‘Collective mind’ bridges societal divides − psychology research explores how watching the same thing can bring people together

  Only about 1 in 4 Americans said that they had trust in the nation’s institutions in 2023 – with big business (1 in 7), television news (1 in 7), and Congress (1 in 12) scraping the very bottom.

  While institutional trust is decreasing, political polarization is increasing. The majority of Republicans (72%) and Democrats (64%) think of each other as more immoral than other Americans – a nearly 30% rise from 2016 to 2022. When compared with similar democracies, the United States has exhibited the largest increase in animus toward the opposing political party over the past 40 years.

5 types of threat – how those who want to divide us use language to stoke violence

  Events like the riots in Brazil, the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection two years before it, and the mass shooting at the Colorado LGBTQ nightclub each occurred after certain groups repeatedly directed dangerous rhetoric against others. It’s the reason elected officials in the U.S. have begun examining the role language plays in provoking violence.

  As a social psychologist who studies dangerous speech and disinformation, I think it’s important for citizens, legislators, and law enforcement alike to understand that language can provoke violence between groups. In fact, there are different types of threats in rhetoric that in-groups – people we identify as “us” – use to trigger violence, against out-groups – people we perceive as “them.”

Talking politics in 2021: Lessons on humility and truth-seeking from Benjamin Franklin

  The previous year in the United States was a turbulent one, filled with political strife, protests over racism, and a devastating pandemic. Underlying all three has been a pervasive political polarization, made worse by a breakdown in civic – and civil – discourse, not only on Capitol Hill but around the nation.

  In a new year, with a new president and a new Congress, there appears to be an opportunity. Americans, starting with the president, are talking about turning away from the division of the recent past and choosing a different direction: talking civilly and productively about the problems the country faces.

Coronavirus responses highlight how humans are hardwired to dismiss facts that don’t fit their worldview

  Bemoaning uneven individual and state compliance with public health recommendations, top U.S. COVID-19 adviser Anthony Fauci recently blamed the country’s ineffective pandemic response on an American “anti-science bias.” He called this bias “inconceivable,” because “science is truth.” Fauci compared those discounting the importance of masks and social distancing to “anti-vaxxers” in their “amazing” refusal to listen to science.

  It is Fauci’s profession of amazement that amazes me. As well-versed as he is in the science of the coronavirus, he’s overlooking the well-established science of “anti-science bias,” or science denial.

Humans are hardwired to dismiss facts that don’t fit their worldview

  Something is rotten in the state of American political life. The U.S. (among other nations) is increasingly characterized by highly polarized, informationally insulated ideological communities occupying their own factual universes.

  Within the conservative political blogosphere, global warming is either a hoax or so uncertain as to be unworthy of response. Within other geographic or online communities, vaccines, fluoridated water, and genetically modified foods are known to be dangerous. Right-wing media outlets paint a detailed picture of how Donald Trump is the victim of a fabricated conspiracy.

The problem of living inside echo chambers

  Pick any of the big topics of the day – Brexit, climate change, or Trump’s immigration policies – and wander online.

  What one is likely to find is radical polarization – different groups of people living in different worlds, populated with utterly different facts.

  Many people want to blame the “social media bubble” - a belief that everybody sorts themselves into like-minded communities and hears only like-minded views.

Political polarization is about feelings, not facts

  Politicians and pundits from all quarters often lament democracy’s polarized condition.

  Similarly, citizens frustrated with polarized politics also demand greater flexibility from the other side.

  Decrying polarization has become a way of impugning adversaries. Meanwhile, the political deadlock and resentment that polarization produces goe unaddressed. Ironic, right?

  Commentators rarely say what they mean by polarization. But if Americans are to figure out how to combat it, they need to begin from a clear understanding of what polarization is.

Parker Snider: Increased polarization in politics: Bad for Alabama and the country

  Our politics is increasingly polarized. Yelling matches on cable news are the norm, and those with opposing viewpoints are labeled as bigoted or anti-American. The division has gotten to the point that, according to the Pew Research Center, most Republicans and Democrats have few or no friends in the opposing party.

  The question, therefore, is two-fold: a) What are the causes of increased polarization? and b) Is increased polarization something we need to address?

Sam Fulwood III: Why do we have gridlocked government?

  If you’ve paid attention to the noise in Washington, D.C., you know all too well that our nation’s government is hopelessly divided.

  Although some, such as the late William A. Niskanen—the former chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute and former member and acting chairman of President Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers—celebrate the fractured state of politics, most of us decry the leadership’s unwillingness to do the public’s business.