The Science of Civility: Playing the Devil's Advocate
If You Want to be Right, Consider Why You Might be Wrong
I have never been a big fan of science, but I learned a ton of chemistry while helping some cities I worked with discuss their water treatment processes. In my defense, modern technology has made science way more fascinating than when I was being graded on it.
The thing that I remember most about every one of my science classes was the repetition of the scientific method during the first week over and over again. Make observations. Form a hypothesis. Test the hypothesis. Draw conclusions. It's the only thing I can recite from any science class from memory.
In college and graduate school, I thought I was distancing myself from science by majoring in political science. Still, once I moved past the fundamentals of how government works, I understood that the social sciences use the scientific method to understand why government works the way it does and to develop strategies to improve it.
I have spent my career watching how people respond to government at every level—federal, state, and local. In that time, I have seen both remarkable and repulsive behavior, and the expansion of social media and access to news has allowed us to witness things we may never have known before.
Overall, the result has been a reduced trust in government and diminished respect for public officials. We have witnessed the degradation of civility among our political leaders, and many people have taken this as a license to be disrespectful to everyone around them.
Based on these observations, I have formed a hypothesis about American life through the next Presidential election and beyond. We will continue to witness rude and belligerent behavior between the candidates and the members of their parties. The behaviors we have been exposed to have cascaded down the hill into our state legislatures and city halls. Last month, three people were arrested at a City Council meeting in Hawk Cove, Texas, because they became disorderly. The meeting ended early due to the chaos, with several council members refusing to maintain order and leaving their seats. I wish I could tell you that is an anomaly that makes for an interesting headline, but that is not a hypothesis my observations will support.
Last year, the American Bar Association conducted a survey in which 85% of respondents believed civility was worse than it was ten years ago. When asked who is responsible for fixing this problem, more than a third of respondents believed it starts with family and friends.
So, I would like to propose an experiment. Over the next few weeks, I will explore ways to improve civility in the world around us.
My science classes never emphasized the most important part of the scientific method. Teachers always told us the experiment aimed to test our hypothesis. Technically, that is true, but I have never heard anyone emphasize that the experiment should seek to disprove our hypothesis. We were supposed to try to prove that we were wrong! Did anyone ever tell you that in science class?
To that end, I encourage you to play the devil's advocate when you hear an argument or a campaign promise. When you see someone behave in a way that does not align with your standards for conduct, ethics, or morals, try to consider the reasons for their behavior. You may hypothesize they are just a horrible person, but consider ways you might be wrong about them before accepting that theory.
The phrase "Devil's Advocate" is perhaps the most fitting description of the role we should all play as we navigate the election and beyond. Pope Sixtus V created the job title in 1587 to critically examine the life and miracles attributed to individuals proposed for canonization (sainthood) and present arguments against their canonization. This process was intended to ensure a thorough and unbiased examination of the candidate's virtues and the authenticity of the miracles.
Before you accept one candidate or another as the champion for the issues you care about, ask yourself every question you can think to test their motives, intent, and the practicality of their proposed solutions.
Perhaps more importantly, when you see the posts on social media or hear the commentary in the baked goods aisle of your local grocery store, consider all the reasons that it may not be accurate. I'm not suggesting you should call your friends and family members liars. However, I would encourage you to question the information presented before you accept it as gospel and share it.
When we become discerning citizens of the world around us, we open the door to understanding and acceptance of others. As human beings, we often behave in erratic and irrational ways that make sense to us and no one else. When we read a statement on social media or hear a rumor about someone we know, resisting the urge to rush to judgment can give us time to acknowledge that we may not have all the facts. In the scientific method, this means we need to collect more data.
In no way am I suggesting you have to accept the behavior of others and change your standards or belief systems. Instead, I would ask you to allow others to exercise their personal belief system in the same way that you do.
C.S. Lewis said it this way in Mere Christianity, "...if the Mohammedans abstain from wine because they are Mohammedans, that is one thing, but I cannot find anything in the nature of the wine itself which renders it sinful for me to drink it."
I hope that as you read through the next few posts, you will consider the recommendations and use or share them. Perhaps our collective efforts in this experiment will nullify my hypothesis.