Last week, CSU Professor Martin Carcasson (department of Communication Studies) shared his work in a talk entitled Public Deliberation on Complex and Controversial Topics. Martin has worked on creating and improving conversation on tough issues for 25 years and is the founder and director of the CSU Center for Public Deliberation (CPD). Earlier in his career he studied argumentation – eg, its logic and quality and used that information to train facilitators. Over time his focus shifted to the development of better conversations in the local community.
So, why are we humans so prone to misinformation and polarization? 7-8 years go, Martin took a “deep dive” into social psychology and brain science to find answers. Turns out we are often victims in a vicious cycle leading to exaggerated polarization. Our subconscious brain programs us to seek out information that confirms our prior beliefs, leading to negative interactions with people that think differently than us (known as “my side bias” or “confirmation bias”). These impulses then are accelerated and fueled by the internet, the media’s focus of conflict, and an adversarial (2 party) political system. Ultimately a point is reached where facts no longer matter.
Polarization occurs in two varieties – 1) ideological (focus on policies) and 2) affective (focus on emotional dislike and distrust of persons or groups).
This is the focus of today’s presentation - 1) Why are we so angry and polarized? and 2) What can we do about it, particularly in our local community? The good news is we are not as polarized as we perceive, and the fixes are easier than we assume. By the way, education and intelligence matter in the search for truth and compromise. Organizations like Rotary are already positioned to improve good conversation and promote compromise.
Martin concluded with the “good stuff”. There are key steps for local communities to improve communication in both the short term and long term. Most important is to adopt a wicked problem mindset (instead of a wicked person). We can build better processes and local capacity for deliberative engagement as we create bridging institutions and cultivate citizens as wise collaborators.
Social psychology and brain science tells us that humans are inherently social, and we seek purpose and community. We are also inherently empathetic, pragmatic and creative. And we can overcome our bad tendencies and build better habits. All of this can lead to a new virtuous cycle of authentic engagement.
A few questions followed.
Q: Dave Stewart, referring to his work with water and the Colorado River asked -How is it possible to seek compromise when the usual advice from lawyers on both sides of an issue seems to be against collaboration?
A: Martin acknowledged this difficulty but referred to several groups that have endeavored to keep sides engaged and collaborating in the problem of water shortage and distribution in the West.
Q: Is there a better way than the 2-party system?
A: Martin referred to a book by Lee Drutman-Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop
Q: CSU President, Amy Parsons is sponsoring a forum that brings the governors of CO and UT together. Is our speaker involved?
A: No. Dialogue is a good first step but needs to be followed by decision making and action.
RCFC thanks our speaker for this timely and encouraging presentation.
A link to a resource page Martin put together with more information about his presentation and the CPD is available here: https://col.st/VPJOn