Be a critical thinker, not a polarised echo chamber

Polarisation is the enemy of critical thinking.

What do I mean by polarisation? Polarisation of opinion, when people adopt views according to their political ideology – left or right; capitalism or Marxism; progressive or reactionary. When they don't allow themselves to think outside the confines of these ideologies.

Source

Usually they furiously deny that this is the case – and their angry denial confirms that they are doing exactly that.

This type of thinking is not restricted to politics. Many people who see themselves as independent journalists cling just as tightly to ideologies popular in the alternative media world as political ideologists. If they read or hear something being circulated by another apparently “awake” writer or broadcaster, they will happily repeat it on their own blog, often accompanied with outrage, without bothering to check the facts.

Source

This isn't the case with all independent journalists, and it's generally the ones who actually question the narrative – whether it's the mainstream or the independent narrative – who become the most popular, because they are leading the thought, not following it.

We all do it!

We all fall into the trap of polarised thinking from time to time – often when we feel passionate about something. I sometimes find myself having to pull away from my own inbuilt ideological prejudices to accept a new idea. I really do try to challenge myself to do this, which is not always easy, but it can be rewarding.

I've changed a lot over the years. I was brought up in a family with very left-leaning beliefs, which I generally adopted. But I was always the rebel in the family, and from a young age I would try… not so much to shock as to confound my family, by declaring thoughts that deviated from this traditional left-wing standpoint.

When I was a child I started to think that the UK Conservative leader Edward Heath had some good ideas. This utterly shocked my parents, and I looking back, how wrong I was! Not that the Labour leader was any better… These days I rarely trust ANY politicians!

When Margaret Thatcher came along, she incensed me and I swung back to my family's lefty stance. I was too young to vote at the time, and that incensed me even more!

Source

UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher strongly polarised opinions.

After 18 years of political anger and frustration, MY side finally came into power, with the Labour government of Tony Blair. I wasn't able to vote, as I'd been out of the country for over a year and hadn't registered in time, but I celebrated the Labour win at an election party at my sister's house. I made Margaritas for the occasion. We were elated!

But for me, the sheen soon came off Tony Blair's government. I'd never really taken to him anyway, and called him Tony Bleugh even before he became Labour leader. I went off "New Labour" long before the Iraq War, and I started voting for smaller parties, like the LibDems, the Greens and the SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party).

Blind puppets

For a long time I continued to think that Bill Clinton could do no wrong, and that his detractors were just politically-motivated. Not living in the US, I saw things from a distant perspective, so I allowed myself to remain caught up in the left-right paradigm. I now see this as one of the worst types of political manipulation. Left-right politics turns intelligent people into blind puppets who will agree to almost anything if it's the policy of "their side". It cleverly pits people against each other, instead of the politicians and corruption they should be investigating or attacking.

Source

Why attack each other? You should be addressing your arguments to the policy-makers instead of falling out with friends.

Referendums are also designed to politically polarise people. I don't think I'll ever vote in one again, after the referenda on Scottish Independence the EU. Both were characterised by very negative propaganda that got people attacking each other and even broke up friendships. People who voted for Scottish Independence were characterised in the media as anti-English militants, and those who voted to stay in the UK were portrayed as narrow-minded bigots.

Divide and rule

People who voted "Leave" in the EU referendum were portrayed in the mainstream media as xenophobic racists and immigrant-haters, with the other arguments for leaving the EU – including the "Lexit" campaign (left-wing Brexiters) – simply ignored.

Many Leave voters merrily joined in the "divide and rule" game by hurling back insults at people who voted Remain.

There's no critical thinking in a situation like this. And it starts with the politicians and their spin-doctors. The EU referendum script was particularly biased. It said: "We're graciously allowing you to have your say on this issue! Your opinion counts! You can vote either way you want – but if you vote 'Leave', you're a backward-looking racist."

That's the 21st century version of democracy, played out ad nauseum in the establishment media, like BBC Radio 4 and The Guardian newspaper.

Few people who voted in the EU referendum have any idea about how the EU works, what issues are governed by the EU or even who their MEP is. Those important issues were submerged in a flood of emotive propaganda in the run-up to the vote.

Agree with us! Or else...

Polarisation of thought is not confined to politics, and it has been moving in some very disturbing directions recently. President George W Bush famously said, "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists." That kind of thinking allows no room for critical thought. You have to go along with what "your side" does, no matter how unjust – or be branded a terrorist.

Source

Dare to think differently from the herd!

The same kind of manipulation operates in the Israel-Palestine conflict. People who protest against the aggression of the Israeli government are characterised as anti-semitic. Even Jewish activists like Gilad Atzmon and Jackie Walker have been described as "anti-Semitic" for not adhering to a particular established script.

Witness this opinion piece, published in The Guardian in 2011, which opens by discussing Gilad Atzmon, describing some of his writings as anti-semitic simply because of his opinions on "Jewish Marxism". It then randomly introduces a woman who has no connection with Atzmon, but who allegedly argued that the idea that Jews kill Christian children has some basis in fact.

The article thereby attempts to lump together the views of Gilad Atzmon with an outrageously anti-semitic viewpoint. Many people will just casually drink this up, as it is the viewpoint of their side. They are too scared to dare express any disagreement, in case they too are tainted with being anti-semitic.

On the other side of the coin, there are people who will casually accept the idea that Jews kill Christian children – because that is the viewpoint of their side. This kind of "groupthink" can lead to the acceptance of outrageous extremes. It can potentially lead otherwise humanitarian people to sanction the types of war and atrocities that we're all too familiar with.

Step outside the established narrative

It's so important to step outside the established narrative, to question everything. It's much more comfortable – especially when things seem a bit scary – to surround yourself with people who share the same viewpoint as you do, and who will always support and confirm your opinions. But it's actually more fun and more stimulating to exchange views with people who think a little differently than you. That's how you learn new things and develop as a person.

How to think critically

• Think of one person or thing that you have massive admiration for. It could be a public figure or a political party, a group or a concept such as science or voluntaryism. Then think of at least one negative trait that this person or idea or thing displays. If you can think of two or three negative aspects, your critical thinking skills are probably well-honed.

• Think of one person or thing that you absolutely loathe or have no respect for. Again, it could be a public figure or a political party, a group or a concept. It could be left-wingers, or Trump supporters. Then think of at least one positive trait that this person or idea or thing displays. If you can think of two or three positive aspects, your critical thinking skills are probably well-honed.

Don't try to find more than two or three positive or negative things – this exercise isn't about seeing everything as equally negative or positive, in a wishy-washy way. It's about getting over hero worship and slavish devotion to a cause; being brave enough to remove your rose-tinted specs and to see things as they actually are. It's about daring to step outside the cosy refuge of the beliefs and support of your tribe.

It's about being an individual.

Source

Be an individual!