Resolving Polarization

Turning the Tide in the Era of Increasing Polarization

Do you notice social interactions becoming increasingly polarized?

I do! Is it because people are so firmly planted in their differing beliefs? Are people using their own free will when determining if another point of view is deemed inaccurate or misinformed? Are people giving any credit to the fact that there are other forces contributing to making them feel righteous in their beliefs and opinions? Are they giving credit to existing designs that make people more polarized?

Some people do, and there’s a growing awareness happening around understanding designs that direct polarization. Here’s the thing: even when someone knows there’s some kind of misrepresentation or tampering of information, they don’t necessarily fully integrate that knowledge to create deeper understanding. Meaning, you might “get it” on a conceptual level when you talk about this contributing factor, but it might not transfer when being discussed in peripheral discussion topics. Here’s a case in point.

Recently the documentary The Social Dilemma was released. It states that each person’s FB newsfeed shows different information from anyone else’s newsfeed. Even two people with the same exact friends will get different posts showing up in their feed. The algorithm choosing the posts displayed is designed this way. For those of us who use social media, part of how we all shape what we believe is factual news is based on what appears in our feed. And it’s different for every single one of us.

Let me say that again. It’s different for every single one of us. Since no two feeds are alike, everyone is receiving different information. So there, I just answered the baffling question for many, when they ask: “Why does so & so believe < this > thing over < that > thing… the thing I believe to be true.” One integral reason for the varying beliefs is due to each person viewing a personalized arrangement of information. Now that we have that question out of the way, we can stop asking the question “why?” Great!

A personalized selection happens with YouTube video recommendations as well. Each person’s YouTube account will have a specific selection based on where that person spends the most viewing time. In addition to social media platforms, this happens with Google’s search engine. Meaning, depending on factors like your geographic location and your online behavior, it will show different results when you search the same words as someone else.

There’s already a ton of information out there, so it’s nearly impossible for two people to see the same information that allows one to formulate an opinion. Even if you think some of your opinions are already formulated prior to you online searching, your subsequent interactions do influence your perspective. No one who gathers information online can say with certainty that these tech influences haven’t affected their viewpoints in some way. Any new processing of information is inextricable from the tech influences.

It’s not conspiratorial to address to address. What’s occurring is merely a consequence of how the algorithms work based on what the tech designers who designed these platforms have revealed to us. The designs were intended to take into account factors like your demographics, as well as what you click, the pages you visit, the amount of time you spend there, and so on and so forth. Therefore reinforcing the loop that allows your information gathering to continually get more individualized, and sometimes more polarized.

Now that we’ve established these important details, ask yourself if your sensemaking abilities agree with these details to be true. I believe these details are true, and not just because I watched the documentary. I’ve been following the reporting of these matters for several years now. This information has been revealed from tech designers via talks, interviews, articles and podcasts since 2016, maybe earlier. Perhaps you were aware of bits and pieces of these reports, maybe the full scoop is coming to you now.

Getting back to my initial concern stated at the start: If you accept these findings as true, then you can’t simply say to someone, “you need to do your research” in order for them to come closer in understanding the perspective that you hold. If they do their research, it will likely lead to them using online means to do so. Which will in turn lead them down paths determined by the algorithms factoring their previous online behavior.

If you want to prove a new point to someone and have them become aware of something that you’ve seen and they’re not seeing, they likely won’t come across it in their own searches. To see similar things to what you’re seeing, most likely they’ll need to access it from your pathways rather than from their own. While I’m a fan of people doing their individual research and self-guided studies, I think due to these tech design findings, we need additional tactics.

You can’t just expect another person to find what you’ve found amongst such a vast sea of information. You do get how much information is out there, right? We’ve been made aware that our navigational tools are not only inherently biased, but they favor polarization. This has been documented by the tech designers as to how it works. Since people spend more time on divisive or polarizing discussions, the algorithms direct our navigation to things akin to where the most amount of time is spent.

I think if we continue to spend as much time as we do online, there must be a level of responsibly attached to it. We need to be more mindful and committed to better understand how these interactions work. Even though understanding these underpinnings doesn’t change where we are currently. We need to do something to off-set this. What are we going to do?

So, what do we make of all of this?

I’m a proponent of this approach: If you’re going to highlight a problem, then you must explore a possible solution. I believe more solutions will continue to unfold now that the concerns are becoming well-established and understood. There must be effort toward solutions on the part of tech industry insiders who are designing online platforms. There must be effort on the part of the users of those platforms.

A solution that comes up for me revolves around holding more space for discussions in which there are differing opinions. People need to calm down with writing someone off just because they disagree on a particular issue. Disconnection and “unfriending” is not a viable long-term solution. This approach follows a lose-lose scenario. Even if disconnection initially feels relieving, there will likely be more lost than gained for either party.

Too many things are getting flipped and mismanaged with pervasive online circular arguments. Few people are getting heard and disagreements are falsely attributed to another’s lack of ethics, morals or compassion. People are mutilating their sense of trust. In what world is a news broadcaster more ‘trusted’ to you than someone you actually know in real life? Why would you sacrifice relationships of 10 or 20 years, or your whole life? Keep it real. There’s more of a trust bond with people you’ve known and interacted with in person, even if there are areas in which you disagree.

Why is it so hard for people to sit down and have a discussion with someone who has a differing point of view? Let them do their research and share it if they want to. You can do your research and share it too. By research and sharing, I don’t mean inserting links of articles or videos within online discussion threads. I don’t mean for you to be forceful with attempt after attempt forcing output to prove a point. We have to squash this zero sum game of each person purporting their information in order to feel “right.”

Let’s make the interactions be about sharing what you actually think about research you’re finding. Share about what your process was like gathering the various bits of information. How did the new information relate to other thoughts and beliefs you have. Does the information follow patterns and methods that you held previously? What aspects of your a viewpoint do you feel strongly about? What aspects are you questioning? Have a conversation around this process!

This may not sound enjoyable to do with some of the people in your network. You can start by picking one or two people that you know for a good amount of time that you’ve interacted with in person. Be willing to listen to what they have to say. See if you can set up having this type of deliberate discussion one on one. Trust that you’ll learn something from the experience, as will the other person. Set up a win-win scenario to exchange perspectives.

Start with me if you need practice. I mean, no one agrees with me, ha. (certainly not 100%). You’ve got to give it a shot. Collectively, if we don’t start enacting solutions of some kind, I honestly think it’s only going to get worse. We have to try something. I’m curious to know what other’s think. I hope some aspect of what I shared here resonate. This discussion will continue!