ASSUMPTIONS

Speaking of debates, Kathryn Schulz in Being Wrong writes, "We look into our [own] hearts and see objectivity; we look into our [own] minds and see rationality; we look at our [own] beliefs and see reality" (107). 

We don't give the same benefit of the doubt to others, at least when they disagree with us.

If someone challenges OUR beliefs, Schulz points out, we make one of three assumptions about them:

The Ignorance Assumption

    "Since we think our own beliefs are based on facts, we conclude that people who disagree with us just haven't been exposed to the right information, and that such exposure would inevitably bring them over to our team."

The Idiocy Assumption

    "We concede that our opponents know the facts, but deny that they have the brains to comprehend them."

The Evil Assumption

    "People who disagree with us are not ignorant of the truth, and not unable to comprehend it, but have willfully turned their backs on it."

 

Eavesdrop on a political discussion in real life or on social media, and it won't take you long to hear one of these assertions or perhaps all three in rapid succession. 

Schulz draws an eye-opening lesson from these assumptions: "If we assume that people who are wrong are ignorant, or idiotic, or evil - well, small wonder that we prefer not to confront the possibility of error in ourselves."

In other words, our judgmentalism against each other - our tendency to equate being wrong with ignorance, stupidity or maliciousness - is the very thing that keeps the debates raging in never-ending cycles. 

Out of pride, neither side can ever dare to concede even a small point to an opponent.