Uncomfortable Ideas. Bo Bennett PhD

males²—this is a common stereotype. We can blame this on racism and try to get people to drop this stereotype, but that is difficult to do when the stereotype is supported by the data.³ What we need to do is look at why blacks are more likely to commit a violent crime (or at least found guilty of it—yes, there is no question that due to prejudice, blacks are more likely to be found guilty⁴). Once we solve the problem, it will be reflected in the data, and the stereotype will become an unjustified one that will weaken over time and likely disappear. Unless the underlying causes are addressed, there is little chance the symptoms (stereotypes) will go away.

      Uncomfortable Idea: Stereotypes are sometimes supported by the data and reflections of reality.

      Understanding Unintended Consequences

      When we get caught up in ideology and political correctness, we overlook the downside of our actions. Yes, there are downsides to just about every action even if one pretends there are not. I spoke at a conference for skeptics recently that adopted a “color communication badge” policy originally created for those on the autism spectrum. In short, conference attendees had the option of placing a sticker on their badge that indicated the level of social interaction they wanted. For example, according to the posted policy:

      Showing a red square sticker means that the person probably does not want to talk to anyone, or only wants to talk to a few people. The person might approach others to talk, and that is okay; the approached people are welcome to talk back to them in that case. But unless you have been told already by the badge-wearer that you are on their “blue list,” you should not approach them to talk.

      The reason for implementing this kind of policy at a convention where the percentage of those on the autism spectrum is unlikely to be much different from the general population, is stated in the same policy:

      Color communication badges also help all people, abled or disabled, to more easily and effectively let people know whether they want to be approached for conversations or not. This can create a positive impact on the social atmosphere where communication badges are being used.

      While this policy sounds great for those on the autism spectrum, there is a significant downside for those not on the spectrum that, from a social psychological perspective, I would argue is more damaging than helpful. Social interaction is not easy for everyone, but “difficult” has never been a good reason not to do something or persist at improving. Communication is like a muscle; if we don’t use it, we lose it. We might try to read people and get it completely wrong, but this is how we learn. We might have a difficult time communicating to others in a non-awkward way that we don’t want to be talking to them, but with each interaction, we get better at it—unless we avoid all potentially uncomfortable interactions through “communication badges.”

      Electric mobility scooters make it easier and more effective for able-bodied people to shop in the mall, but most of us can agree this is not a good idea if we care about maintaining our ability to get around unassisted (think of the Disney movie Wall-E). Likewise, unless the entire world agrees to implement communication badges, we will lose our ability to easily and effectively interact with others who don’t use this badge system. Refusing to implement an “accessibility” policy for any reason is generally not an idea that’s very popular. Defenders of such policies think they have the moral high ground by protecting the disabled, but don’t realize that they are also creating the disabled.

      Uncomfortable Idea: In our efforts to be accommodating we can do more harm than good to those we are trying to help. There is a fine line between accommodation and coddling that we often cross when attempting to be politically correct.

      Another example of the unintended consequences of avoiding uncomfortable ideas has to do with identity politics, or a political style that focuses on the issues relevant to various groups defined by a wide variety of shared personal characteristics. Some of the more common characteristics include race, religion, sex, gender, ethnicity, ideology, nationality, sexual orientation, gender expression, culture, shared history, and medical conditions. We celebrate marginalized groups that focus on promoting equality for their group, but we don’t like the idea that this kind of deliberate self-classification based on superficial traits could have some significant unintended consequences.

      •Focusing on the needs of a single group, requires that less attention be given to all the other groups. This leads to the other groups feeling even more marginalized, ignored, and even threatened, which can result in a backfire effect leading to animosity toward the group demanding the attention.

      •While it may feel cathartic to commiserate with a group of people just like you while demonizing those who are not like you, focusing on our whiteness, blackness, maleness, femaleness, gayness, straightness, or any other “ness” robs people of their individualism and is the polar opposite of the proven strategies that have been used to reduce prejudice and bring groups together. These proven strategies include focusing on similarities and common objectives.

      •There are literally thousands of marginalized groups, most of which lack the numbers, finances, social support, and organization to get the attention of the masses. By focusing on basic human rights, equality, dignity, and fair treatment, we can address the needs of virtually all the marginalized groups, not just the loudest or the most disruptive.

      Identity politics may help specific groups accomplish certain goals, but not without costs.

      Uncomfortable Idea: Identity politics is a dangerous game where the unintended consequences could be even greater prejudice against the group.

      Understanding Reduces Animosity

      Depending on how passionate one might be about certain issues, one can dislike or even hate people who hold opposite views on those issues. If we want to understand why someone holds the idea they do, we need to entertain the idea. What we often realize is that biological differences, different life experiences, or different values account for these different ideas. In the case of biological difference, the fairly new area of neuroscience shows us that biological differences in the brain affect how we process and understand information including political and religious beliefs. Different life experiences may include the indoctrination we received as a child, education or lack thereof, or some strong emotional experience that had a great impact on how we see the world. Even though we all may claim that we value the same things, how we define those things and to what degree we value each thing varies greatly. For example, two people both might value justice and compassion, but one might support the death penalty because to them, death is a just punishment for murder and justice is more important to them than compassion. Or perhaps, one might claim that they value compassion more, but it is through their sense of compassion for the loved ones of the victim that they support the death penalty. Once we understand why people hold the ideas they do, we are far less likely to hate them for it.

      Uncomfortable Idea: Opposite views can often be reduced to prioritizing different values, where there is no wrong or right.