Controversial topics and mini cults
Controversial topics have divided many families and good friends. This is especially true for people who tend to lean into a conflict rather than soften its sharp edges. I’m one of those people. Last year, a conversation about one controversial topic led to the loss of a relationship with one of my friends. This event made me think about the way I participate in these conversations.
Controversial topics include responses to global warming, opinions about Trump, and government actions toward COVID-19. The heat of such controversial topics comes from the possibility that your companion and you hold different values or that one of you accepts a different set of facts. This possibility is quite unpleasant. Even so, both parties have to try harder to keep it civil.
However, I also had a consistently positive experience of talking about controversial topics with another friend. I’ve spent many hours discussing mostly controversial topics with this friend, a nuclear physics professor. Those conversations rarely sparked any heat. Looking back, I can see that my friend used the same approach that he uses for doing his research: he was open to an opposing opinion. It has been almost a rule in our discussions to play devil’s advocate to explore a topic from different angles. Those discussions brought much new learning and many eye-opening discoveries to both of us.
Looking back, I can easily divide my discussions about controversial topics into two types: one whereby I learn something new and another whereby I’m talking to a fanatic. In a learning discussion, both parties freely go through thought experiments and are open to discoveries. A discussion with a fanatic is not really a discussion. It’s listening to person who serves a mini cult or micro-religion. I sense that in such cases learning is hard because hard questions and counter arguments are not welcomed. A good litmus test for a discussion is whether both parties can genuinely entertain an opposite point of view without too much pain.
This pain is real, and the urge to avoid such pain is the main reason for remaining a fanatic. Since such people are attached to only one side of the argument, they can’t accept a broader view. In the meantime, the broader view can sometimes even bring stronger arguments to their side. However, doing so requires looking at the topic from different perspectives, including from the opposite side, which requires an inner strength to endure the pain of possibly being wrong. More often, fanatics seek a pain killer, which is silencing an opponent or changing the topic. My takeaway about discussions with fanatics is that trying to present solid counter-arguments rarely changes their perspective because they are not ready to embrace the pain.
I came to the conclusion that the best way to learn from conversations with fanatics is to declare that I either don’t know much about the topic or have no opinion. Then I invite the companion to explain the topic as though I were five years old and ask multiple why questions to dig deeper. This approach does not bring any heat to the conversation because there are no opposing views. If I choose to disagree with a particular point or doubt a fact, then I highlight again that I hold no opinion on this question. I must highlight that often I’m on the same side of the argument as my fanatical companion.
There is one more thing related to this topic. Mini cults can turn into global movements, which have become more visible since social media happened. Discussing controversial topics in a public space can have a significant impact on one’s life. A few people know how to use those global movements to gain publicity. However, a more common approach is to follow the cult as a form of social signalling to gain social approval or self-significance. On the contrary, people who don’t support a growing movement and point out the cracks can get crashed by its followers and even rejected by their inner circle. Currently I can see the following global movements: pro-global warming, pro-BLM, anti-Trump, anti-Putin, pro-Putin, and pro-gender equality. One gets a pat on the back for saying something trendy and risks losing their social circle by daring to question any of the sacred beliefs. I believe that staying open-minded is more important than rushing to pick the right side of history.
