First of all, I want you to think about three questions.
- Do you consider yourself a liberal or a conservative?
- Do you think it is hard to talk to your counterparts as people have already seen others as enemies?
- Do you believe that you are in the dominant group and your counterpart is the minority?
Social psychologist Dannagal G. Young explained in a talk why people with certain personalities fall into two major categories, liberal and conservatives. She examined how the differences between us are being exploited by politicians and media to serve their own interests by using the algorithm in social media and internet to manipulate the flow of information, divide people and spread hatred and fear.
There is no right or wrong of you or others being a liberal or a conservative. The society needs all of us to sustain and develop. There will be no new cure for deadly diseases if there is no liberal. In contrary, the security and safety of us could not be protected if there is no conservative.
Common personalities of liberals and conservatives:
1. Liberal
People who prioritise openness and flexibility tend to be more liberal (left-wing).
They think the world is safe and they enjoy to explore the unknown. They feel comfortable about uncertainty as they are less concerned with threats. They are okay with nuance, tolerant with ambiguity, tend to be more culturally and socially liberal on issues like sexuality and immigration.
Liberals enjoy thinking for the sake of thinking. They are more likely to appreciate abstract art than conservatives, or even stories without clear endings. It is also easier for them to appreciate ironic and political satire.
2. Conservative
People who prefer order and certainty tend to be conservatives (right-wing).
They think the world is not safe and they are very aware of threats. Conservatives prefer things that are predictable and manageable to things that are experimental and uncertain. They are very alert and they make quick and efficient decisions. They uphold tradition and loyalty.
Conservatives tend to enjoy political debate programs that clearly identifies threats and enemies than liberals.
This explains why people with different personalities have distinct preferences about politics, the left and the right.
However, it is very rare to have people who are totally left or right. We put ourselves in a political spectrum. Most of the time our position is not fixed and we tend to move leftward or rightward toward different incident according to our own learnt experience or culture such as family issues or the nature of the career we choose.
Dr Young suggested that the two approaches shape how we think and feel about everything including politics.
She used the distinct personalities between her late husband, Mike who died because of a brain tumour and her current husband, PJ to explain how our personal traits determine how we engage with the world.
Mike was an artist and he was opened to ambiguity, he was comfortable about not knowing what is going to happen. His attitude to approach life supported Dr Young to walk through the whole journey with him and even helped her to rebuild her life after he died.
In contrast,
PJ is a criminal persecutor. He sees the world is potentially safe if threats are properly managed. He embraces order and predictability in his daily life such as the clothes he wears and the food he eats. Meanwhile, he is morally serious with a strong sense of duty. He values tradition, family and loyalty.
‘His needs for certainty and closure have brought stability to the whole family.’
Both of the two approaches, liberal and conservative, make all of our lives possible.
What is important is that these tendencies are not absolute or fixed.
There are liberals who monitor threats and conservatives who are tolerant of ambiguity. The link between psychology and politics is contingent on context who we are with and what is going on around us.
Unfortunately, social media and politicians exploit our differences. Social media platforms use algorithm and microtargeting to convey divisive messages in our own preferred aesthetic approaches.
To get our attention
To get hit rates
To get us angry
To divide us
They need the differences between us
To be absolute
To be reinforced
To be weaponised
for them to gain power, profit to serve their own interests
Some media and politicians want us to believe that people who approach the world differently from us, like Mike and PJ, themselves are dangerous, or hoping other’s opinions to be suppressed or even eliminated. In the US, people with different approaches fight against each other saying that the opposite side is destroying the country. They believe that they are the dominant as people live in echo chambers with like-minded people. The echo is amplifying day by day and it is too loud for them to listen to others. Everyone believes that they hold truths and see others as fools. They may not even have a chance to see an opinion post from their counterparts thanks to the algorithm.
This is not about winning others, it is all about communication.
Can our society progress if people refuse to communicate and see others as enemies?
Will the world be a better place if it is being turned into a war zone?
What can we do to decelerate the dividing of human?
The real threat is not posed by people who approach lives which are different from you.
They are liberals, who are essential to innovation, creativity and help us to cope with uncertainty such as researching cures for diseases, new technology or art which help us to create a better world
They are conservatives, who prioritise security and tradition give us motivations to act for our own protection and stability such as safety offered by the defence force and security of banking systems.
The real threat is posed by politicians and media elites, who try to manipulate us and get us to think we would be better off without the other side so that they can take advantages from it.
Instead of seeing another side as our enemy, Dr Young suggested that we have to create a new context which people could connect with others and appreciate different approaches as what they are to stop the world from falling apart. It is a way to help us thrive and survive together.
It is our choice to see others’ opinions as necessary and valuable.
Diversifying the source of information is crucial. We have to be conscious of how we should approach social media. We need to understand how algorithms shape the content or information we consume every day and to be aware of the fact that we are being fed by selected information rather than exploring new information proactively by ourselves.
Here I have a question for you before you leave.
- It seems unreasonable and difficult for democratic governments to intervene in social media platforms and algorithm unless the content is criminal. If we rely on people’s self-realisation of the possible threats from social media, would it be enough to change the current phenomenon, polarisation?
==== Follow Yuki Yuen: ====
Medium: https://medium.com/@yuki_yuen
IG: http://www.instagram.com/puikwanyuen
FB: http://www.facebook.com/yuenpuikwan
