many are simply frustrated with the status quo and seek change through democratic means. They participate in elections, engage in policy debates, and advocate for their vision of Germany’s future—just as supporters of other parties do. Political disagreement isn’t extremism. Far from it.

I genuinely can’t believe I have to explain this but the problem with labelling AfD supporters as Nazis is that it dismisses their legitimate concerns out of hand. Immigration, national identity, and economic sovereignty are valid topics for debate, and dismissing them as fascist talking points only serves to deepen the divide between different segments of society.

You MUST understand the political landscape of 21st-century Germany is not the same as it was in the 1930s. Comparing today’s AfD to the NSDAP of Hitler's era is misleading and historically inaccurate. While the AfD may take controversial positions, it operates within the framework of a democratic society. It faces scrutiny from the media, opposition from other political parties, and judgment from the electorate. Its rise is a reflection of the electorate’s discontent, not a return to fascism.

By placing It all together all right-wing movements under the Nazi label, we ignore the nuances and complexities of modern politics. People who support AfD aren’t advocating for a fascist dictatorship—they’re expressing their views on how Germany should be governed in a rapidly changing world.

What we need more of in today’s political discourse is open dialogue and a willingness to understand different perspectives. Disagreeing with AfD policies is entirely valid, but dismissing its supporters as Nazis is not a productive at all!

Try engaging in meaningful conversations about the concerns that drive people to support AfD can lead to better understanding and potentially even compromise.

It’s crucial to recognise that the misuse of the term "Nazi" ultimately harms the democratic process. When we reduce our opponents to caricatures, we lose the opportunity to engage in healthy, constructive debate. This is happening all over the western world. If we can’t have simple constructive conversations all the men and woman who fought for our freedom etc would of been for NOTHING!

Supporting the Alternative for Germany does not make someone a Nazi. It’s that simple!

[melanieaycockdesigns]

Political Polarization is no doubt one of the most wicked design problems plaguing America today. While many are quick to point fingers blaming social media algorithms or the "mainstream media", there unfortunately is no one root cause. The research discussed in this article proves there is no "easy fix." Since I don't have a design solution (yet), I made a poster of the problem instead. Enjoy.

[hezigler]

Watch "How Tech Companies Are Profiting Off Your Anger - Long Story Short | The Daily Show" on YouTube

[the-funtime-autocrat]

While there are legitimate concerns that UBI could exacerbate problems, such as social atomization, the issue is not so much that everyone must be employed but rather that society is set up around work, so being unemployed basically makes one a non-person. While I understand the case for a jobs guarantee, in reality make-work jobs only benefit select groups of people, the jobs guarantee would just further entrench bureaucracy and institutional control, and America is too politically polarized for any kind of national service. Besides economics, restructuring society for UBI would have to address psych-social issues, including, helping people find status, meaning, and purpose in life, a role in society that suits their strengths, as well as community and family formation. While I am extremely pessimistic about anything positive coming from top down social engineering, I see trends like enclavism, neo-tribalism, and parallel institutions and economies forming as a reaction to mass automation and declining trust in institutions.

Robert Stark, “UBI Reconsidered For ‘23″ (February 3rd 2023).

[alwaysbewoke]

there was NOTHING (ABSOLUTELY NOTHING) kamala could have done to win this election. NOTHING.

[commonsensecommentary]

“I believe the 2024 elections boiled down, when all was said and done, to a single, overriding factor: Voters are sick of the incessant nagging and scolding of easily offended and perpetually aggrieved Democrats who sneered at the concerns—and denigrated the values—of those whom they deemed less educated, less worthy, and less enlightened than they.”

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Abstract

In this article, we examine psychological features of extreme political ideologies. In what ways are political left- and right-wing extremists similar to one another and different from moderates? We propose and review four interrelated propositions that explain adherence to extreme political ideologies from a psychological perspective. We argue that (a) psychological distress stimulates adopting an extreme ideological outlook; (b) extreme ideologies are characterized by a relatively simplistic, black-and-white perception of the social world; (c) because of such mental simplicity, political extremists are overconfident in their judgments; and (d) political extremists are less tolerant of different groups and opinions than political moderates. In closing, we discuss how these psychological features of political extremists increase the likelihood of conflict among groups in society.

In a polarizing political climate, citizens frequently experience a clash of values when debating pressing societal issues. A central question in political psychology has been how the general ideologies that represent these values drive human cognition, emotion, and behavior. Notably, the rigidity-of-the-right model stipulates that the political left and right differ in their cognitive styles, as reflected in increased closed-mindedness among individuals on the right (Jost, 2017). In recent years, however, researchers have increasingly recognized that not only political orientation but also political extremism meaningfully predict people’s responses to societal and political events. We define political extremism as the extent to which regular citizens are polarized into, and strongly identify with, generic left- or right-wing ideological outlooks on society. In this article, we examine psychological features of extreme political ideologies. In what ways are political left- and right-wing extremists actually quite similar to one another and different from moderates?

The basic idea that left- and right-wing extremists share a range of psychological similarities is consistent with theories of extremism and radicalization (e.g., Kruglanski et al., 2014; see also Greenberg & Jonas, 2003; Hoffer, 1951). The goal of this article is to examine the psychology of extreme political ideologies by integrating these prior theoretical insights with recent findings. We specifically propose four interrelated psychological features that characterize political extremism. Moreover, although we do not dispute that political orientation predicts important psychological variables (e.g., acceptance of inequality), we illuminate how some psychological features that were historically attributed to the political right might more accurately be attributed to both political extremes.

Political Extremism: Four Psychological Features

Although we do not claim that the propositions reviewed here represent the only psychological features of political extremism, they are well supported by empirical evidence, have been frequently studied by psychologists, and jointly contribute to a parsimonious understanding of this phenomenon. We specifically examine the relationships between political extremism and (a) psychological distress, (b) cognitive simplicity, (c) overconfidence, and (d) intolerance.

[..]

Discussion

The four psychological features discussed here suggest that political extremism is fueled by feelings of distress and is reflected in cognitive simplicity, overconfidence, and intolerance. These insights are important to understanding how political polarization increases political instability and the likelihood of conflict between groups in society. Excessive confidence in the moral superiority of one’s own ideological beliefs impedes meaningful interaction and cooperation with different ideological groups and structures political decision making as a zero-sum game with winners and losers. Strong moral convictions consistently decrease people’s ability to compromise and even increase a willingness to use violence to reach ideological goals (Skitka, 2010). These processes are exacerbated by people’s tendency to selectively expose themselves to people and ideas that validate their own convictions. For instance, both information and misinformation selectively spread in online echo chambers of like-minded people (Del Vicario et al., 2016).

This article extends current insights in at least three ways. First, the features proposed here help to explain why throughout the past century not only extreme-right but also extreme-left movements (e.g., socialism, communism) have thrived in times of crisis (Midlarsky, 2011). Second, understanding the mind-set of extremists in all corners of the political spectrum is important in times of polarization and populist rhetoric. The current propositions provide insights into why traditionally moderate parties in the EU have suffered substantial electoral losses. In particular, the support for well-established parties on the moderate left (e.g., social democrats) and moderate right (e.g., Christian democrats) has dropped in recent years, whereas the support for left- and right-wing populist parties has increased (Krouwel, 2012). Third, the present arguments are based on evidence from multiple countries with different political systems (van Prooijen & Krouwel, 2017), which suggests that they apply to both two-party systems (e.g., the United States) and multiparty systems (e.g., many European countries).

[..]

To conclude, although there are important psychological differences between people with left-wing and people with right-wing ideologies, there are also substantial similarities between left- and right-wing extremists that differentiate them from political moderates. The features presented here provide a psychological perspective on political extremism and contribute to a more complete understanding of how political ideology predicts human cognition, emotion, and behavior.

==

Explains the authoritarian streak coming from both sides.

[truthwars]

Jaleel White's Twisted Take on the "Reality of the Left"

Jaleel White, known for his role as Steve Urkel on Family Matters, recently made headlines with controversial political comments. In a recent interview, White claimed to expose the “reality of the left” and its alleged threats to society. His statements sparked debate and raised questions about his motives. A Scare Tactic: Jake Hurley and the Call for Violence White’s main argument centers on…

[civicsavvy]

Part 4: The Forgotten Consensus: Shared Values Across Divides

In an era marked by intense polarization, it is easy to overlook the core values that unite individuals across political, social, and cultural divides. Despite the rhetoric that suggests an irreconcilable divide among Americans, many underlying principles remain widely held. These shared values—such as freedom, justice, community, and the pursuit of happiness—form the foundation of American identity and provide a pathway for reconnecting amidst discord.

Highlighting Underlying Values

At the heart of American society lies a commitment to fundamental principles that resonate across political ideologies. These include:

Freedom: The desire for individual liberties is a cornerstone of American life. Whether one leans left or right, the importance of personal freedom—be it freedom of speech, religion, or choice—is a shared value that transcends political affiliation. This commitment to freedom serves as a rallying point for diverse groups, allowing for conversations about rights and responsibilities that foster mutual respect.

Justice: The pursuit of justice is a common aspiration that motivates many social movements and civic actions. While interpretations of justice may vary, the fundamental belief in fairness and equity resonates with people across the political spectrum. Acknowledging this shared commitment can pave the way for constructive discussions about reform and accountability within systems of governance and society.

Community: The value of community and connection is another unifying factor. Regardless of political beliefs, most people yearn for belonging, support, and the ability to contribute to the greater good. Emphasizing community engagement and collective well-being can help bridge divides and encourage collaboration on local initiatives that benefit everyone.

The Pursuit of Happiness: The idea that everyone should have the opportunity to pursue their version of happiness is a fundamental American ideal. This principle can encourage dialogue about social and economic policies, allowing for discussions that focus on creating environments where individuals can thrive.

Evidence of “Deep Agreement” on Key Issues

Research has shown that beneath the surface-level disagreements, there exists a “deep agreement” on many critical issues. Studies by organizations such as the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) and the Pew Research Center reveal that, on several key issues, majorities across political affiliations share similar concerns and aspirations.

Economic Opportunity: Across party lines, there is a consensus that economic opportunity should be accessible to all. Many Americans believe in the importance of providing pathways for upward mobility, supporting education, and creating job opportunities for those struggling to make ends meet.

Healthcare: While specific policy preferences may differ, the overarching belief that access to healthcare is a fundamental right is prevalent among many Americans. This shared concern can drive discussions about how to reform the healthcare system in a way that aligns with shared values.

Environmental Protection: Concerns about environmental degradation and the desire for sustainable practices are common sentiments among diverse groups. The acknowledgment of our shared responsibility to protect the planet can serve as a unifying cause that transcends partisan divides.

Safety and Security: The need for personal and community safety is a universal concern. While approaches to achieving safety may differ, the underlying desire for secure environments is a common ground that can facilitate cooperation on issues like crime reduction and public safety.

Emphasizing Shared Beliefs Amid Disagreements on Specific Policies

While policy disagreements are inevitable in a democratic society, emphasizing shared beliefs can help mitigate polarization and foster a culture of collaboration. Here are some strategies to highlight these common values:

Focus on Common Goals: In discussions around contentious issues, it is essential to frame conversations in terms of shared goals rather than partisan divides. By articulating a collective vision for the future—such as improved healthcare access, economic prosperity, or environmental stewardship—individuals can align their interests toward common objectives.

Encourage Dialogue Over Debate: Shift the focus from adversarial debate to open dialogue. Create spaces where individuals can share their experiences and perspectives without fear of judgment. Encourage active listening and the exploration of underlying motivations, which can reveal shared values even when specific policy preferences differ.

Celebrate Local Initiatives: Highlight local examples of cooperation and community-building that transcend political divides. By showcasing successful collaborative efforts on issues like education, public health, or infrastructure, individuals can see the potential for collective action, inspiring broader movements for unity.

Utilize Storytelling: Personal narratives can be powerful tools for connecting with others. By sharing stories that reflect common struggles, hopes, and aspirations, individuals can humanize issues and foster empathy. Storytelling allows people to relate to one another on a deeper level, moving beyond political labels and fostering understanding.

Engage in Community Activities: Encourage participation in community service projects, town hall meetings, or local events that bring diverse groups together. Engaging in shared activities fosters connections and reinforces a sense of community, reminding individuals of their shared humanity.

Conclusion: Reclaiming the Narrative of Unity

In a time characterized by polarization, reclaiming the narrative of unity requires an active commitment to recognizing and celebrating the shared values that bind us together. By focusing on underlying principles like freedom, justice, and community, and by embracing the evidence of deep agreement on key issues, individuals can transcend divisions and work toward common goals.

In the following part, attention will be given to how universities and educational institutions shape social attitudes and political beliefs, emphasizing the need for balanced discourse and intellectual diversity. This section will discuss the pivotal role of academia in cultivating critical thinking and promoting a broad-minded approach to differing perspectives.

Part 5: The Role of Universities and Education in Shaping Perspectives

In today's polarized landscape, educational institutions wield substantial power in shaping societal attitudes, beliefs, and political perspectives. Universities and colleges have historically been spaces for intellectual exploration, free expression, and rigorous debate. Yet, in recent years, some argue that academia has shifted, increasingly reflecting specific ideologies that may discourage genuine critical thinking and open dialogue. This chapter delves into the role of universities in shaping beliefs, examines the challenges posed by ideological conformity, and considers ways that educational institutions can foster a more balanced, open-minded approach.

Influence of Academia on Social Attitudes and Political Beliefs

Higher education plays a significant role in shaping the values, norms, and ideologies of students. For many, college years are formative, marking the first time they encounter diverse perspectives and engage in deep self-reflection. As such, universities serve as cultural incubators, influencing the trajectory of social and political beliefs in broader society. For instance, studies show that students are more likely to emerge from college with progressive attitudes, especially regarding social issues such as gender equality, racial justice, and environmental concerns.

However, there is ongoing debate over the extent to which this shift reflects a genuine exploration of diverse ideas versus an environment that encourages specific perspectives. Some researchers argue that the ideological leanings of faculty members and the overall culture on many campuses can unintentionally create an "echo chamber" effect, where certain views are amplified while others are marginalized. As a result, students may feel pressured to adopt mainstream opinions or risk social alienation.

Ideological Conformity and Its Consequences

The issue of ideological conformity within academic settings has been widely discussed in recent years, with concerns about "groupthink" emerging in some disciplines. In an environment where a particular ideological framework dominates, students and faculty members may be discouraged—whether directly or subtly—from expressing dissenting opinions. This creates a culture where individuals may avoid questioning widely accepted beliefs, inhibiting the kind of critical thinking that universities aim to foster.

This conformity can have several consequences. First, it undermines the principle of academic freedom, limiting the scope of inquiry and hindering intellectual diversity. When certain perspectives are sidelined or dismissed outright, the result is a partial, and sometimes distorted, view of complex social and political issues. Second, ideological conformity can create a polarized campus environment, where students perceive "acceptable" and "unacceptable" opinions, stifling productive discussion and discouraging genuine curiosity.

Moreover, the consequences of this culture extend beyond the walls of academia. Graduates who have primarily been exposed to a narrow range of views may be less prepared to navigate diverse perspectives in the workforce and society at large. As they enter professional and civic life, they may struggle to engage with others who hold different beliefs, perpetuating the broader polarization we see in society.

Fostering Critical Thinking and Open Dialogue

To counteract these tendencies, universities must prioritize critical thinking and open dialogue, treating them as foundational skills rather than secondary goals. Critical thinking allows students to analyze information, question assumptions, and evaluate arguments, which is essential for developing well-rounded perspectives on complex issues. When students learn to engage critically with diverse ideas, they become better equipped to form their own views, rather than simply adopting prevailing beliefs uncritically.

Open dialogue, meanwhile, ensures that students are exposed to a range of viewpoints, helping to foster empathy and understanding. By facilitating respectful conversations across ideological divides, universities can create an environment where students feel safe expressing different perspectives. This approach not only enriches students' academic experiences but also prepares them to be thoughtful, open-minded citizens.

To achieve this, universities can implement several strategies:

Encourage Ideological Diversity Among Faculty and Guest Speakers: By actively seeking faculty and speakers from diverse ideological backgrounds, universities can expose students to a broader range of perspectives. This helps prevent an echo chamber effect and ensures that students encounter ideas they might not otherwise encounter.

Establish Forums for Structured Debate: Organized debates, panel discussions, and dialogue sessions can provide structured opportunities for students to engage with contrasting viewpoints. When these events are moderated effectively, they can serve as valuable educational experiences, teaching students how to engage in respectful, constructive debate.

Incorporate Critical Thinking into the Curriculum: Critical thinking skills should be explicitly taught and emphasized throughout the curriculum, regardless of discipline. Assignments and assessments that require students to analyze different perspectives, question assumptions, and construct well-reasoned arguments can help cultivate this skill.

Create a Culture of Intellectual Humility: Encouraging intellectual humility—the recognition that one's own views are fallible—can reduce defensiveness and make students more receptive to alternative perspectives. By promoting a mindset of continuous learning, universities can foster a culture where students feel comfortable re-evaluating their beliefs.

Support Freedom of Expression Policies: Clear policies supporting freedom of expression on campus can help create an environment where students feel empowered to express diverse views without fear of retribution. Universities should make it clear that, while hate speech is unacceptable, respectful discussion of controversial ideas is both welcome and encouraged.

Case Studies: Universities That Champion Open Dialogue

Some universities have made strides toward promoting a culture of open dialogue and intellectual diversity. For instance, the University of Chicago is well known for its "Chicago Principles," which affirm the institution's commitment to free expression and open discourse. This policy has become a model for other universities, demonstrating the potential for creating an environment where students are encouraged to explore diverse viewpoints.

Another example is Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, which hosts lectures, seminars, and fellowships focused on open debate and the study of American principles. Programs like these create spaces where students can engage with a wide array of ideological perspectives, challenging their preconceptions and expanding their understanding.

In both cases, these universities have recognized that fostering open dialogue and critical thinking requires intentional policies and programs. Their commitment to these principles underscores the value of a balanced approach to education that respects intellectual freedom while encouraging thoughtful, inclusive discussions.

Preparing Students for a Polarized World

The role of universities in shaping perspectives extends beyond academic and career preparation; it also includes preparing students to engage constructively in a polarized world. By fostering critical thinking and open dialogue, universities can equip students with the tools they need to approach complex issues thoughtfully and empathetically. Rather than viewing ideological diversity as a threat, they can see it as an asset—a means of broadening their understanding and challenging their assumptions.

Ultimately, educational institutions have a responsibility to create an environment where students are encouraged to think independently and engage with a wide range of ideas. In doing so, they can help bridge the divides that have become so prominent in society, cultivating a generation of graduates who are not only knowledgeable but also open-minded and prepared to build a more unified future.

[briannapuppet]

Why the Alt-Right Pipeline Works

12 Rules for Life didn't work because the rules were good. Rather, it was because Jordan Peterson, in the book as well as especially on his viral YouTube videos, performs a fatherly archetype, tells you uncomfortable truths, and gives you permission to act on your common sense.

That's always going to work. The rules are going to be different all the time because what's obvious or not - what's taboo or not - various by time and place and circumstance.

For me, the one that hit really hard was "Make friends with people who want the best for you."

This lead to me going on a slash-and-burn of my friends list, because I realized that all these people did not want the best for me.

See, I was friends with a lot of Bay Area goth-adjacent liberals. I had built these friendships because in these people and in that scene, there was a current of energy flowing towards queerness and gender non-conformity. As a closeted trans woman, I thought, "If I swim with these currents, I'll get to my authentic gender."

However, the scene seemed to undergo a metamorphosis between 2010 and 2020. I had certainly started out hanging out with polyamorous artists, rope bunnies and theater goths, but by the end of the decade, these people had become heavily-online, corporate-liberal virtue signalers.

I was like, "All right, let's go be carnivillains! Let's wear sexy costumes and put on immersive art shows! Let's take drugs, do yoga, get hot and have orgies! Let's make music, pornography and cartoons!" But all they wanted to do was sit around and talk about how awful Republicans are, and they resented me every time I chose to exercise, play with makeup or do philosophy instead of listen to their pathetic, self-serving prattle.

And they were positively vicious to me whenever I talked about reading empowering self-help books, which they thought would inevitably lead me to the alt right.

But on the other hand, I also don't understand why Jordan Peterson is so caught up with Christian Nationalism. Like, he hides most of that in 12 Rules, but when I tried to read Maps of Meaning, there was so much Conservative Christianity in the front that I couldn't get to the parts I knew were good from his lectures.

I have to admit, I feel like a fish out of water in Blue territory. Atheist goths and pseudo-pagans think I'm insane just because I say things like, "I pay attention to my hunches," "I read a science fiction book that gave me insight into this situation" or "I feel like part of you says 'I love you,' and the other part tries to manipulate me."

So, when I encounter Christian Nationalists, real mythopoeticists like Peterson, I'm happy, because at least they believe. We have in common a belief that if you look down deep into your soul, love yourself, and try to do your best, you'll prosper and so will the world. But when I look down into my soul, I know that I'm a woman, and I know that the heaven they think they want to ascend to would be no paradise for me. And I'm okay with that, but they can't suffer even the most benevolent and caring witch, even if it would be to their benefit. They're all obsessed with purging heretics instead of recognizing our common interests.

Because, if you take out syrupy, dogmatic Christianity part, confronting uncomfortable truths and giving people permission to lower their inhibitions and act from their heart is super positive. It leads people inevitably to personal growth. And I feel like the young men who typically fall into the alt right could instead simply be shown how to set boundaries and be honest - that they have hearts, and they're willing to help, but they don't want to be talked down to or demeaned.