The Problem with Discussing Politics with Friends: Tribalism and the Search for Truth

The Futility of Political Discourse Among Friends

Engaging in political discussions can be a minefield, especially within friendship circles. While analyzing political issues can be stimulating, discussing them with friends often proves unproductive. This stems from two primary factors: the prevalence of tribalism and the reluctance to abandon deeply held beliefs.

The Dominance of Tribalism

Many individuals don't possess well-reasoned political views; instead, they subscribe to political tribes. Asking someone "who did you vote for?" often functions as a loyalty test, verifying adherence to a particular group's culture rather than fostering genuine intellectual discourse.

Crafting informed political views requires a multifaceted understanding of economics, game theory, philosophy, geopolitics, sociology, and history. It demands empathy for opposing viewpoints and the ability to recognize and mitigate personal biases. This undertaking is so complex that many people opt for the convenience of tribalism, adopting the beliefs of their social group, church, or preferred media outlets.

However, acquiring opinions in bulk leads to ideology rather than reasoned views. This eliminates the possibility of genuine dialogue, replacing learning with cheering and discovery with winning or losing.

The Resistance to Leaving the Tribe

Even when individuals are capable of overcoming tribalism, many are unwilling to do so. Relationships often determine happiness, and these relationships are commonly built on shared beliefs, whether accurate or not. Challenging these beliefs can threaten one's sense of community and identity.

People often prefer the comfort of a simple world with shared values to the complexity of objective reality. When presented with the possibility of discovering a truth that could shatter their worldview, many choose to remain in their bubble.

Navigating the Minefield

So, how does one navigate these challenges? One approach is to avoid political discussions altogether. Another is to seek out individuals who share a commitment to intellectual honesty. However, engaging in these discussions carries risks. The potential reward is a deeper connection with like-minded individuals, but failure can lead to anger and alienation.

A key indicator of dogma is when a conversation partner adopts a lawyer-like tone, relying on rhetorical tricks and fallacies to persuade rather than understand. A productive conversation resembles an archaeological dig, with participants collaborating to uncover the truth, even at the expense of their own arguments.

When faced with tribalism, one can attempt to counter it by focusing on the method of belief rather than the belief itself. The goal is to encourage critical thinking and self-reflection.

Cultivating Reason

Improving one's reasoning abilities requires several steps: a genuine desire to seek truth, a robust reasoning system, probabilistic thinking, and a commitment to defeating personal biases.

By embracing these principles, one can move beyond tribalism and engage in more productive and meaningful discussions.

Ultimately, the goal is not to win arguments but to discover truth. This requires a willingness to challenge one's own beliefs and embrace the complexity of the world. Is this a journey worth undertaking, even if it means potentially alienating some friends? The answer likely depends on where one places their value: on harmonious (but possibly shallow) relationships, or on a sometimes lonely, but solid grasp of reality.

Comments are closed.