People are often advised to avoid discussing sensitive topics like politics and religion. Although avoidance of emotional issues may help to promote a civil society, the advice is all too deadly to democratic institutions. Still the fact that differing opinions are so strongly held as to disrupt civil discourse is itself an interesting observation. Why do people come to believe whatever it is that they believe?
I came face to face with this question quite a number of years ago when I left academics for a job at an industrial R&D facility. I came to realize that while my academic training had led me always to be very cautious in drawing conclusions, I had entered an environment that rewarded just the opposite attitude. The cautious approach that I had developed through years of training were now interpreted as indecisiveness and uncertainty. In this new environment, quick decisions and a show of often unjustified certainty were highly valued. Whether conclusions were right or wrong seemed to be of little consequence.
In looking back at this, I think that much of the emphasis on assertiveness at the R&D facility resulted from the military background of much of the management in my new place of work. Military training prepares one for battle and the battlefield is a place of ultimate chaos. Although there is no clarity on a battlefield, clear and decisive actions are vital. Military training is focused on making quick decisions and executing plans based on these decisions. Effective leadership requires a show of confidence even when none is justified. That wrong decisions are often made is less of an evil than indecision would be.
Although the requirements of battle place the military at an extreme position in this regard, the attitude of the military, of emphasizing self-assurance as the essence of leadership, is much more the human norm than the acquired academic attitude of actually distrusting excessive self-confidence. It seems likely that our very basic animal instincts developed in environments more akin to the battlefield than to the ivory tower and that we are naturally drawn to follow those who seem the most self-assured.
The academic world is peculiar in that it is more important to avoid being wrong than it is to lead or even to reach a conclusion. Most real-world issues call for decision making that falls somewhere between the extremes of academic rigor and the urgency of the battlefield. Usually we can take at least some time to consider different sides of issues, but often we do not have the academic luxury of simply not making a decision (in the academic world, the most common conclusion is that we just don't know enough to write the paper).
It is my belief, however, that when we act as voters, we would serve our country best if we would behave more like academics and less like soldiers. We should retain a healthy skepticism about the news we hear and the opinions we develop and we should strive to maintain minds that always remain open, even to a total change of opinion.
So how do we decide what and who to believe? As infants, we place unquestioning faith in our parents. What we believe is what our parents tell us and who to believe is who they tell us we can believe. As we grow older and more independent, we may start questioning this faith in our parents and we may put more faith in teachers or friends, but ironically we often retain a firm belief in things our parents taught us as infants. Although some people depart radically from their parents political leanings, the politics of parents is often too good a predictor of the politics of their children. At least through our early education, we learn to defer to authority and all too often not to think for ourselves.
As voters in a democratic society we should take our political opinions seriously and we must think for ourselves and not simply follow the lead of our parents or teachers. But then how should a voter decide who and what to believe? Sorting out truth from fiction is not easy, but important guidelines are to remain skeptical and not just accept everything you hear or read. But beyond this, you should look for logical consistency and complete explanations. Most importantly, listen to others but in the final analysis do not defer to the opinions of others. Trust your own reasoning and and your own independent judgment.
Most of us are skeptical when we listen to politicians, but less so when we listen to newscasters or opinion makers on television. But especially in this day of corporate owned media, we should retain skepticism with regard to these talking heads, no matter how self-confident they may seem. In fact, too much self-confidence should itself raise your suspicions. If a television personality says something that seems to contradict what he or she said at another time or what some other talking head said, this should raise your suspicion about these individuals and even about the network you are watching. What you most want to avoid is simply deferring to them and doubting the conclusions of your own mind.
Going beyond contradictions, look for newscasts that are complete enough that you can understand them. It is the newscaster's job to make the news intelligible, so look for one that does. If you are continually confused by the news, it may well be that your newscaster is making the news confusing by telling only selected portions of events. Such a newscaster is trying to influence you, not inform you.
Keep in mind that there is no reason to think that people you don't know are any less rational than people you know personally. If the news you hear makes you think that the people in a foreign country are behaving irrationally then it may well be because you are not hearing about their problems and history. If this happens, look for another source of news to help you understand the whole story. This may seem difficult, but nobody ever said being a good citizen is easy.