The Reason Challenge
How an MMA Approach to Political and Social Issues Can Change the World
The key difference between a fantasy-based system and a reality-based system is its willingness to change and adapt, and its ability to pit itself against the resistance of the real world. This is where science — as well as mixed martial arts and Jujitsu — excel, and where American politics and ideology fail. This contrast is as stark as it is revealing — revealing of why the former areas function so well, and the latter so poorly.
Exploring this further might actually be the key to fundamentally changing our stagnant, inflexible and broken system of ideological conversation in our country.
I want to issue a challenge, to every ideologue across America’s political playing field:
“Show me something that Left or Right Ideology gets right, that can’t also be articulated through science, reason and compassion.”
When it comes to social issues like justice, inequality, guns, drug wars, and gender and race relations, ideological thinking and dogma within politics has long attempted a monopoly on public conversation. Ideology on the Left and the Right has claimed itself the placeholder of our more vocal discourse, increasingly asserting its platform beliefs and dogmas as truth and tradition beyond question: to be on the correct side of an issue, you must subscribe to our belief system.
The ‘Gracie Challenge’ (and the wider impact of the Gracie and Machado families in developing and advancing BJJ) was essentially about inviting various styles and practitioners to test the effectiveness of their system and skills, against the effectiveness of Jujitsu. This gave the world a living laboratory of sorts, in which a far more reality-based approach to martial arts could be established.
What I am proposing is a “Reason Challenge” — paying tribute to the spirit behind the Gracie Challenge as seen during the early days of modern MMA— as a way to test the idea that Left or Right ideology or political dogma is really the best or only way to understand social problems, or to arrive at answers to them. Let’s test this idea. Let’s see how often people can demonstrate that their system of political ideology is really a prerequisite to tackling these issues. Do we need platform ideology, radical politics or any form of dogma to meaningfully discuss issues of inequality, justice, and oppression? Or can skepticism and compassion achieve this without the need for partisan or radical ideology? MMA created a laboratory that showed that traditional beliefs within martial arts weren't necessarily the best way to arrive at answers, nor a prerequisite for achieving what sound technique could accomplish. Likewise, we need a Reason Challenge to expose the traditions and dogmas of the Left and the Right to the open laboratory of science, skepticism and reason.
What would this sound like when offering this challenge to others?
Essentially, anything that your ideology or dogma may get right about the world — be it in the domain of inequality, race and gender, gun, prison or drug policy, or other things — can also be articulated without the need for ideology or dogma to begin with.
Precision of language is important here, so people don’t misunderstand the idea behind this. Science, and scientific thinking, is a concept that still eludes most people, and this is something we should work together across political fault lines to change. By ‘science’, I am referring to a process, a repeatable and reliable way of examining ideas. It is also a style of thinking (scientific thinking), in which we seek evidence and remain open to changing our minds. This is where the term ‘skepticism’ is used, and the two are inseparable. They form a reality-based way of seeing the world.
If we see problems within our police system, for example, the best set of tools in existence to tackle this problem — to understand it, to research it, to give a voice to those suffering from it, and to arrive at solutions-can be found in scientific thinking and in various nonpartisan models of outreach, listening and compassion.
Specifically, I am talking about a combination of (1) empirical, evidence-based thinking and skepticism (which is an attitude of openness to evidence and a willingness to follow it, and change one’s mind if necessary), and (2) various models of human compassion and generous listening. One does not need partisan political ideology for either of these. Nor does one need partisan ideology or dogma to be a good person or fight for justice.
Often, the truth about an issue will indeed overlap with many aspects of an ideology. Sometimes your ideology will likely get things right — as will rival ideologies you don’t like. For example, far more conservatives need to admit that there are indeed many aspects of Critical Race Theory that are very real, and do accurately describe society; far more liberals and Leftists need to admit that there are actually some aspects of free market ideology articulated by conservatives that are well evidenced and map onto reality. The problem comes when some conservatives put their free market ideology before evidence and facts. It comes when some Leftists refuse to change their mind on any major platitude of Critical Race Theory, even if evidence to the contrary were to present itself. In both cases, people are putting confirmation bias before truth. It is a barrier to a reality-based way of seeing the world around us. It barricades us from understanding and solving problems.
As stated in the beginning of this article, the most important difference between a fantasy based system and a reality-based system is its willingness to change and adapt. Essentially, its ability to pit itself against the resistance of the real world. In the domain of mixed partial arts, jujitsu has long established itself as perhaps the most reality-based system of unarmed combat, for precisely these reasons. Politics and ideology should be looked at in essentially the same way. Skepticism, like Jujitsu, is not grounded in any dogma nor beholden to the constraints of any tradition; it refines itself over time based on an ongoing adaptation to reality. It constantly tests itself against reality, and from this emerges knowledge that has been tested, sometimes countless times.
A worldview should be amenable to evidence and argument, not a buffer against it. The skeptical way of thinking and the ideological way of thinking are two fundamentally different ways to arrive at answers to complex problems, and they are not on even footing; skepticism is inherently better at navigating the human and social terrain of our realities. If Starbucks wants to conduct the most effective Bias training it can, and understand the problem of diversity, bias and discrimination accurately, then ideology is the worst thing it can employ in its set of possible tools. Skepticism — combined with a basic measure of empathy-based personal outreach and a desire to listen to those it seeks to help — is a far superior tool for achieving these goals. This is because it constantly tries to map onto reality, rather than vigorously uphold itself as a set of sectarian beliefs. By its very definition, is not held back by tradition, dogma or an unbendable ideology platform. It doesn't resist effective change or shun new knowledge.
With that, I want to frame this in the same context that we saw during the early years of the Gracie Challenge, during the ascent of MMA in popular culture.
In effect, the Gracie Challenge was a living laboratory to test and discover which styles and techniques were most effective, and to truly examine what works in a fight between two skilled opponents. From this experiment emerged some clear patters, which helped refine how people saw the reality of martial combat. It was no longer mere theory and tradition, nor speculation and belief, but evidence-based understanding.
As I wrote about in the preceding chapter, it was Bruce Lee who very arguably solidified this concept in public discourse and popular culture, giving the world a new paradigm, and a new challenge: a reality-based refinement of how things really work — and how people should adapt — in the domain of unarmed confrontation. Also, as stated previously (and constantly throughout this book), people don’t like change. At least not when ideology or tribal forms of identity or group-based politics or beliefs come into play. They often have a visceral reaction to the idea of having to adapt and refine, and to evolve. Many respond with hostility to those who challenge their echo chambers or openly question their “sacred traditions”.
I used the analogy of Reagan Conservatism or supply-side economics for the Right, and Saul Alinski strategy, Herbert Marcuse’s New Left ideas, or modern offshoots of Critical Theory in the domain of race relations, for the Left. Conversely, many of Bruce Lee’s critics and enemies had the same change-resisting mindset with their Traditional Martial Arts. Change had to come when Bruce Lee set up a living experiment that transcended these platitudes of ‘sacredness’, directly challenged dogmatic thinking. Doing so forced a real examination of whats real and whats not — or, in many cases, of what works best. This leads me to my next question:
Can we achieve this within American politics?
A more specific question may be in order:
Can ‘freethinking’ become a revolution within American politics, breaking down the walls of our dogmas and our polarized conversation? Can scientific thinking, reason, freethought and skepticism become galvanizing points of convergence for people across the country?
Let me briefly unpack the term ‘science’, so as to minimize confusion. There is often a blurry zone of misunderstanding and cross talk around the term ‘science’, especially when applied to social issues or politics. I offer a section of a previous proposal and article I authored awhile back, titled A Roadmap for Campuses: A Partnership between Skepticism and Social Activism,
“What do I mean by this, specifically? ‘Science’, and what people often mean by its application to problem solving, is widely misunderstood. Perhaps the umbrella term Scientia (Latin for ‘knowledge’) — which encompasses logic, reason, and observation — is a more inclusive term. It describes a process, a way of looking at the world, and a reality-based way of thinking — one which is not driven by emotional comfort, political orthodoxy, party platforms, talking points, social upbringing, dogma or ideology. It is a better way of arriving at answers, including answers to many of our most polarizing, emotional, and contested political issues. Advocating ‘scientific thinking’ in these areas is not about us all agreeing on the right answers — it is about better ways to have conversations and seek those answers.”
Examining the conflicts and collisions between scientific, skeptical thinking and ideological thinking is perhaps the best place to start, if we are to convince more people that a problem truly exists.
Let’s examine, for example, some of the core features of science and scientific thinking. It involves a
(1) desire to be proven wrong;
(2) willingness to seek truth over dogma;
(3) willing exposure to a plurality of viewpoints;
(4) willingness to embrace dissent and peer review;
(5) ability to detach one’s ideas and theories from ones identity
The underlying spirit behind our current political dogmas — on both sides — is not only at odds with every one of these things — it is often diametrically and militantly opposed to them. However, the traits above are the very things that gave us much of the progress we have seen over the last several hundred years of human history. They helped propelled us from the Dark Ages into Apollo capsules and nanotechnology incubators. They can help us revive our spirit of curiosity and humility we once had for venturing into space, and direct this into how we engage our political and social issues. Such things are traditionally relegated to the loud voices of competing ideologues, of political sound bites, of voting base dogmatism, and partisan extremists. We have to challenge this, at every level. At every genuine and productive opportunity. We have to disrupt the status quo with new way of thinking.
How Jujitsu and Skepticism can become natural allies against delusion
Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (BJJ) traces its origins back through the Gracie family to their original teacher, Mitsuyo Maeda (Conde Coma), who took the teachings of Jigoro Kano, the founder of Judo. Kano was a highly educated man — in fact, he is considered the founder of the modern Japanese educational system. Being an older man with some physical hardships, he focused on maximal efficiency and minimal effort, seeking to economize how the human body can react and counter an opponent using sound technique and the skilled application of body mechanics. It was essentially the early stages of a living laboratory that would eventually become what is now Brazilian Jujitsu. As techniques and practices were refined against resisting opponents, the most effective ground fighting system in existence came about, carried on to the next level by the founding members of the Gracie lineage — Helio Gracie and Carlos Gracie.
This knowledge was passed along through the Gracie family, as well as the famed Machado family, and helped establish Brazilian Jujitsu early on during the advent of modern mixed martial arts. This included the Gracie Challenge in the early days of the UFC, and was a public way to demonstrate Jujitsu’s effectiveness against resisting opponents from other styles. In the end, it helped remove the blindfold from millions of people, and continues to open the eyes of new practitioners around the world every day. This is because, in the end, reality-based thinking and systems of practice trump dogma, when given the playing field to do so.
Unfortunately, political dogma within American politics keeps us blinded: It closes our minds and shuts off our curiosity, short circuits our desire to learn, to improve, and ultimately to grow. Like the rigidity within many early forms of traditional martial arts during the days of Bruce Lee, or of the pioneers of Brazilian Jujitsu soon after, it acts to deter a reality-based way of learning, and adapting.
Many arguments and ‘talking points’ across the political spectrum are not organized around a desire to seek what’s real, but to remain in comforting delusion. They are often not driven by any genuine exploration of complex issues — be it police reform, gun violence, poverty, inequality, Islam, terror, radicalization, bigotry, and racism — and certainly not around understanding the nuanced realities surrounding these issues. Rather, they are often organized around strengthening pre-exiting beliefs, and confirming a bias found in one’s desire to keep believing a certain way. Contrary to curiosity or reality-based, analytical thinking, they engage in defending the partisan ‘in-group’, and scoring points against the ‘other side’. Such contests of black-and-white thinking have serious social consequences: they undercut our very ability or even our willingness to engage in honest and informed conversations. By proxy, this means we are less likely to arrive at answers.
One of the beautiful things about an art like Jujutsu is that it can be practiced without the constraints of one’s economic or social standing — these things become meaningless on the mat. One’s money, celebrity status or social profile does nothing to assist them in the dynamic process of grappling with a Jujitsu opponent, nor does one’s race, skin color, or social or economic standing restrain a practitioner from throwing or submitting a less skilled opponent. The art has a beautiful way of leveling these things out in those key moments, literally within seconds of engaging in its reality-based concepts. Concepts of how one gains or loses ground against a resisting opponent, based on unchanging principles of leverage and body position— something which no amount of self-deception or social standing can cheat its way out of. Much like science and skepticism, it can also be embraced by anyone, from any background or walk of life.
Scientific thinking is also based on consistent principles, and is the most reliable, repeatable and reality-based way of looking at the world that we know of. It is essentially the best bullshit detector ever known to humankind. As freethinkers, skeptics, and lovers of science and reason (as with practitioners of Jujitsu), we come from all walks of life. We are not bound by race, nor by income. Nor by political leanings- in fact, we reside across the political spectrum. This transcends the Left-Right divide. And this is where The Reason Challenge can be born.
Let’s look at a few examples, in my next article. This will be an ongoing project.
The Reason Challenge, summarized
— — — — — — — — — — — — -
I would like more advocates of science and skepticism to join me, and help issue a challenge: Let people put their ideology or their political dogma up against a healthy combination of scientific thinking, reason, skepticism and basic compassion, and show me which approach better serves a given issue. Which approach best serves human wellbeing. Which approach is a better framework for understanding the world around us, analyzing its problems, and arriving at answers to how we address them?
Let’s discuss a given issue through the lens of rigid, radical or dogmatic ideology. Alongside this, let’s discuss it without these things, using instead science, skepticism and compassion as the main guide-rails.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Let’s take a number of issues, alongside an example of science and compassion being able to address each one, without the need for rigid ideology or dogma.
Inequality
Poverty
Policing in America
Oppression and Injustice
Reforming the Drug War
Justice System reform
Race and Gender issues
Discrimination and Bias
Gun policy
Drug Policy
Political corruption and finance reform
A Path Forward
One day, we will hopefully realize that the real fault line — the defining schism — should be between ‘reasoned compassion’ and the things that are harmful and antithetical to it.
Arguably, this struggle can be said to take place along two deeply important axes:
(1) Between Reason & Science versus Dogmatism, Emotional Tribalism & Ideology,
And,
(2) Between Human Dignity and the suppression of it, regardless of tribe or ideology
Let us dream once again, as a country. Let’s aim well beyond the rigid and tired confines of our political dogmas and our tribal traditions. let’s evolve. let’s grow, and let’s strive to be better than we presently are. We can take political discourse to the next level. It is stuck in a rigid system of inflexible, stifled forms and monotonous talking points, often though the filter of delusional idea bubbles. It is not willing to adapt to the real world, and this has to change. Let us build an unprecedented bridge between freethinking and American politics, in ways we never imagined doing, and set sail for undiscovered horizons.
Additional Link:
