America’s culture war thrives on anger. Here’s how to escape it. | The Dilemma Ep. 2

Are you willing to engage with someone whose beliefs seem completely opposed to your own? Here’s why it might be worth the effort.

In 2016, Genesis Be protested against Confederate Heritage Month, and was left surprised after an unlikely conversation with a Confederate flag advocate. Their discussion didn’t sway their stances, but it did reveal unexpected respect for one another.

Before approaching someone else’s views, reflect on your own. Ask yourself why you believe what you do. Confront your fears and identify how they impact your behavior. Doing so will help you dissect and truly understand the beliefs of others, even if they don’t align with your own. Instead of letting anger drive our actions, we can focus on understanding what truly motivates us—and those we disagree with.

This mutual vulnerability allows us to recognize the humanity behind our “opponents,” and find common ground where we once thought there was none.

This is The Dilemma with Irshad Manji, a series from Big Think created in partnership with Moral Courage College.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go Deeper with Big Think:

►Become a Big Think Member

►Get Big Think+ for Business

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About Irshad Manji:

Irshad Manji is an award-winning educator, author, and advocate for moral courage and diversity of thought. As the founder of Moral Courage College, she equips people to engage in honest conversations across lines of difference.

[bigthink]

For more tools to have honest conversations, go to moralcourage.org/tools.

[sshender]

What a thoughtful and reflective person. A breath of fresh air in this day and age.

[jdesert]

People in general distrust “groups” but are more open to individual people, even those on the other side of their beliefs

[c.l.montoya]

This conversation brings hope, opens the door for understanding, and ultimately the necessary change that is meant to be. The young lady, Genesis(?), articulates clearly, she has the moral courage, and shares her tools; these are the qualities of a profound leader.
Thanks to all who contributed in this video. I have saved it and will share it.💜

[davidlakes]

The cure for anger is food, shelter, healthcare, and financial security for the masses. You don’t need some bogeyman to blame your problems on when you haven’t got any problems.

[thepolishedwook]

I love that she said she questioned her own beliefs and considered whether she was dehumanizing confederates, too. It's insightful and brave. I live in a place where left activists would bully her incessently or threaten her with violence if she admitted that in front of them.

[TonyStPierre]

Wow Irshad Manji, please continue using your communication skills to help heal this world, you're hitting the nail on the head.

[TheFULLMETALCHEF]

Point you made about our political leaders actually being followers…exactly the truth. Where are the leaders that actually have enough integrity to be agents of change instead of echoing their voter base?

[stevecagle]

Regarding meaningful conversations, it first requires a common frame of reference. I was educated in the sciences and seek legitimate, verifiable facts and evidence. I then follow the evidence to learn, understand, and if necessary, change my mind with new evidence.
Sadly, I live in a state overwhelmingly filled with people who follow "alternative facts, " wishful, magical thinking and seeing things how they want to see things - not how they are.
Without a common frame of reference, engagement is like "teaching a pig to sing. It'll frustrate you and annoy the pig "
I don't need the aggravation and rise in my blood pressure.

[geoarambula]

We’re constantly told to find common ground and meet the other side halfway. But what should we do when the other side doesn’t view you as an equal human being. How do you compromise with that? I won’t meet hate halfway

[chelseashurmantine]

I get it but also…. This is literally life-threatening political violence aimed at people who are 1, 000% allowed to be angry.

[BackwardTravisty]

Think whatever you want. Just do it critically and with genuine intellectual honesty.

The 5 Steps to Critical Thinking:

What is critical thinking?
In general, critical thinking refers to actively questioning statements rather than blindly accepting them.

Critical thinking results in radical free will.

1. The critical thinker is flexible yet maintains an attitude of healthy skepticism.

Critical thinkers are open to new information, ideas, and claims. They genuinely consider alternative explanations and possibilities. However, this open-mindedness is tempered by a healthy sense of skepticism (Hyman, 2007).

The critical thinker consistently asks, “What evidence supports this claim?”

2. The critical thinker scrutinizes the evidence before drawing conclusions.

Critical thinkers strive to weigh all the available evidence before arriving at conclusions. In evaluating evidence, critical thinkers distinguish between empirical evidence versus opinions based on feelings or personal experience.

3. The critical thinker can assume other perspectives.

Critical thinkers are not imprisoned by their own points of view. Nor are they limited in their capacity to imagine life experiences and perspectives that are fundamentally different from their own. Rather, the critical thinker strives to understand and evaluate issues from many different angles.

4. The critical thinker is aware of biases and assumptions.

In evaluating evidence and ideas, critical thinkers strive to identify the biases and assumptions that are inherent in any argument (Riggio & Halpern, 2006). Critical thinkers also try to identify and minimize the influence of their own biases.

5. The critical thinker engages in reflective thinking.

Critical thinkers avoid knee-jerk responses. Instead, critical thinkers are reflective. Most complex issues are unlikely to have a simple solution. Therefore, critical thinkers resist the temptation to sidestep complexity by boiling an issue down to an either/or, yes/no kind of proposition. Instead, the critical thinker expects and accepts complexity (Halpern, 2007).

Critical thinking is not a single skill, but rather a set of attitudes and thinking skills. As is true with any set of skills, you can get better at these skills with practice.

In a nut shell, critical thinking is the active process of minimizing preconceptions and biases while evaluating evidence, determining the conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from evidence, and considering alternative explanations for research findings or other phenomena.

CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS
>Why might other people want to discourage you from critical thinking?

>In what situations is it probably most difficult or challenging for you to exercise critical thinking skills? Why?

> What can you do or say to encourage others to use critical thinking in evaluating questionable claims or assertions?

[David-jbdv]

I so needed this and will continue to learn . Thank you.

[taowiaawib]

Thank you this is such an important conversation. A lot of what you talk about I try to instill in my clients as a PMHNP.

[xabiergranja]

This series with Manji is pretty interesting! It models great conversation styles and approaches for people who want to talk and disagree, but no longer know how to. Make more of these.

[annejensen]

I believe there is no amount of anger that will resolve a conflict. Only compassion and peace can do that. This doesn’t mean rolling over and accepting abuse. We all have to evolve together through dialog and community. Individualism can only go so far.

[Mokkel]

Angry people are drawn to activism - and activism is drawn to angry people.

[jujjuj]

This isn't about comparing perspectives or self-reflection. There's no value in talking to the other side when they reject rational dialogue. The problem isn't the topic of debate, but the fact that reason fails in such cases. History shows us this—WWI, WWII, the Civil War, the Korean War—all follow the same pattern. When issues reach a certain point, force becomes the only way to resolve them. Dialogue can't change people with deeply entrenched beliefs, especially when they disguise their true intentions using tactics like "dog whistle politics, " where surface issues mask underlying hatred. For some, especially beyond a certain age, their minds are set, and any challenge to their beliefs is dismissed as trickery. This inflexibility, sadly, leaves force as the only means of resolution.

Supporting evidence of this pattern can be found in studies on cognitive rigidity, showing that the brain's adaptability decreases with age, reinforcing entrenched beliefs and making ideological shifts less likely. Historically, wars have often erupted when ideological divides become unbridgeable through peaceful discourse. So we all need to embrace that war and death is the only option in situations like we see happening.

[RenegadeContext]

It is time to teach people and to learn ourselves how to have open dialogue

[Thejericko]

I don't trust that people are well informed. I trust that most people are emotional decision makers who would prefer to be told rather than find out for themselves. It's the herd mentality that I people live in that makes me distrustful.