The Way of the Social Science Warrior: A New Paradigm for Conversation
Part 1. Responsibly discussing ‘PC Culture’, and finding solace amidst our toxic divide
Below, the “PC” 2x2 Table, part of the Venn Diagram Drinking Game.
My name is John Kirbow. I use the term social science warrior with a sense of humor and light self-depreciation. My background with both the Army and the Defense Department involved a heavy and wide use of multiple language skills, cultural understanding, and the practical application of social science and human psychology across countries, from the Embassy to the local village or mountainside. It is my firm belief that such ‘tribal engagement’ with the human terrain can help us here at home, from re-building our communities and reforming our police system, to helping disaffected and marginalized college students find ways to have humanizing and insightful conversations.
I often open with an analog to why political conversation is so broken. As I write in The Reason Challenge (a nod to the Grace Challenge which helped bring a reality-based approach of BJJ into martial arts during the 90s),
“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.”
Cooperative ‘grappling’ with others we disagree with should be done with a view to self-improvement, as well as both people walking away with better understanding than they did before. This may not be possible when dealing with some, but works beautifully with others.
With this said, I want to introduce what I call The Venn Diagram Drinking Game. It may well be a gateway to bridging one of the most harmful — and persistently annoying — divides that we face when trying to bridge even the most basic gaps on the “PC” debate. Michael Eric Dyson and Jordan Peterson would have done well to employ this during their recent debate. Both men are considerably intelligent and well-spoken individuals, well-accustomed to public discourse. Yet their discussion on political correctness seemed to hit a wall various times in the debate. Granted, it was a debate, which is combative by nature. However, the lack of seeing much public progress made at all across the divide on this topic raises a larger question: What are the rest of us to do? Must we have a PhD or years of education to hope to make progress on this topic? Do we need miraculous intervention from the ghost of Socrates? Or is there perhaps a set of tools we can use, through the science of emotionally effective communication? That, and the addition of a little creativity, in a way that brings the discussion down to earth.
As Dr. Peter Boghossian has explained in his research and field work on ‘street epistemology’, people tend to change their mind only from a position of safety. When we create the right conditions, the seemingly impossible often becomes possible, without the need for a miracle. Human psychology can give us the secrets to bypass the lower parts of our tribal brains when sensitive topics arise. But a paradigm shift in how we talk about social justice and political correctness is desperately needed.
The current model is one of conflict and zero-sum thinking. It leads even decent and reasonable people to talk past one another in a game of tug-of-war, where seeing and acknowledging one another’s concerns and nuances takes a back seat to ‘scoring points’ or echoing ideological narratives or repetitious talking points. For example, I have seen people literally argue for hours around a simple misunderstanding: one person rightly attacks the excesses of PC culture, while the other rightly defends the need to be respectful and responsive to the dignity of vulnerable human beings. One is saying, “don’t hold back needed conversation because of dogma, ideology or sensitivity!”, while the other is saying “do you not see that hateful people exist?! Why be needlessly cruel to others?”
They are talking past one another, when one sentence could deflate the entire misunderstanding. In short, we need to learn to distinguish legitimate criticism of PC culture, vs merely being a jerk. This may seem overly obvious, but — in the echo chambers of social media or the heat of real-time conversation — it often is not. Encouragingly, there are ways around this. Even on occasions when the discussion is quite complex.
Before I get to this drinking game, we need to identify the problem that countless people are facing.
Why the conversation on ‘PC culture’ and ‘social justice’ is deeply broken
The current paradigm of ‘Left vs Right’ discourse is to avoid changing our minds and viscerally shun the very idea of being wrong. This keeps us in an intellectually vegetative state of conversational paralysis, as well as moral judgementality and smug self-assurance. We look at things through the lens of simplicity, of all-or-none thinking, black and white. Rarely do we distinguish between where people we oppose may be wrong on something, but in other aspects of the issue, be right.
This tendency to see things in an all-or-none way (Binary Fallacy aka False Dichotomy), and have a visceral reaction to nuance, is an evolutionary feature of our primal hardwiring. It is often easier for the brain to split the world into a binary opposition of simple “good and bad”, “I’m right, you’re wrong”, than to entertain the nuance needed on sensitive, emotional topics. We have to learn how to recognize and adapt to this. A large portion of the secular community — which has long championed itself as the standard bearer for being reasonable — has been particularly harmed by this feature of our moral psychology.
As I’ve seen countless times in various parts of the atheist community in particular, the conversation (often among reasonable, well-educated people) on the topic of social justice has become nothing short of a dumpster fire. It is as if the parts of the brain that espouse reason, evidence and skepticism are instantly walled off and compartmentalized by visceral emotion and hypnotic ideology, the very second the term ‘social justice’ is brought up. When this occurs, both ends of the discussion often harken back to the very styles of closed thinking they have long mocked religious believers for. It has caused countless people who oppose Trump to lose hope for their very ability to be reasonable even amongst themselves, or to bridge the most basic divides. Much less to set the example for how to reach mainstream America or change our political landscape.
Many thousands of Americans — from the campus to the workplace to the kitchen table — face the same problem. At all levels of education and political exposure.
What if we could take a step back and see a better way? What if we actually had a refreshing opportunity, right in front of us, to find solace somewhere amidst all the noise and visceral polarity of our downhill discourse? To make meaningful connections with others on a different side of the conversation. In this process, perhaps we could — alongside further opening our own minds — actually help them see the blind spots and shortfalls that we’ve so long wanted them to see. What if we could genuinely create the breathing space to more effectively unpack these issues, and even connect with one another in the process?
Creating a breathing space for reason and compassion
In meaningfully connecting with one another beyond the moral matrix of our political camp, we also expand our own horizons, as well as those of whom we disagree with. This is a win for everyone. Imagine if thousands more of us could open our own minds and the minds of others, and find the breathing room to work together to truly confront extremism, hate, dogma and bad ideas. Not only against an opposing side, but within our own larger camp or movement as well. Moving from rigid ideology and closed narratives to an attitude of skepticism and independent thinking, we find the freedom to change our minds, reason honestly, and abandon an obligation to a collective hive. For thousands of people across the internet and the emerging ‘Intellectual Dark Web’, this is like a breath of fresh air, moving into the hills and open fields, away from the narrow halls of ideological conformity.
One reason this space for nuance is so important is that it allows people to stop and take a step back. To look at what may have been obvious, but was hard to see in all the haze and battle smoke of our toxic discourse. Sometimes, we talk at cross points on things we would actually agree on. Seeing this can be a matter of common sense rather than high-level conversation. Often, no grandiose concepts or higher level discussion is needed; its a matter of making common sense accessible, by taking a step back. Here is a common example I deal with quite a bit. On the subject of criticizing Islam, two people will talk past one another, because they are coming from two totally different vantage points:
“We should be able to criticize certain aspects of Islam without being automatically branded a bigot, or reflexively accused of Islamophobia by critics. No idea should be off limits or immune from reasoned criticism”
This needs to be clearly distinguished from the following,
“Some criticism of Islam from certain people is in fact bigoted, when based on stereotypes and used to slander Muslims as people”
Both are reasonable statements. Both are things we should be on board with. When we live in an all-or-none universe of absolutes and binary thinking, confusion blurs the obvious. Yet even the slightest amount of nuance and common sense can responsibly parse this out for the average person. They key is to create the space for taking a step back and simply showing it to the other person. Sometimes, eloquent wording is not needed — rather, being calm and sociable with the other person, and explaining it in simple and clear terms, goes a surprisingly long way. Granted, this is much harder to do when you’re on a national talk show sitting across from Ben Affleck, or dealing with any person of angry composure. If you’re dealing with some of the protesters at Evergreen, you may have more luck talking to a tree. But in many situations, I have found people quite willing to see the distinction above, when calmly presented with such. It’s obviously quite situation-dependent.
To be honest, there are time’s I’ve walked away in utter shock after making an honest effort at good-faith discussion, unsure how to even process who or what I just dealt with. One of my most unpleasant encounters was on a NYC campus dealing with a pair of students who made just about every cliche attack on me imaginable in spite of my best efforts at patience and clear communication; by the end of it I headed to the nearest bar for a few Jameson beverages and stared at the wall for an hour as I decompressed and let sane reality slowly sink back in. So, please don’t get discouraged. Such things happen. In the end, there are far more people willing to be reasonable about this than there are toxic trolls and rabid ideologues. On both sides of the debate. I sincerely encourage people to see this, and not lose hope.
(Also, for the record, I think Harris did an excellent job under the circumstances of his exchange with Affleck on Real Time. His arguments effectively revealed to many — including Dave Rubin at the time — where the disconnect lies. I honestly don’t know how his wording could have been more clear and effective. It convinced many; others who watched that incident remained in their foxholes, as hard as that is for me to grasp. Such is the reality of our conversations — we cannot reach everyone. But we can often reach many).
For effective communication on these issues, civility must go both ways
I was having a rather in-depth dialogue with a Leftist friend about a week or so ago, and he raised the point that many self-described centrists and classical liberals often rail against ‘PC Culture’ and accuse the Left of lacking nuance and civility, but don’t always show this in return. While it is important for more on the Left to actually listen to what critics of PC Culture are saying, it’s also important for these critics to listen, and pay attention to why so many ‘SJWs’ feel its so important to be concerned about hurtful language or the consequences of a certain way of othering minorities. And he was right. Many critics of the Left do in fact come across as needlessly insensitive towards legitimate concerns of people whose inner lives and experiences they cannot relate to, and this tends to drown out any sensible point they may have. Effective communication crashes and burns like one of Donald Trump’s businesses ventures. And no one walks away smarter or more open-minded as a result.
In our discussion, I eagerly acknowledged his point, as in fact I’ve long agreed with it. Proactively recognizing this early on in a conversation helps set the stage for establishing basic trust and understanding, and shows you both to be more reasonable than either of you may have previously assumed.
Indeed, the burden of moving forward on topics like this falls on both ends of the conversation. Mature, intellectually serious people of good faith and honesty — Centrists and Leftists alike — need to work towards this, together. Civility goes both ways, as does nuance. Both of these things get lost in the toxic, often robotic cross-talk between the excesses of debate.
The Venn Diagram Drinking Game
I want to talk about a drinking game I came up with, called the Venn Diagram Drinking Game. It is something that you and your friends can do at the local pub. Or at home — perhaps your place, or a friends house. Maybe even the living room of someone on the other side of the ‘PC’ debate that welcomes this kind of nuanced discussion, and is willing to host you over for a sit-down. Or perhaps you invite them. Here’s how this would work. Jonathan Haidt talks about ‘dinner table conversation’ through a better understanding of moral psychology. The Open Mind Library — part of the Open Mind Platform from his website -encourages us to ‘explore the irrational mind’ — that is, to “learn a little bit of psychology to see the tricks the mind plays on us, making us all prone to be self-righteous, overconfident”.
This can also help us recognize, even in real time, why we are so quick and eager to demonize “the other side”, even before taking the time to hear out where they may be coming from. There are things like this that can help us prepare for constructive disagreement — to “learn practical skills to turn the most difficult disagreements into productive conversations.” Acknowledging, early on in the conversation, something you actually agree with on their side of things, can create the space for them to reciprocate and start listening to you. Showing a willingness to see others as decent people who may be coming from a different vantage point than you think they are can also help a great deal. These tools can go a surprisingly (and pleasantly) long way.
Jonathan Haidt’s Heterodox Academy project has catalogued many such ideas, backed by research and insight into human cooperation and dialogue -and why it fails, and why it can succeed.
With this primer in moral psychology, generous listening and effective conversation, let’s discuss some specifics of this ‘Venn Diagram Drinking Game’. Coffee or tea can suffice for the under-age college students (at least for the ones who actually follow America’s archaic drinking age laws. For those who don’t, be careful when chugging beer out of a keg; please don’t do it upside down). Also, for course, coffee or tea can work for anyone who does not drink — or if it’s 2pm and you don’t start with the happy juice that early (or don’t want others to worry or judge you for doing so). Perhaps a plate of nachos and dip and a follow-on trey of buffalo wings can suffice in place of beer or whiskey rounds, when each side accomplishes the needed steps in the game. Slices of pizza are never a bad idea. So, here’s how this game works. It’s as much an experiment in good-faith discussion and intellectual curiosity as it is a ‘game’. And the more you set aside your political ego and resistance to changing your mind (or at least to opening it just a bit), the better you do — as do the others across the table. It’s not a competition against one another, but a contest with ourselves. The aim is for everyone to win. Remember, it’s a team exercise. We all want to win.
Sit 2–6 people down, with a relatively even ratio of people on each side of a buzz word like “PC” or “cultural appropriation”. Have them challenge themselves, after an informal and friendly ‘good-faith and honesty pledge’, to build this table, together as a team. This could be done over online Skype chat (up to 4 people is ideal, but perhaps more), or better yet, in person. At the living room table or the table at the local pub. No one gets a second round of beer (or fine adult beverage) until a row of the table is filled out, and they’ve identified both the sensible version as well as the toxic / excessive version of the key concept in question (“PC culture” in this case).
“What is a reasonable instance in which we might see ‘political correctness’ — where it is needed or indeed appropriate? What are some good arguments and cases for it being needed in some situations? What are some blind spots we had about it in the past? How can we improve our understanding?”
Likewise, the other group (or person, if it’s a 1 on 1) would ask,
“What are some instances where ‘PC’ culture might go too far, or be misapplied? What are some instances where people are right to criticize it?”
From this, a row of the table is filled out for each side. Whomever gets their own row filled out first gets to drink first. Ideally, no one leaves until both sides drink a second round, and the entire table gets filed out.
Lessons learned from my best and worst exchanges: Where things go wrong in the ‘PC’ debate
There are better and worse ways to criticize an idea, and clarity of communication is king. The takeaway above, I think, is that there are sensible versions of both ‘PC culture’ (as some think of it), and sensible versions of criticizing it in its toxic form. In other words, there are reasonable and necessary versions of what a social justice advocate might think of when they hear ‘PC culture’ (such as being decent to others, acknowledging hurtful words and actions, avoiding racist terms, shunning genuine bigotry and hate). We may not call this ‘PC Culture’ (isn’t it just called “being a decent human being”?), and most social justice Leftists don’t use the term either, unless hearing others use it in a critical way. But that’s what many of them think about when they hear people criticize it. “Why would someone criticize the idea that we shouldn’t use the N word, or the F word for homosexuals…?”
This may seem silly that the misunderstanding runs this deep, but surprisingly it often does.
There are also, of course, very sensible criticisms of the excesses of PC culture (what critics of “PC Culture” simply refer to as “PC Culture”, as its a pejorative term anyway). The sensible versions of anti-PC critique don’t dismiss “PC culture” in all its possible forms above (nor the good nature and intentions behind its more genuine expression), but acknowledges that there are both reasonable forms of it — shunning the use of racial slurs, for example — as well as toxic, excessive or shallow forms if it.
We may not like how one side or the other uses the term, or even like the term at all, but that’s not the point; people hear the word and think of different things. Unpacking this is crucial.
Here is a distinction that most in the Center and the Left should generally agree on, as a starting point.
(1) Don’t say hurtful things just to be a jerk. Hold bigots accountable. Help society move away from racism, misogyny and hate.
(2) Don’t stifle needed conversations. Don’t shun dissenting ideas in order to protect political dogmas. Don’t automatically assume the worst in someone’s motives for making an argument.
If we can get past this starting line, we’ve already traveled further in the race for civility and common sense than the majority of noise-makers on either side. The distinction above is critical. Just making this distinction upfront, in clear and honest terms, can salvage entire conversations. Or even at times, potentially fruitful public dialogues, or peoples’ professional relationships. It can even salvage friendships.
It is my aim here not to tear down or attack, but to offer what I hope is helpful advice for people on both sides who find themselves hitting a wall. To help give more people a map and compass with which to navigate the conversational landscape, in all its rigged and unpredictable terrain features. In my next article in this series, I’ll make the case for why I think the Left should embrace the Intellectual Dark Web — or else, make their own version of it.
Essentially, creating these breathing spaces for honest and nuanced conversation is something that can actually help achieve the very thing many on the Left constantly aim for: combating reactionary Fascism and the harmful ideas and excesses of the far-Right. A common concern is that the ‘troll culture’ and many of the Right-leaning over-reactions to the extreme Left can be a gateway to worse things, like the Alt Right, white nationalism or various forms of fascism (even if most Right-leaning trolls are not white nationalists or fascists). If this is the case, then why not make it much harder for these ‘gateway groups’ to recruit? “Milo is a gateway for many to flirt with the Alt Right”. So, let’s offer a better narrative that will realistically reach many of the people who venture into Miloland, in a way that will actually address their concerns. Do these approaches work? Yes, they do. They are cornerstones of counterinsurgency and combating extremism, both in warzones and in various countries where Islamist and far Right groups regularly recruit. I urge people who claim to hate the ‘Dark Web’ to at least try and listen to why it just might be filling the vacuum left by the failure of our conversations.
The IDW can help show people a better way — and in fact, many hundreds have already said that people in that space prevented them from going to the Alt Right, by showing them how the Right is not even necessary to address their confusion and concerns, when science and honest, compassionate conversation can do a much better job. It gives people something far better to model their lives around, than that offered by the troll culture that people like Milo and Gavin McInnes offer millions of young disaffected people who feel pushed to the edges of the conversation by political correctness and Leftist overreach. There is a third option. We need to make this third option more visible. If more on the Left would have built this kind of conversation and criticized their own excesses years ago, Milo may not even have gone viral. In short, the IDW, or at least the kind of conversations it is creating, can be a buffer against the toxic extremes. It can be a healthy space for mindful conversations. Dismiss it all you want — and you certainly don’t have to like it, or its key members, or me, for that matter — but please think more about why it is in such demand. Our conversation is broken, as is much of the Left’s modes of engagement. Dogma and rigid ideology, conformity, and groupthink really is a problem. Even if you hate the IDW, at least recognize some of the symptoms of the problem it is addressing. Such honesty can only be healthy for people on the Left. Addressing these problems will help you better combat the far Right. And in that fight, I will be one of your best allies.
An Alternative to the Milo Model
Some of my friends have joking called this use of finding common agreement and deflating misunderstanding “The Kirbow Model”. I only use the term ‘Kirbow Model’ here lightly and in good humor; rest assured that most of these ideas and tools did not originate with me, but with countless points of research and hard-earned experience by those who’ve gone before me, and some who are doing this work as we speak.
I prefer to simply call it ‘the way of the Social Science Warrior’. Not only does this model emphasize building bridges, but it focuses on using this to expand our coalitions to more effectively combat dogma, hate and extremism. I hope this can become an alternative to the methods of people like Milo Yiannoppolis — as such alternatives are desperately needed right now. If we can create reasonable spaces for people to air out these issues and discuss them honestly — something they often feel they cannot do on their own campuses — we are bound to see more unproductive, narrow-minded ping-pong between the “social justice warriors” and the “Anti-SJW” crowd. We all deserve something much better.
This next section is my attempt to reach critics of the Left and of political correctness, and help persuade people who follow the Milo school of thought that there is a much better way. In fact, if you are a university student who is being pulled into that camp — or know others who are — I urge you to read and share.
I can assure young critics of excessive political correctness on campus that ‘The Kirbow Model’ is far better than the Milo Model — and will win far more hearts and minds on ‘the other side’ over the long run. Or even the short run. Obviously, this isn’t “my model”, but the tailored and focused use of some of the best tools we have in front of us. What I am attempting to do is combine these tools into a larger toolkit, and into a new paradigm for civil discourse and effective communication. A way to drive a wedge against the extremes, while teaching and empowering other people around the country to build bridges of empathy and understanding — something essential to the war of ideas.
In essence, this approach — if I may make a bold but well-backed proclamation — is categorically better than the kind we’ve been seeing across our campuses and social media by folks like Yianoppolis and many of the fanboys who mimic his tactics and style. There’s no denying that folks like Milo are often quite skilled at satire and entertainment, as well as impressively versed at quick wit and humor. But people like him are not well trained or equipped with the real tools to play this game at the adult level. They are less situationally attuned, less nuanced in their approach, and unseasoned in the things I will talk about in the next section of this series, and in my book— the things I learned from real warzones, from actual dialogue in seemingly impossible environments, working with cultures thousands of years old and tribal systems born out of centuries of conquest and survival.
Learning firsthand about building trust and respect with powerful former Mujahedeen warlords and power brokers, in a post-Taliban-era environment, using the tools of true engagement and effective communication, will get you light years beyond the amateur hour we see with many ‘anti-PC’ warriors. As will learning, secondhand, how to adopt these lessons within our society (something mature, intellectually serious readers of this article are certainly capable of, and which I’ve seen others do quite well). It will make Gavin McInnes’ or Milo’s methods look petty and childish by comparison.
These people’s approaches may seem effective in the very short run, especially when they lay waste to the toxic versions of PC culture described above. However, they fail to acknowledge and build common ground with people’s genuine grievances and suffering. Discussion of things like ‘social justice’ and ‘PC culture’ cannot be a one-way street or zero-sum game of team sport. It must cultivate nuance and understanding if we are to move forward, and disentangle the good from the toxic. These nuances get lost in the amateur interplay of these belligerents caught up in shit-flinging matches with their sworn opponents, often at the expense of long-term gains for sensibility and reason. All of this will become clear in the proceeding articles on this topic.
In the meantime, it is my sincere hope that more people reading this can find some solace in better ways to have this discussion, especially among the social justice community and among its critics. You won’t reach everyone, but you will certainly gain more ground with many. You may even find allies you never knew you had.
Go play the Drinking Game. Use real beer, not that mainstream corporate shit. Preferably imported or local brew. Have fun.
Cheers!
Afterword Section: About the Series
Introduction to the Series: What is the Way of The Social Science Warrior?
(Please see also, The Reason Challenge)