Menu
Making democratic decisions is not easy. Even if we have the time, will we have enough good information?
During a referendum, organised campaigns usually form on each side of the issue. Each campaign seeks your vote. They provide facts, appeal to your emotions, and undermine the arguments of the opposing side.
Each campaign’s information is a good starting point to make a decision. When looking at the information, try to give each side a fair hearing. After all, few issues are a simple matter of one side being right and one side being wrong. Even if you disagree with one side’s stance, hearing them out in their own words lets you better understand their view.
Giving each campaign a fair hearing is only the beginning. A truly informed decision requires that we seek out information beyond the campaign messages.
Consider ways we gather information, from mainstream news to friends on social media. Every source has some bias. Sometimes the bias is strong. For example, some talk radio hosts loudly argue their point of view without giving equal air time to contrary opinions. Sometimes the bias is minimal. For example, many journalists try hard to put aside their personal beliefs and present diverse views.
No matter how much time we spend, nobody can sift through all the available information. At some point we need to weigh the arguments, then make our own decision.
Confirmation bias is when people focus on information that reinforces their existing beliefs, and ignore information that challenges these beliefs.
Because the amount of information available can be overwhelming, we occasionally use shortcuts to make decisions. Shortcuts include relying on soundbites or simplistic tweets, uncritically accepting the opinions of people we usually agree with, or even things as silly as judging physical appearances.
Shortcuts help us make a quick conclusion. But shortcuts do not challenge us to think. Rather, they provide us with a lazy opinion.
Lazy opinions can also be formed due to something called confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is when people focus on information that reinforces their existing beliefs, and ignore information that challenges these beliefs.
Social media users are especially vulnerable to confirmation bias. There can be no doubt that social media has benefitted everyone by giving greater voice to marginalised people. Unfortunately, studies show that social media users tend to congregate in like-minded groups called echo chambers. In an echo chamber, users post and promote opinions they agree with. Meanwhile, alternative views are lacking. When people step out of their echo chamber, it is often not to engage with the other side but rather to disparage them.
Echo chambers can divide us into small homogenous groups, rather than unite us as a diverse society. This is bad for democracy. Recall that in ancient Greece, all citizens assembled together in a public square to discuss, debate, and ultimately vote on issues.
By hearing each other out we have the opportunity to see things from the point of view of the people we agree with and the people we disagree with. This allows everyone the opportunity to gather diverse information, then make informed decisions. Just as importantly, it requires that we face up to the negative consequences of our beliefs. It is an opportunity to build empathy and understanding with those we disagree with, and make fair decisions that benefit all of society.
British newspaper front pages on the day of the 2016 Brexit referendum on European Union membership. Most newspapers took a stand on how people should vote.
Sometimes, we poorly gather and use information. Occasionally, we act out of narrow self-interest. Now and then, we let emotions override rationality. And often, we make honest mistakes. Little wonder that democracy is not perfect.
Fortunately, everyone is capable of making good democratic decisions. And more often than not, democracy produces the right decision. However, democracy can only work if we fully consider issues through a broad range of perspectives and make decisions with the public good in mind.
A recent American study, The Perception Gap, contends that the more partisan and politically active people are, the more they misunderstand the values of their political opponents.
Perhaps not surprisingly, people who post political content on social media tend to have the most distorted understanding of the other side. Curiously, the study also shows that the less news a person consumes, the better they will understand their opponents. Meanwhile, an “exhausted majority” of Americans simply have become frustrated with politics.
The study’s authors fear that misunderstanding and demonising political opponents is dangerous for society. The authors warn: “They start seeing each other as enemies, and start believing they need to win at all costs. They make excuses for their own side cheating and breaking the rules to beat the other side. And as our public debates become more hateful, many in the Exhausted Majority tune out altogether. This is how countries fall into a cycle of deepening polarization, and how democracies die.”
Consider these three pitfalls associated with forming opinions:
