(I'm going to try to update Tuesdays or Wednesdays for the next 3 or 4 weeks.)
People with the most extreme views are usually in the minority, yet we, people in general, seem to like to focus on them as representing a larger group even when they don't, particularly when we don’t like that larger group. Why? (I highly doubt I’m going to say anything groundbreaking, but here it is.)
Well, for one, they’re loud and often good at presenting their ideas, either because they’re eloquent, or because their ideas are much simplified and ignore the complexities of the issues they have opinions on. So they’re easy to understand, even if they’re wrong or we disagree. They get attention because they’re doing something out of the ordinary. Not just out of the ordinary from the perspective of the people on the outside, but likely from the people within that person’s group as well. From the outside, people aren’t likely to hear from or remember the average “group member” because, well, they’re average. They’re not doing anything shocking or noticeable or memorable. (Ex: Years ago I read that pedophilia among priests is no higher than in the general population. I don’t know if that statistic held up as more cases were uncovered, but even at the time, the perception was that all priests are pedophiles, and I doubt repeating that statistic would have changed the perception. The majority weren’t doing anything to bring attention to their normalness. What *could* they do that would compete for attention with tragedy?)
For another thing, demonizing the “other side” makes it easier to disagree with them. If we can portray whoever we disagree with as irrational, extreme, or just plain wrong, we don’t have to listen to them, and it’s a lot easier to that if you don’t really like the other. So we find ways to not like them. It means we don’t have to challenge our own views or think too hard. We all do it. But it’s still wrong. Skewed perspectives are never healthy. Convince yourself that one group is so opposed to your ideas that they’re dangerous to you and your way of life, well, that’s not leading anywhere good. There are bad people in the world, yes, but thinking the majority of people who disagree with a given person are out to ruin everything is called paranoia. Average people are not that different from each other in terms of what it means to be a decent person, and the kinds of indecent things average people are capable of seems fairly consistent to; there’s no reason to think we’re all that different are anyway. Most people have at least some experience interacting with people who are different from themselves in some way, and for the majority, this goes just fine, even when they meet people who have very different values or outlooks. It seems plausible that this positive experience can be extrapolated to apply to others we haven’t met as well. Or put it another way, it seems statistically unlikely that a given person has only met the “good” types of people in the world, and all or most of the other categories of people are made up of mostly “bad” people.
But what about people from the inside of a given group? Why don’t they do something about the ones misrepresenting them?
There’s always the idea that a really extreme idea makes the others seem less extreme; I know comedy writers use this to get away with jokes that TV and movie censors would otherwise stop. Maybe we all do this sometimes, but that requires more planning and thought than I think your average person is willing to put effort into on a regular basis.
I think letting those people have their say is like punching a wall when you’re angry; ultimately, you only hurt yourself, and you may even regret it later, but in the moment, that release feels good (to some people anyway). And when you’re removed from directly hurting the other person yourself, it’s easier to think there’s no victim.
Any other more general ideas?
No comments:
Post a Comment