Staging:Polarization

!!!FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY!!! Please go back.  
This page is an archive of past thoughts, etc.  a working sketchpad/test balloon for brainstorming ideas.  What is here is incomplete, possibly inaccurate, and does not represent fully thought-out beliefs of the authors.    
Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome to the second issue of A Reasoned Voice. Each issue, roughly every 2 weeks, will try to offer a new perspective on current issues, with a focus on pragmatic critical thinking methodologies and understanding of how humans approach problems.

This issue's focus is on polarization and analogies to nature.

Last week's edition on disillusionment can be read here. This is still very much a work in progress, with a limited rollout, so your comments and thoughts are especially appreciated.

Polarization - Division into two sharply distinct opposites. Especially: a state in which the opinions, beliefs, or interests of a group or society no longer range along a continuum but become concentrated at opposing extremes.

-Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 Special Report from Justin Aleeyus (ARV) - Merriam-Webster has chosen polarization as the Merriam-Webster Word of the Year for 2024.  It is said to have been a long and dirty election process with water-cooler advertisements that included incomplete definitions, questionable synonyms, and malicious ad‑homonyms.  In making their choice, the staff at Merriam Webster was said to be deeply polarized, exposing long-seated philosophical differences between Merriams and Websters, including accusations of lexicographical misconduct and thesaurus tampering.  Nevertheless a peaceful transition occurred between 2023's word of the year "authentic" and the incoming WOTY.  (Which was expected, as it is the authentic thing to do.)  Next year may be different, as we're hearing that some staffers are already pushing for the unprecedented change that would allow polarization to be word of the year again next year.  Fittingly, the inauguration of the 21st Word of the Year took place in Antarctica at the South Pole.  The ceremony was held indoors due to the cold.

The dictionary definition cited above implies that polarization is a rarity, that opinions typically range along a continuum. In this case, the majority of the population lies near the middle. The normal curve is an example of this. If we divide the normal curve into two sections of differing colors divided at the mean. The average blue point is not far from the average red point. A good way to think of this is the hump of a Dromedary (one-hump) camel.

But the polarized state looks like two normal curves with a gap between them. One curve is red, one is blue. The average red point is far from the average blue point. We can think of this as a Bactrian (two-hump) camel. Red and blue occupy different humps, and almost no overlap.

In our day-to-day lives, most every decision we make comes down to a binary decision. Humans are adept at quickly simplifying complex problems, coming up with a solution/decision, and moving on to the next. It is a pretty impressive ability. We quickly put choices into categories, compare them, and make a choice. Even "multiple choice" questions end up as a binary choice: the answer we choose on one side, and everything else on the other.

There are many examples of sharply distinct opposites in our day-to-day lives, yet we don't feel polarized by them. In New England, you are either a Red Sox fan or a Yankee fan, there isn't really a continuum. But I don't think one feels polarized. Red Sox fans attend games at Yankee stadium and Yankee fans at Fenway Park. And while there are occasional fights, most of the banter is good-natured, and everyone gets along. A one-humped camel.

Likewise, Democrats and Republicans still shop at the same grocery stores, eat at the same restaurants, and root for the same sports teams. A Republican in Massachusetts still roots for the Patriots, a Democrat in Dallas still roots for the Cowboys. Both political parties equally share the roads and follow the speed limits (or here in Massachusetts, both drive over the speed limits). Looking at someone's shopping basket at the grocery doesn't give any clue to their political affiliation. "Polarization" was never even a runner-up for Word of the Year before, so what is different now? Why do we feel such polarization now? What causes polarization?

When faced with such questions, our human tendency is to jump to an answer. Our first impulse comes primarily from our subconscious, you probably already thought of an answer to that question. But such quick answers come predominately from our subconscious, and typically conforms to our other political beliefs, meaning that Democrats and Republicans will likely give very different answers. And that causes frustration, maybe even anger, leading to polarization.

Objective Problem Solving and Analogy

Whenever we answer a question, we are putting our problem solving skills to work. Humans are incredibly adept at problem solving. Our subconscious does most of the heavy lifting. We see a problem, our subconscious which is tuned for efficiency and speed, simplifies the question, identifies a "good enough" answer and gets us ready to move on. Most everyday problems do not need a perfect answer. Typically, deeper conscious thought only occurs when we feel the answer isn't good enough.

Even then, our tendency is to make quick decisions. But in our haste to find an answer and move on, we may not have fully considered the question. So, a key step in objective critical thinking is simply to step back, avoid jumping to solutions, and focus on the problem. We change the goal from solving the problem to understanding the problem. This is not always easy. Our limited time, our instincts, and our emotions can get in the way of objectivity, especially for "hot-button" issues.

Analogy:  a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect - Merriam-Webster Dictionary  

One of the most amazing human capabilities is our ability to use analogy. The ability to make comparisons is deeply rooted in human thinking.  Finding similarities and differences is an efficient way of learning and storing information, dealing with situations we haven't encountered before, and quickly simplifying complex problems.  We build this ability throughout our life.  In schoolwork we are often asked to "compare and contrast."

Our subconscious is very adept at analogizing.  We may drive down a street we've never been on before, encounter a traffic situation we've never encountered before, and yet our subconscious quickly finds analogies to past situations and allows us to react in a split second. Our ability to analogize is quite complex.  We can see a Georgia O'Keeffe painting and know it is an orchid, even though a bee would never make that connection.  I can be certain that the car you drive has four wheels, even though I've never seen your car.  

Making the conscious effort to find analogies is a very useful tool in problem solving to help us step back and see a problem from different perspectives. Analogies can take us away from an immediate reactive state of mind into a more contemplative state of mind, which encourages objectivity and conscious critical thought. I find that analogies from nature and the physical world are great for this.

What follows are two examples of how polarization sometimes happens in nature, and how the analogies might give us some insight into our current political polarization.

Water and the Continental Divide

The Atlantic and Pacific oceans are at opposite ends of North American, and as such can be thought of as an example of polarization. Rainwater falling in the mainland will end up in one or the other. We know that rain that falls to the east of the Continental Divide will eventually end up in the Pacific Ocean, rain falling east will flow to the Atlantic. North Two Oceans Creek straddles the Continental Divide and eventually splits into an east or west flow. Two raindrops swimming side-by-side in the creek may end up at opposite ends of the continent. The split happens randomly, but once they split, each follows the path of least resistance, guided by gravity, moving further and further away from each other, until they reach an ocean. Along the way they will likely join with like-minded droplets and form a stream, joining with other streams and eventually a river. At times the pressure is intense, forcing them quickly over waterfalls and rapids, at other time the pace is slow and leisurely as in a lake.

But that's not the end of the story, not every drop will follow this polarized path. Nature provides a few instructive exceptions. Evaporation can take west-flowing water into the atmosphere where winds may carry the droplet back over the Continental Divide, coming back down as rain in the east. Here, the drops on the surface are the ones most likely to evaporate. This is less likely for a drop deep down in the riverbed.

But here's one that really boggles my mind. Even in nature, water can actually run uphill! This is the principal of a siphon. For this to occur, there are 3 key conditions (and an included analogy to our current political situation):

1. The end of the siphon has to be downhill from the siphon. (I.e. The end result needs to be worth the fight of going uphill. The benefit has to outweigh the cost)
2. Some outside force needs to get it started by pumping the water uphill. (People, like water, don't know there is a better path unless an outside force helps them get there)
3. The chain can't be broken. Once the stream is staunched for even a moment, it won't return unless it is pumped again. (Water/people have a short memory)

Of course there are other outside forces that affect the natural flow, whether we are talking about beavers or social media. There are lots of dam problems in the real world.

Oil and Water Don't Mix - Until They Do

It's hard to imagine anything more polarizing in nature than oil and water. Water molecules like to hang together, as do oil molecules. Add oil to water and the oil just floats to the top. Even if you vigorously mix them together, the oil eventually separates and returns to the polarized state, oil on top and water on bottom. Oil and water, Hatfields and McCoys, Montagues and Capulets.

But water and oil can be combined through a chemical process called emulsification. Doing so requires the addition of a third ingredient appropriately called an emulsifier. Emulsifiers act as a mediator to keep the water and oil molecules together. But it doesn't come easy, it takes considerable care and attention to the process. The oil needs to be added gradually, not all at once.

A great example of this comes from mayonnaise. Something you can make at home. Mayonnaise is amazingly just acidic water (lemon juice or vinegar), oil, and egg yolk ( the emulsifier). You can't just throw them in a bowl and mix them together, otherwise they separate. Care is needed. The egg yolk and acid are whisked together, and the oil is added very slowly, a drop at a time, until they are emulsified together (no oil droplets are visible in the mix). As the mix becomes more stable, the oil can be added more quickly, eventually a teaspoon and then tablespoon at a time.

If you add too much oil, the sauce separates, what cooks call a "broken sauce." And the only way to recover is by starting over, although a bit of the broken sauce can be added as well, just gradually. The result is mayonnaise. And without seeing it for oneself, or reading the ingredients on the side of a Hellman's jar (or Best foods West of the Mississippi, maybe Duke's in the South or Kewpie in Japan) one would never guess that the ingredients were just egg and oil. Most of us would assume that there was a dairy component.

This mayo clinic is an example of how the use of analogy has helped me think more critically and objectively about human behavior. Despite the ingredients on the mayonnaise jar being right there in front of me, I had always assumed mayo had dairy in it. Even after reading it, I knew it to be true, but deep down I didn't believe it until I made mayonnaise for myself and personally witnessed it. Even now, I sometimes have to remind/correct myself. Just because I've learned it now, doesn't mean my subconscious always remembers that... there were many more years of believing it had dairy than not.

And the drop by drop oil example reminds me that sometimes making change has to be done gradually and may require outside intervention. Move too fast and resistance can build up that no amount of stirring can overcome.

Our polarized world may be broken, but a broken sauce can be recovered. It just takes patience, new approaches, and a step back to move forward. And the resultant synergy is well worth the effort; the resulting mayonnaise tastes so much better than oil and egg yolks. Oil and raw egg yolks is not something most people would willingly put on a sandwich.

When life gives you lemons, make mayonnaise!

The Takeaway

A broken sauce is disheartening, especially when so much care and time has been put into making it. That is certainly the way I feel about this country right now. Our sauce is broken and we are tearing down institutions that took generations to build. We have become polarized into water and oil, oceans apart. It is frustrating to say the least.

But nature teaches us that polarization can be overcome through thoughtful intervention. It isn't easy. At times it may seem impossible. It takes patience. It may sometimes require starting over. It may not happen in our lifetime. And no matter what path we take, new obstacles will emerge. But we have the ability to innovate, adapt, and find new, more efficient paths.

I take heart from the analogy of emulsification and siphons. Water and oil can combine when we add a third ingredient, an emulsifier, whose job it is simply to make it easier for water and oil to live together and make something special. A siphon can make water change direction, we just have to show that the end result is better than what may seem best at the moment. It takes energy to make that happen, but once it does, the flow continues on its own.

And the implied analogy in the word "polarization" also gives some hope. The Earth has poles, yet few people choose to live there. The North and South Poles are among the least inhabitable places on the planet.. And if we keep traveling past the poles, we will eventually meet again in more welcoming climates.

Likewise, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans eventually connect. A drop of water in the Pacific many end up in the Atlantic after all. One can only imagine the joy of two sibling droplets, separated by chance at the Continental Divide, suddenly reuniting by chance at Cape Horn. And while water on land will flow downward via gravity, water in the ocean does not. Add a drop of water to the ocean and it doesn't sink. It doesn't float, it mingles.

And one last analogy. Salmon somehow are able to fight the flow and swim upstream. Their journey is exhausting. At times, they require outside help—fish ladders built to assist them past obstacles. But they persist, overcoming what seems impossible.

Of course, like mayonnaise, analogies should be taken with a grain of salt. No single analogy tells the full story. Other critical thinking must accompany any insight. After all, few would eat a mayonnaise sandwich by itself.

What's Next

I like to think of this week's writing as an emulsion. A lot of ingredients from different disciplines, not often thought to be compatible. That hopefully came together to offer a different perspective on today's world. And with a bit of humor, and less stress, so that our natural d

I hope to continue the discussion of polarization with a further discussion of how humans think, how they can lead to polarization, and how that same thinking can be used to lead to emulsification.

human thinking processes, and how our evolution may cause us to become polarized at times. But also to discuss how those same processes can offer bridges.

Pachinko

Pachinko is a game where a small ball is dropped, and hits an obstacle which sends it either east or west. And then it continues, hitting obstacle after obstacle, each with an equal chance of going east or west (ala a coin flip.) Unlike the previous example of the Continental Divide, this doesn't result in polarization. The end distribution resembles a normal curve, a one humped camel. Even if one ball is purposely dropped to the east of the first obstacle, a second ball purposely dropped to the right, their chances of ending up east/west of each other are only slightly less than even. No polarization. Even if the game is tilted, with east being favored over west (ala a biased coin) the end distribution will still be a one humped camel, the hump will just be a bit further back and a bit skewed.

BUT, if we skew the game so that the obstacles east of center are tilted to the east, and vice versa (i.e. the further east you are, the more likely your next step will be east), then we get a polarized distribution. Our camel has an extra hump.

Putting it Into Perspective

We've always thought of the U.S. as having a special sauce. An emulsion of different cultures that together create a tasty synergy. But our sauce has broken. All the components are still there, but the ingredients have separated, and have developed a resistance to emulsifying. They may mix, but they stay separate. Sometimes a broken sauce can be reclaimed by taking some of the broken sauce and adding some new ingredients, sometimes the sauce has to be discarded and start over. What happens to our sauce is yet to be seen, but we can sure do our best to recreate that special sauce, move the poles, and gather in more sunny climates.

Human Behavior and Polarization

--In our everyday life, we have to make many decisions each day. Likely due to the evolutionary importance of fight/flight decisions, our subconscious is tuned to making decisive choices. Our subconscious quickly distills complex problems into simpler choices, ultimately resulting in a binary choice between two options. We make a quick decision and move on. Something as simple as deciding what shirt to put on in the morning is an example. Although there is no single correct answer, we don't put on multiple shirts or change throughout the day, we make a quick decision and move on. In such cases, even though there were multiple options, we turn it into a binary choice: the one we choose, and everything else.

Our culture and political systems favor binary choices. Questions are answered yes or no, tests are often true or false, court rooms decide between guilty or not-guilty, the sports we play have winners or losers. If a team loses a game by 1 point or 50 points, each still counts the same in the standings. Politics is divided into Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal.

--

Relativism

We like to think of truth as absolute, and science being about discovering and proving those absolutes. But absolutes are very difficult to define, much easier to define in relation to another point of reference. Try to describe a point on a golf ball without referencing any other point. But given a starting place, e.g. the bottom of a golf ball sitting on a tee, and it is easy to describe other points. Likewise with politics and human behavior. We choose reference points

Any point on the sphere can be thought of as a pole. The valueOther points can be described in relation to that pole.

Our Earth has poles because they represent the axis that the Earth spins around. While Earth has a north and south pole, it has no east or west pole.

The word "polarization" is interesting because it

A sphere does not actually have poles, all points are equal. Even our Earth does not have East and West poles, only North and South. And our North and South poles are among the least hospitable for human life. Can you imagine people actually choosing to live at the poles? Gravity or not, all but Santa and a few intrepid researchers would head for warmer climes. If only the political extremes were as inhospitable to human political thought, polarization would not be a thing.

And our earth globe has a North and South Pole which are the ends of the axis that the Earth revolves on. Polarization invokes the meme of a world where people gravitate and huddle in only two locations. A succinct metaphor, in modern parlance, one might call the image a meme. What is fascinating is that t

This calls to mind another metaphor. They say that a drop of water falling to the west of the xxx will end up in the Pacific ocean, one dropped just a few inches away to the East will end up in the Atlantic. The drops follow a long and winding journey, always taking the path of least resistance, and ending up on opposite sides of the continent.

Perhaps Florida and California are more appropriate metaphors for American polarization?

What is fascinating is that the general concept of a globe as a spherical object, has no poles at all. For example, our Earth does not have east and west poles. And on a sphere, heading in any direction will eventually return you to the same point.

What is rather fascinating about "polarization" is that that the poles on a sphere are rather arbitrary. While our common Earth globe has a North and South pole, it has no East and West pole. If we pick any starting point on the globe, a person traveling west will eventually come face to face with a person traveling east. The same is true for North/South. Which supports my observation that there isn't much difference in the positions of extreme liberals and extreme conservatives, the difference is primarily in the path that got them there.

Jumping ahead and applying this model to human thought, we can imagine how two siblings might end up as polar opposites politically. Not only pulled by gravity, but also influenced by outside forces just as a water droplet's path might be altered by man or beaver.

In addition,

And those two sibling droplets, born inches apart now are at opposite ends of the continent.

Jumping ahead and applying this model to human thought, we can imagine how two siblings might end up as polar opposites politically. Not only pulled by gravity, but also influenced by outside forces just as a water droplet's path might be altered by man or beaver. And there are other options, just less probable. A western droplet might evaporate, join a cloud for a ride, and then parachute in the east. And the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans connect with each other and currents flow between them and mix their waters. If two people start at the same place, one walks south, the other north, at some point they will be at polar opposites, but if they continue their journey in a straight line, they will once again meet.

A somewhat comforting thought is that polarization is not a steady state, eventually the oceans mingle. We can encourage mingling by not ostracizing, by sharing other non-political interests with those we politically disagree with.

Also, I've been thinking a lot about the way a siphon works.

A siphon can make water go uphill, against gravity, but requires 3 conditions:

1. The end has to be downhill from the start (i.e. it needs to be worth the fight of going uphill).
2. Some outside force needs to get it started by pumping the water uphill
3. The chain can't be broken. If it is, it will need to be pumped again.

So, if we want to change minds via siphon, we need to understand their concerns, offer a better path, offer a boost to get there, and maintain the pipeline. Easier said than done, but at least something to ponder.

And never give up on education, just recognize that it works best on those who have only just started their journey. In Wyoming there is a stream called Two Oceans Creek that supplies both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The force of one's breath might be enough to push a droplet one way or the other. On the other hand, it will be hard to influence the direction of a water droplet in the rapids of the Colorado River.

There is also the example of the salmon to think of. Salmon annually are able to fight the tide and swim upstream. But it exhausting work, not all make it, and it can't be done all the time. If we expect to swim against the tide, or expect others to do so, we need to be judicious in what we prioritize. The ability to do so is limited.

Pachinko

Oil and Water

Globe

efore jumping into trying to answer, a valuable step in critical thinking is to step back and focus on understanding the problem b

Evolution has tuned our subconscious to distill complex problems into simpler binary choices and making quick definitive decisions. Perhaps the oldest example of this is the fight or flight decision.

We make thousands of such decisions subconsciously every day. Decisions such as whether to turn left or right, or even what shirt to put on in the morning.

The oldest being the

such decisions quickly and decisively.

Our subconscious is tuned to making fast decisive decisions.

There are actually many of different forms of polarization in everday life. The distribution of answers to any problem with only 2 possible answers (binary problems) will always look like a polarized distribution. Examples of such binary problems are yes/no, true/false, fight/flight, Red Sox/Yankees.

Our culture and political systems favor binary choices. Court rooms decide between guilty or not guilty, the sports and games we play have winners and losers. If you lose a game by 1 point or 50 points, each still counts the same in the standings. Our U.S. Presidential election offered a binary choice between two very different people with very different approaches. We weren't allowed any "middle" option, it was only one or the other. A graph of any Presidential election will resemble a polarized distribution.

On the other hand, if we watch the news, we are reminded of the polarization. When we see the President speak, or we see the result of a new law from Congress or Executive order, the polarization becomes palpable. So certainly, one reason for the polarization is a result of the new world of partisan media outlets and social media. Another are the drastic changes that seem to occur now as we are less interested in upholding precedent. (In the past, we tended to be circumspect about changing laws that had existed for a long while, even when we didn't fully agree with them).

While that certainly contributes to the polarization, adds fuel to the fire, I don't think that alone can explain the polarization we feel. We've had partisan news in our history, and major changes to our laws, but they never were enough to make polarization achieve word of the year status.

Examples for next time

Opposite reaction (what happens second)

Eye for an eye.

witness a fight. Police action.

Football fight, professional wrestling.

<