I just finished a 9-hour road trip through Minnesota and
Wisconsin last night. No matter where I
turned, I kept hearing the same stories.
The new was saturated with stories about what people have been calling
the Charlie Kirk assassination. Until
that happened, I had no idea who he was and I ended up listening to too many
descriptions. From there it shifted to
the alleged shooter. I learned that
despite turning himself in he was not cooperating with the police. The media
continues to obsess about motivations and my only observation about that is
that they must not watch much true crime TV. In true crime TV if
you are not holding somebody up or trying to do away with your spouse – the
most common motive by far is a) you are angry about something and b) you have a
gun. That is all that it takes. The myth
that all gun owners are rational actors is just that. And that is the dilemma
of easy and widespread availability of guns.
After moving on from the analysis of personalities – most
stories end on a provocative note. I
almost said poignant there but that would be a big mistake. Reporters want to end in a flourish that involves
a lot more than sadness. To do that they
portray the current situation as a modern-day crisis for which there is no
apparent solution. A few examples:
“I can’t ever remember American politics being this
divided.”
“There are people talking about a civil war – just like the
Kirsten Dunst movie.”
“You can’t really lay down your arms for peace if the other
side (meaning a political party) does not.”
“Some politicians are trying to tone down the rhetoric but
good luck with that.”
It is very easy to get sound bites from politicians
especially on the right to illustrate these points. If the program is an interview format the
question is asked “Well, how do we solve these and get people taking
again. How do we make American politics
safe again?” The guest typically has no
answer. I listened to one show that had a recording of Bobby Kennedy speaking
about race relationships after the Martin Luther King assassination. It was a good unifying speech – but at the
end of the clip the guest said: “Unfortunately we have no Bobby Kennedys
today.” Well, we have one but that is
another story.
All these shows are portraying the current situation as
hopeless. Unless there is some kind of Unity Messiah out there, we are
all doomed. To that I say – are Americans really that dumb? Granted we have proof by the current
administration that the electorate is by no means a brain trust – but getting
agitated about more political fiction is a whole new level.
Let me break down what is happening here. Since practically everything I heard was
focused on the shooting incident I will start there. And I will start with
statements made by prominent Republicans about the incident. From what I heard Mr. Kirk was considered a
favorite of President Trump and other prominent Republicans. Without any evidence they began blaming the
shooting on the “radical left”. Some
have claimed the shooter was “radicalized” by a semester preparing for an
engineering major? Others have made
overt threats – going as far as saying that in a shooting war over the incident
they will prevail. There is no objective
basis for any of these remarks.
As a psychiatrist – I am interested in reality - rather than
sound bites, fomenting political unrest, or profiting from being an influencer
or advertiser. I am interested in helping
you through this political and media crisis unscathed. How do you deal with one party and the news
media fomenting violent conflict and “Civil War.” Here are a few tips:
1: Ignore them –
social media and its algorithms get credited a lot for funneling sensational
content that you want to see directly and persistently to you. All you must do is ignore it and it is easy
to do. I can say that it works very
well. I have all the major online
retailers trying to sell me things every day and they are wrong 95% of the
time. That occurs just based on me
ignoring their certain offers and algorithms.
I do the same thing on social media sites where people attempt to troll
me. They are as easily blocked or
ignored. Staying engaged with trolls is the best way to end up in an escalating
situation and a potential civil war.
An added benefit is that trolls typically have no useful content or
logic.
2: In addition to
falling for a false narrative – the same people producing these narratives are
trying to produce bogeymen. Bogeymen in
this case are people that do not respond in a way that the creators of the
false narrative want them to respond. That results in additional rage and
threats. The most obvious example so far
are people who dare to comment on the situation, even by using Kirk’s direct
commentary and in many cases recorded voice. Any hard conclusions about this language
is condemned as “insensitive” or “hate speech” by representatives of the
current government. I will refrain form
citing any examples here but there are many out there. They are the direct result of years of
conditioning from news that is entertainment and the idea that it has to be
produced as provocatively as necessary.
3: Teach yourself
about rhetoric – rhetoric has always been implicit in American education. There is a debate team in high school –
but formal exposure to rhetoric is unlikely even at the college level. Learning how people are persuaded in one
direction or another is a critical skill – especially at the level of analyzing
how people are trying to manipulate you.
Americans seem generally clueless about this. In today’s reality there
is no way that anybody should accept what a politician says at face value.
Here is a common example.
A shooting occurs and a politician states with no evidence that the
shooter is from the radical left. Subsequent information not only disproves this
premature conclusion but that the shooter was a strong supporter of the
politician making that remark. Shooting
number 2 occurs and the same remarks are made with no evidence. At what point does that rhetoric become a
conspiracy theory? The commonest forms of political rhetoric are designed to
appeal to emotions. You find yourself
angry about something and a politician suggests not only a quick and easy
explanation – but coincidentally suggests that they are the only one who can
solve the problem and protect you. The next step is suggesting that to offer
you the best possible protection you will need to give something up. That may include your vote, personal freedoms,
money, or the financial security of future generations.
4: Recognize that
when the suggested solutions are all based on rhetoric rather than on science,
logic, and moral reasoning we are weaker as a country. It makes real progress impossible. It makes
it much easier for our enemies to influence our day-to-day life and interfere
with elections. I heard only one story about how Russia, China, and Iran we involved
in massive misinformation peddling about related conspiracy theories. It is
likely that your social media is influenced by these foreign actors trying to
amplify emotional political differences.
5: Use your own emotions
as a cue - if you find that you are
reading, listening, or watching some content that has you angry, agitated,
worried, or sad just shut it off. You
are probably being manipulated for some reason. Events can be truly sad and we have all experienced
them. But these days events are politicized
and used to generate secondary emotions that may be unrelated to the reality of
the situation.
To give a final example consider the internet argument. Let’s say you are in your favorite social
media venue and arguing with someone about investments, politics, a scientific paper,
or any topic really. The argument goes
on and on and it gets more emotionally heated. Suddenly it shifts to personal
attacks about qualifications, IQ points, or moral character. Neither party
feels like they can stop until they “win” the argument. This is what I would
call a rookie argument on the Internet.
Any more experienced person in this kind of debate would have truncated
it immediately and walked away.
That is where we are at in American politics today. We have a party that is clearly interested in
rhetorical rather than scientific, logical, or moral solutions. They are quite eager to put up an endless
stream of groundless arguments for consideration and have gone as far as
announcing that is their political strategy. They repeat these groundless arguments forever. They seem to have an endless stream of people
willing to engage in the rookie argument.
The solution to the problem is not some Unity Messiah
coming down the pike. It is following the steps I have outlined above. In politics these days since the Supreme
Court has equated free speech with money it would also involve
not sending any of them a dime. But most importantly – just shut it down before
it bothers you. You will not be missing
a thing.
On a neuroscientific basis – the importance of emotions in
decision making has been known for decades.
Human decision making is not a strictly rational process but you can use
rational processes to reel it in. There has never been a better time to train
yourself to do it. The truth is never
enough if people are appealing to your emotions.
George Dawson, MD, DFAPA
No comments:
Post a Comment