I read a ton, and I personally feel that if I didn’t take away at least one lesson from a book that I can put into practice, I wasted my time. Something I learned when I got sober in 2012 is that I don’t know everything and there’s never a time when we should stop learning and growing. With each book, maybe I learned a new way of thinking or viewing a situation, and oftentimes, I learn something that helps me be a better father, boyfriend, son, and human being.
I don’t just do this with my reading, either. Recently, I started The Rewired Soul Podcast as a way to chat with non-fiction authors. I figured since I’m reading hundreds of books a year and have so many questions while reading, I may as well interview some authors and spread the knowledge and insight. I love spreading the word about great books to support authors, and I really enjoy introducing people to various topics that I find interesting and important.
I’d love to say that my podcasts are purely altruistic, but I get a lot out of each and every conversation. Aside from my reading, I try to walk away from each conversation with some sort of valuable lesson. In each episode, I’m talking to someone who is an expert in their field or has enough knowledge, wisdom, and experience to write an entire book. With that being said, I’m extremely grateful for each conversation, and it’d be insane not to try and learn something from our chats.
While I love all of the conversations I’ve had, the two episodes I did with Nathan Bomey and Chris Bail have had me thinking a ton. Like most of us, both recognized the issues we’re facing living in this polarized age and wrote incredible books on the topic while providing some practical solutions.
Nathan Bomey is a journalist, and he wrote Bridge Builders: Bringing People Together in a Polarized Age. His book and our conversation for the podcast made me realize that we have to get uncomfortable if we hope to decrease polarization and build bridges. I was legitimately inspired by his book because this dude put himself in some extremely uncomfortable situations in order to better understand how to build bridges and shed light on the solutions. I figured if he can get uncomfortable and have these conversations, I don’t have any excuses.
Then, there’s Chris Bail. Not only does he a fellow Chris, but he’s a Duke professor and the director of the Polarization Lab. In his new book Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing, he breaks down all of the research he and his team have done to understand how social media is making us polarized. Chris taught me that a ton of the conventional wisdom about polarization on social media isn’t backed by the research, but most importantly, he taught me that more people with less extreme opinions don’t get involved in conversations nearly enough. Due to the lack of nuanced and balanced views, the extreme opinions rise to the top.
Since chatting with both of these fine gentlemen, I’ve been trying to take action, and I’ve become aware of some obstacles that I feel we all need to confront and address. While everybody claims that they’re open for conversation, I’ve discovered that this is far from the case. I have a few theories for why this happens, but first, I’ll tell you what I’ve been doing.
Let’s Talk
Aside from Chris and Nathan, I’ve chatted with other authors about some topics like polarization, conflict, cancel culture, and more. One thing they all agree to is that we should be having more conversations with people we disagree with. The other thing they all seem to say is that they don’t think social media is a great place to have these conversations.
While I 100% agree, I think we need to figure out a way to make it work. We’ve been in a pandemic for over a year now, and just when we thought everything was going back to normal, the Delta variant said, “nope!” Even without a pandemic, most of our interactions with people who have different views happen online; especially if you’re an introvert like me.
I wish I was more like Nathan and had the courage to go to some of the meetings that organizations are having, but it sounds like my worst nightmare. It’s hard enough for me to go to 12-step meetings where I’m surrounded by people I can relate to.
So, I’ve been trying to have conversations with people online. This has mainly happened on Twitter, but I’ll also have conversations on Instagram, Facebook, Reddit, and in my YouTube comments. I take a nuanced approach when judging a person’s character, so I follow and chat with a wide range of people. Something else I do is try my best to read books and follow people I completely disagree with.
This puts me in the prime position to have conversations with people who have opposing views and opinions. There are people who I follow where I agree with 90-95% of their opinions, and there are others where I only agree with maybe 10-20%. Within their replies and comments section gives me the chance to chat with people and build bridges or be the more moderate voice, but I think the big goal is to have a conversation with the person of influence.
Unfortunately, this is where the solutions from Chris and Nathan hit some roadblocks. There’s a few of them, and I have theories for each. For some, I just have questions that I’m still trying to figure out.
Nobody Wants to Talk
Even with the elections being over, there’s plenty to be polarized about. People are arguing about getting vaccinated, if we need to wear masks again, critical race theory, and so much more.
Something most people of influence say is that they want to have a conversation. Deep down in our hearts, I feel like we all know that things aren’t as black and white as we make them. We know there’s nuance to just about every topic, but that’s not what gets likes, clicks, and retweets. The problem is that many people say they want to have these nuanced conversations but only publicly say the most extreme things to play into confirmation bias and tribalism.
If you know me, you know I’m persistent and have no shame (and both of these characteristics probably come from being a recovering drug addict). Due to these characteristics, I keep trying to have conversations with people who say they want to talk in a more nuanced way, but it doesn’t happen.
It’s not just me either. I’ve watched people who claim they want to talk dodge any and all attempts at a good-faith conversation. Meanwhile, they’ll retweet and reply to others by sharing their extreme opinions and attacking people with ad hominems.
What breaks my heart is when I see authors do this.
The reason I read books to understand someone’s perspective is because I truly believe that it’s the best way to get a person’s entire view on a subject. For example, I read Dave Rubin’s entire book. As painful as it was, I read it cover to cover. Then, there’s Gad Saad who has made a career out of calling out “snowflakes” but blocked me after I wrote an in-depth review discussing the pros and cons about his book.
Most recently, I read Helen Joyce’s new book Trans. At first, I wasn’t a fan of the book but she brought a very nuanced view to many of the conversations. I didn’t perceive it as transphobic at all, but it hurts my soul to watch her on Twitter. From the book, you’d think she wants to have more nuanced conversations as well, but her tweets seem to just be looking for fights.
A few weeks ago, I wrote a pretty in-depth piece about my views on Robin DiAngelo, and what blows my mind is that many people of influence are guilty of Robin’s main issues.
It reminds me of when I was working in addiction treatment and an old client called me drunk from a bar after a relapse. He was begging me to talk to his friend because she had a drinking problem. He couldn’t understand why she wouldn’t listen to him while he’s sitting there as drunk as she was.
How do you expect someone to take you seriously when you’re doing the thing you’re supposedly wanting to fix?
What’s Going On?
As much as I’m trying to harness my inner Nathan Bomey and Chris Bail, here are some of the theories and questions I have:
Anger Issues
I used to be the angriest person on earth, so I get it. I even wrote a book called Rewire Your Anger. As I chatted with someone this morning about everything we’ve been covering, I was telling him how I’ve noticed how angry people are. The problem is, I can’t tell if their anger is coming from the state of the world or their personal lives.
Over the last few days, I’ve been watching someone on Twitter with a blue checkmark simultaneously say they’re tired of getting hate while also starting fights and only replying to the worst of the worst people.
Is it the negativity bias? Is it a lack of self-awareness? Or do we enjoy living in anger?
Until the day I die, I’ll say that everyone should go to therapy. And recently I had a conversation with Ron Purser about his book McMindfulness. While capitalism and neoliberalism has infected mindfulness, mindfulness is a free practice that has helped me tremendously with emotional regulation and impulse control. To chill out with the very public anger issues, there’s a ton people can do, but first we need to understand that aggression and insults aren’t solving anything.
Incentives
One day, my son asked me, “Why does the news only cover bad things instead of good things?”. I explained to him that I believe we’re the problem and not the news. Anger gets clicks. Anger gets views. Anger sells books. But most of all, anger makes money.
In this capitalist world we live in, do you honestly think Fox News or CNN wouldn’t run feel-good stories 24/7 if that’s what made them the most money?
Honestly, take a minute to think about that.
As someone who was cancelled on YouTube in 2019, I witnessed this with my own eyes. Each video with lies and character assassinations would get more views than any other video on the creator’s channel. Creators make money off of views. Why wouldn’t they keep milking the cash cow if that’s what people wanted?
I do recognize that algorithms play a part in social media, but these algorithms just feed us what they want.
Much like the question above, do you think YouTube or Facebook would shove polarizing content down your throats if it wasn’t what people were engaging with?
So, do people of influence like Helen Joyce actually want to have conversations like they say in their books? I’m skeptical. It almost feels like this gives people plausible deniability so they can use the “I just want to be able to have a conversation” card.
Is every child just confused about their gender or a victim of social contagion? Absolutely not. But what I respect about books by Helen Joyce or Abigail Shrier is that they argue that we should at least be able to have a conversation about the explosion in trans young people.
Is every white person a racist who can’t change? Absolutely not. But I think Robin DiAngelo at least makes one good point that it’s human nature to get defensive as hell when criticized.
Here are some honest questions we should be asking:
Is anyone incentivized to not be polarizing?
How much money would they lose if they stopped?
How many followers would they lose if they topped?
And is it their fault for being the person the audience wants them to be?
Don’t Get Booted from the Tribe
What I don’t think many people of influence recognize until it’s too late is the type of people they attract as an audience. If I give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they all start with good intentions, eventually, they dig themselves too deeply in an audience of people with extreme opinions.
We have psychologically evolved to experience extreme pain and discomfort when we’re rejected or not included. It was evolutionary advantageous to be part of the tribe, so we have a terrible reaction when we don’t feel a part of a group. Back in the day, if you were booted from the tribe, you wouldn’t survive long. This makes it difficult to go against the popular opinion of the people you’ve surrounded yourself with.
What do you think happens when you have thousands or millions of people following you for your extreme opinions more than your nuanced ones? What happens when your entire friend group includes these people as well?
Hell, the insurrectionists wanted to hang Mike Pence just for not backing Trump’s election fraud conspiracy.
This is why I have the utmost respect for anyone who leaves a cult, religion, or political party. It’s insanely hard. These people of influence are in the same situation. Not only can it hurt their paycheck, but it can be psychologically damaging if their tribe turns against them.
Cognitive Dissonance and Our Identity
Lastly, I want to talk about cognitive dissonance and our identity. This is something so many of us struggle with, and it’s a major challenge when trying to build bridges. I find this topic extremely important because addressing these things saved my life 9 years ago when I got sober.
My identity was an independent person who was smarter than everyone. When I couldn’t beat my addiction, it challenged that idea of myself. I experienced extreme cognitive dissonance. But by learning to fight against my idea of who I am, I was able to change.
So, what’s this have to do when we’re trying to build bridges and have conversations?
Imagine someone who writes books or articles on a subject for years. They have to be confident in what they’re writing or they probably wouldn’t write it. This creates a sense of self saying, “I am a person who believes ______”. Then, we also have ideas of ourselves being smart, rational, and the epitome of moral greatness.
When someone challenges our beliefs and ideas, our ego defenses go up and cognitive dissonance takes over. We start to confabulate all sorts of reasons for our beliefs because if we didn’t, who are we?
What makes this worst is social media.
Although I mentioned trying to have these conversations on social media, I always try to get the person to email me. When we have these conversations in public, it can also challenge our social status and how others perceive us. Due to the status aspect, people are more likely to put on a show in front of the crowd, which makes it even more difficult to get through to them.
So, What’s the Solution?
This is the question I always ask myself when confronted with any problem, and like most big topics, I have no idea what the solution is. Years ago, a mentor taught me that it’s a lot easier to change myself than it is the rest of the world. So, I focus on learning as much as I can through conversations and reading books so I can be a little better today than I was yesterday.
Since I can’t change others, I just try to plant seeds. There are people who impacted and saved my life just by planting seeds. Most of them, I don’t even know who they were. Now, that’s what I try to do. Even if people don’t want to build bridges and have conversations, I’m optimistic that I planted a seed. If they want to have the conversation, Nathan Bomey has reminded me to be more than happy to chat. If not, Chris Bail taught me that maybe by just presenting a less extreme view, I’ve done my job.
Finally, I think self-awareness is huge. We’re never going to be fully rational beings, but we can’t solve a problem until we understand it. So, hopefully by reading this, you recognize some of the potential causes of the issues we’re facing so you can do something about it.
I’m always open for a conversation and to be shown what I might be missing or where I may be wrong, so feel free to email me at TheRewiredSoul@gmail.com