I am a Conservative / Libertarian living in a VERY conservative neighborhood in a very conservative state. Most of my friends and associates share my political views. I am constantly looking for opposing viewpoints to challenge my own, and I worry about getting stuck in a loop where my own opinions are reflected back at me simply because everyone with whom I interact agrees with me. I search out and read things written by those I disagree with but even the best book or article lacks the persuasive power to challenge preconceived notions that a good argument does. What do you do to get outside your own ideas and challenge yourself, or if you dont, why not?

You are right.

I certainly try and at least keep abreast of other viewpoints in the media, but it's true - it's very easy to switch off to people you disagree with. BBC Radio 4's Today programme (political/news talk show) is good for this, though I do find that if I'm not in the mood I tend to edit out the articles I'm not interested in, or the people whose views I already know I disagree with!

Politics drive me crazy. Trying to keep up with it all is an exercise in futility. Those political conversation I do have are usually fruitless or end up being quite negative.

Just a quick link about the importance of seeking out sources that you don't necessarily agree with. This TED talk discusses how Facebook and Google will avoid bringing up links that you won't like, based upon your viewing history. This will lead to you missing stories from sources you don't like.

ted.com

Mike, thats my problem exactly. Even when I try to seek out opposing view points I frequently find myself "switching off" when I think their arguments are either fallacious or just silly. I have to really work to convince myself to plow through and consider their viewpoint.

Reed, I agree and I think the American media magnifies the problem. Too many outlets only allow to one point of view. Even those that advertise themselves as "impartial" simply give space for partisan players to voice their opinion without making any attempt to challenge them on their assertions of "fact". This Sunday I was watching an interview program on CNN and the moderator asked a question, both interviewees made statements completely contradictory to each other, and both stated as truth. The moderator made no attempt to question either of them or to clarify. They could not both be right but no attempt was even made to push through the BS.

Matt: there's a feeling in politics that "if you're explaining, you're losing" - it's very hard to make a nuanced argument without coming across as arrogant or intellectually elitist. So the safe option for many people in public debate is to play to their roots and make quick soundbites. It's very hard for someone to call out someone as actually lying...

Politics seems more like a pissing game than an effort to make the world a better place. I search for information that is interesting to me. If it agrees or disagrees with my own viewpoints I evaluate them against my own view and either disregard them or incorporate them into a new viewpoint. I like watching history channel programs or documentaries.

Mike - It isn't very hard to call someone out as lying or misleading, but there are repercussions. News companies get funding and policy benefits tied to politics all the time, so there is an inherent bias built in to the entire system as it currently stands.

Matt - Sadly I don't think that can be blamed on the interviewers so much as it can be blamed on the viewers who will change the channel as soon as the show makes them feel stupid. Many people on both sides of the line are as dogmatic about their political beliefs as their religious beliefs, and even the most blatant evidence otherwise won't budge them. News, which is essentially in the entertainment business, has to cater to this.

Mattan, that actually helps clarify that quite a bit. I was watching "The Daily Show" and Mr Stewart was interviewing Tom Brokaw when they got stuck on the same issue.

thedailyshow.com

I frequently forget that above all, almost every "News" outlet is an entertainment venture, and not a truth venture. And unfortunately you are right that truth does not seem to be selling right now. But that brings us back to the same problem, how do you get at what is factually correct? Or is the very idea that there is one set of facts that is "correct" outdated?

Looking for truth among mortals? Good luck. Every person sees the universe completely differently than everyone else. If there are 5 billion humans alive on the earth today, that means that there are exactly 5 billion different realities. People see and propagate the "truth" that suits their reality.

I wouldn't say that it is outdated so much as it is not well defined.

The popularity of cultural relativism is a great example of this. Being born into another culture truly changes the way you see the world, and therefore judging another culture's morals from ones own viewpoint isn't exactly fair. However this just reenforces the need to create an objective framework of metrics (e.g. freedom, education, gender equality, length of life, health, etc.) with which to judge things.

That objective framework may be subjectively created, but it is often easier to agree on a framework first before figuring out all the "facts". Once you have that framework, it is more difficult to say something isn't true if it disagrees with you.

Jonathan, you have revealed yourself as a jaded old man and I will reveal you as such at the next Roost.

Old man, eh? Them's fightin words. ;)

Mattan, I think your right on that. I spent several years in France and observed, anecdotally, that those with exposure to other cultures tend to be willing to accept or at least consider views that are different to or even oppose their own.

I hate to seem ignorant but I didn't follow what you said about an objective framework of metrics making it more difficult to reject truths with which you disagree. Could you explain that more?

I think that everyone should spend at least one month or more in another country. Preferably a third world country. I would say make it mandatory, but I am not into mandating such things.

750 character limit?! Lame.

I think I understand what Mattan was taking about when he mentioned frameworks and such. Basically, everyone speaks a different language. This goes along with what I was saying about 5 billion different realities. Even two people who are raised in the same home and speak the same "verbal language" will speak two different "ideological languages". In other words how you perceive the English word, "ball", is probably perceived by me as something perhaps similar but not exactly the same. Spoken languages represent mental concepts and ideas. Words are used as a medium to convey a represented meaning of those concepts.

If I say the word ball you will probably think of a round object that can be bounced. Which type of ball you think of could vary greatly.

To make a long explanation shorter, communication standards help people more closely speak the same language. Like a dictionary. If both of us understand the same definition of the word ball, we can better understand the concepts we are trying to communicate to each other.

In politics the word "peace" could be understood in so many different ways. So having a framework or set of standard definitions could certainly help people communicate better. I would say that many of the problems we have come down to misunderstood communications.

Let me provide a more specific example.

Take the abortion debate. Part of the problem with the abortion debate is that so much of it is about ideals and feelings rather than numbers and practicalities. People get upset and angry because they think liberals actually like abortions or they think conservatives value an embryo's life over a mother's, when both are irrelevant to what policies should actually be enacted.

Thus the "objective framework" for this debate should be "How many abortions?". In that context, it becomes clear that conservative policies such as abstinence only education actually lead to more abortions, and planned parenthood funding doesn't make for more abortions. The objective framework of numbers provides an answer.

This is a roundabout way of saying that we should push for more evidence-based politics to cut off the emotional debate at the knees. It really is simply emotion that is ruining American politics, yet there is such a tangible emotional quality to "being American" that it is very difficult to divorce from the process.

If we stuck to the objective framework of empirical evidence, policy as a science, then you would see just how wrong (and in some cases right) many ideas on both sides of the game are.

I can't wait until a news company has the independent funding (and balls) to truly call people out when the facts disagree with their statements. Eventually tech will be good enough to do this automatically and in real-time.

Think different and independent, or debate online in a proper forum.