What team are you on?

Because our society is so polarized, many of us have chosen a side. (That’s a tautology.)

It’s hard not to choose. The media you watch, the people you hang out with, all of that contributes to which side we pick. We become part of a tribe.

It’s normal and natural to form groups and have affinity towards them. After all, it’s because of our human ability to form groups that humans survived and thrived.

Our tendency to join a tribe is described by Jonathan Haidt as the moral foundation of loyalty to the group (as he calls it) or belonging and community (as I call it in my book, “Persuade, Don’t Preach: Restoring Civility Across the Political Divide.”)

I’m not trying to say that belonging to a group is bad. It’s good to have a group to belong to, it is part of what makes life a rich experience.

But, as with almost anything in life, there is also a downside to it. 

The downside is that we let what our tribe says influence how we think, without always really thinking about it. That feeds into something called “confirmation bias.” Knowing that we — just like all humans —have confirmation bias doesn’t help us overcome it. 

Here’s a test: Take an action by the other side that your side is critical about. What would your reaction to that be if someone on your side did it? Be honest. That’s one way to judge how much confirmation bias is in your thinking. (Hat tip to Scott Alexander of the Astral Codex newsletter for the test question and the insight below about the book “Scout Mindset.”)

When we focus on the differences between us and the people we disagree with, we’re leaning into the tribal identity, what author Amanda Ripley calls the “adversity instinct.”

One potential remedy to overcome confirmation bias is to become more rational, to adopt what author Julia Galef calls the “scout mindset” in her new book of the same name. To look for the truth and not just go along with what others say is right.  

Another option is to use a different instinct that we all have, what Ripley calls an “instinct for solidarity” in her new book, “High Conflict.” That’s also called “transcendence.”

How can we do that?  We can try to break what Ripley calls the “binary” and foster that desire for solidarity.

An example: One of the people Ripley profiles in her book, Gary Friedman, had gotten into a high-conflict situation, a binary trap, and diligently worked to get himself out. Some of the actions he took were to rehumanize and recategorize his former opponents. He tried to revive the other identities that the people held. He worked to see the others as individuals, one by one.  

One of the things I’ve been doing to try to understand others is to read and associate with other people who are also breaking the binary.  On my website, I’ve created a list of resources of things I’ve read that have helped me.  Reading my book, “Persuade, Don’t Preach: Restoring Civility Across the Political Divide,” is another way that you can gain insight about the other side. In order to personally continue to maintain that understanding, I also read sources that try to bridge the gap. So far, I’ve found newsletters from Isaac Saul and David French and two podcasts, one called “Pantsuit Politics” and one called “Dishcast” from Andrew Sullivan that help me understand others’ point of view.

What are you already doing to break the binary? What else would you feel comfortable doing? Do you lean toward adopting the scout mindset or the solidarity instinct? 

Please send me your stories and other suggestions and other new sources — or put them in the comments so others can learn from them, too.

Let’s work toward encouraging our natural human instinct for solidarity AND a scout mindset and break the binary!