Open and Closed Systems, Political Belief, and (In)Civility

Whether a system is open or closed refers to whether it exchanges information with its environment. Systems can refer to almost anything, including physical ones, such as chemical reactions, or more complex ones, like organizations, human societies, or the human body. A closed system is one that does not interact with its environment, like an unopened can of pop, while an open one does.

Humans are generally open systems. Our bodies and minds interact with the outside environment. Those interactions can be mainly physical, as when we inhale and exhale, exchanging gases. Or they can be interactional, as when we engage with others, which could include boxing or conversation.

While our bodies cannot help but be open systems, our minds (and emotions) may not always be open. When we strongly need to believe something, or to have a particular outcome, often only information that accords with our view or goal will be allowed in. Studies show that this attitude, known as confirmation bias, is wide-spread in Western societies. In fact, among the most important studies have been those in which political partisans of both sides held verifiably false views about the other side. Even when the correct information was provided, not only did the partisans reject the information, they actually hardened into their original incorrect ones.

A classic example that is in part responsible for the highly unpleasant behavior of some people today is the absolute belief that their political party has a lock on moral and practical correctness. This view is clearly wrong, for the simple reason that nothing in life is perfect or even near it. Normally sane people will accept this latter aspect in nearly all things…except where it involves their political views. The latter, being of a MUST HAVE nature, means that such folks are off-balance. They are not in accord with the way the world is. They have constructed a scenario that is false (their political party is just as flawed as the opponents’) but which cannot be acknowledged. They will suffer anxiety, frustration and often considerable anger because they will encounter others who do not share their rigid view. Naturally, those others must be punished severely for their “false” beliefs, the antithesis of a civil exchange. Interestingly, often the people seeing their party as nearly perfect are the very ones who argue for more civility. They are oblivious to the hypocrisy---the apotheosis of a closed human system.

All such views are held with death-grip intensity (or should I say “insanity”). The folks holding them could no more give an example of their party’s views being incorrect, or even incomplete, than they could cut off a finger. Leftists give have many examples of bad behavior on the right, and the latter does the same to the left. Both fail utterly to see that they have actually condemned themselves and their party, which usually does precisely the same thing for which they are criticizing the other party. Even when I encounter folks who tell me they are open-minded, I find that they would not know the meaning of the word if it was eating them alive by inches. They never question the legitimacy of their own views, values or actions, which are held absolutely. This rigidity then defines the barriers to any information that is not in accord with what the person believes and wants to be true.

The actions and motives of their elected officials are defended nearly to the death, even though a balanced appreciation of any position or action and its consequences might easily show incompleteness and mistakes, if not outright lies and manipulation. Partisans are more than capable of such criticism of the other party, often carried to highly irrational levels by their closed-system “thinking,” and nearly totally incapable of it regarding their own party or representatives.

An open-system’s posture requires the processing of information that may be distasteful and the willingness to examine it in a truly fair light, an action virtually impossible for true believers. The really open and healthy human being not only accepts and deals fairly with disconfirming information, she actually seeks out such information as a way to learn and grow. She has no fear of challenging information, and thus finds it very easy to see others’ views and to be compassionate even when she disagrees. Most of us want things neat and tidy, and certain, really certain. This leaves us in a constant state of fear that such tidiness, a fabrication impossible to achieve in the real world, will unravel, which it nearly always does. True-believer partisanship is all about fear, evidenced in large measure by the amount of emotion present.

Once we MUST HAVE a view prevail or an outcome result, we have closed ourselves to vital information. We have become prisoners of the need for certainty, with the result that our well being will be compromised, as will that of others with whom we interact (unless they agree with us). We are attempting to create a defined order inside ourselves---and often with others of a like mind---that is contradicted by reality, an effort that means bad outcomes both personally and societally.

It is not that people disagree, which is normal. It is that they disagree disrespectfully, trashing the others and often lying about or mis-representing into the bargain to bolster their position. Incivility does not arise because people differ in their political views. It arises because one person, or both, cannot stand the thought that another has a different view. I am not suggesting that all views have equal weight. It is clear that some are more or less correct than others, and certainly some are dead wrong as indicated above. The trouble is that political true believers cannot conceive that someone with a different view could be even partially correct. In this regrettable scenario, my view is not only correct---it is also sacred, and that is really scary because it means only one thing---destroy the other’s position and, metaphorically, the person holding it. It is insufficient to simply counter the argument, a legitimate action, but ad hominem attacks must be made. The other must be demeaned and humiliated. Try and reconcile this with a culture of civility. Or a culture of objective thought.

This gargantuan craziness (let’s all pretend that we on our side are rational and the other guys not only insane, but evil as well) will only begin to recede when the left holds its own accountable, and not for being inadequately left, and the right does the same, and not for being inadequately right. This accountability does not require a person to change allegiance to a party or set of political views. It does require that we acknowledge within our party, among our preferred office holders and, often worst of all, TV and radio commentators, the existence of mistakes, incivility, anger, mis-representation, lies, manipulation, assertions of moral superiority, and, not least, negative labeling. It further requires that we make an honest effort to change those destructive elements, both in ourselves and in others.

We must have the courage to be a real open system, permeable to news that we may not like but which is invaluable for real thinking and for personal growth. This may be too much for many people, but it is one of the very few real options for a better society. We can only hope that some will have the courage to start debunking their and their party’s received liturgy of perfection and begin anew to really think.

As William James said, “A great many people think they are thinking when all they are doing is rearranging their prejudices.”