Thursday, January 30, 2014

Pavlov's Wolverine (The story of how we have all trained to approach anyone who disagrees with us like a cornered grizzly approaches its pursuers)

Hello to you all, Internet!  How are you all?  Great/We all have those days/I'm sorry to hear that (delete where appropriate).  The other night, I went out to dinner with an old family friend and his wife and niece. The wife and niece both believe in intelligent design, whereas I am an agnostic and regard intelligent design as a theological position, fine to believe in but not the same as science.  Now, as I hope is apparent, I am very much a believer in intellectual discourse, but I still had to fight back the impulse to let go with a torrent of insults, statistics, and half-remembered Dawkins quotes.  By the look on my father's face (another evolutionist with even stronger political and scientific views than mine) he was having the same issue. They were both having the same problem on their side, I suspect, presumably trying not to jump straight to calling us both hell-spawned heathens who want to take all morality out of America and remake the country into the new Sodom.  Later, I thought about why this happens.  I have concluded that we have all been trained by a lot of absolute cretins who call themselves reasonable proponents of these positions that the only way to have a political discussion is to pile-drive the other side into oblivion with a lot of statements with a tenuous at best connection to logic and insults disguised as supporting arguments while shutting out their equally illogical and insulting ideas until they give up and leave in disgust.  It's a kindergarten argument with bigger words, but exactly the same effect, and while most people agree that this is not productive, we can't seem to get out of it.
As I tried to figure out why, I thought back to all the political discussions I have had over the years with people who I do not consider friends.  In most cases, they follow a very predictable path.  They open with a question to which the questioner knows my answer.  "Should schools be allowed to religiously indoctrinate children?" I reply with the answer they know I'll give, in this case, "Of course not.  Religion is a personal choice."  They then say something along the lines of, "If religious indoctrination is wrong, than why do you support teaching evolution in schools and banning creationism?"  To which my reply is something like, "Evolution is science, and taught in science class.  I have no issue with teaching creationism in theology class, but it isn't science, according to the definition of science as things that can be proven."  They go on to ignore most of what I said and say several predictable points: Science is just a belief, religion is important to child development, the Bible says it happened so it is fact, and, if they're really clever, that evolution is just a theory (using the colloquial definition of theory, not the scientific one, which is another hot button issue of mine, but that's an entry for another day).  By the way, these are all quotes from a real conversation I had a couple months ago, including the one in the next paragraph.
The problem here is that we are having two different conversations.  I am intellectually debating something, while they are attempting to convert a nonbeliever. This become apparent in the inevitable response to my next statement, regardless of what it may be, which is generally reminiscent of "You just want to strip away morality from our children so that your communist gay agenda can go forward.  You're a hypocrite who indoctrinates children with your 'science' and pretends it's anything more than another religion.  You should be more open minded."  This is about where I just give up and walk away, because they have already locked in the track of this conversation, and no matter what I say they will reply with the exact same thing every time.  The dancers and the stage may change, but the dance is always the same, and that dance is a spastic, poorly executed waltz set to Benny Hill music that leads straight into an open septic tank.
I use this example because it is a fight I have pretty often, as I know several creationists and consider it rude to flat-out ignore someone starting a conversation despite knowing where it is going.  The same thing happens with abortion debates.  Lest you think I'm being overly critical of the right and defending the left, you will have a similar argument if you try to defend the continued existence of religion to a rabid atheist, and heaven help you if you get cornered by someone who is of the hyper-militant bent of  feminism, veganism, or, worst of all, the political correctness crowd (as in, "you can't use that word, it might be offensive to X or Y minority who have never expressed any objection to it and I am now going to force you to listen as I explain what a terrible person you are) who usually combine all the worst qualities of the groups above with a healthy dose of socialism.
I have no problem with any of these groups on their own.  If you want to be a creationist, go ahead, that's a personal religious choice.  If you don't believe in abortions, don't get one.  I actively support equal rights for women, gays, and minority groups.  So, if I am neutral or supportive toward these groups, why does their mere mention provoke irrational rage?  Here we get to the title.  I assume you know about Pavlov's dogs, and if you aren't take a second to look it up on Wikipedia.  Learning is good.  Much like the dogs were trained that the bell meant food, we have been trained by years of exposure to these people that any political statement means the speaker is going to attack us and that there is no point in trying to defend yourself with logic and calm intellectual debate.  Much like the dogs eventually started slobbering at the sound of the bell even if there was no food, we have started to react to any public mention of political views by getting defensive of our own and shutting out whatever they have to say.s
This is a problem in two main ways.  The most obvious is that it makes everyone hate each other.  How can it not, when everyone who is not a known supporter is a potential attacker to be eyed like a wolf circling another wolf, sizing them up in case it comes down to fangs and claws?  However, the other outcome is so much worse: we have lost the ability to compromise.  Political discourse stopped being about finding the best way to run the country and became a no-holds-barred fight for pack dominance, where the winner is whoever shouts the loudest and sticks with it the longest.  There is no room for compromise, there is no agreement that maybe both sides have something of value to say, there is no synthesis of ideas into something workable.  Like a trained attack wolverine reacting to an intruder, we leap to the attack with a hiss and claws outstretched, hoping that we can maul our opponent into submission before they do the same to us. That is hardly a way to run a country, don't you think?

No comments:

Post a Comment