Unraveling Fact From Fiction
- David Fain
- May 1
- 5 min read
Dear reader,
As an experiment, I decided to turn to AI for this month's blog. Why? Curiosity and feeling that I didn't have the time to research and write it. I write to learn, and it is never an easy exercise. What follows is a blog written by the profoundly amazing world of AI -- I added the AI-generated images. Content links are interspersed throughout the copy, and citations are provided at the end.
"As we move through 2025, the political landscape in many democracies, particularly the United States, has reached unprecedented levels of polarization. Researchers, political analysts, and everyday citizens alike have noted the increasingly stark divides that characterize our political discourse. This division manifests not just in policy disagreements but in fundamentally different perceptions of reality itself. Understanding these divisions, their psychological underpinnings, and strategies for navigating them has become essential for maintaining functional democratic societies.
The Depth of Our Divisions
The United States appears more divided along ideological and political lines than at any time since the 1850s, leading up to the Civil War. This comparison isn't merely rhetorical—it reflects tangible patterns of geographic and ideological separation. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has explicitly called for a "national divorce," suggesting separation between red and blue states. At the same time, polls indicate that approximately 23% of Americans support their state's seceding from the Union. More
This division extends beyond voting patterns. Of the 15 states with the most restrictive abortion laws, all voted for Trump in 2020, with seven being original Confederate states. Similarly, 19 of the 21 states with the most permissive gun laws in 2023 voted for Trump. These patterns suggest policy preferences are increasingly aligning with partisan identity rather than being distributed across the political spectrum.
Recent polling ahead of 2025 reveals the emotional dimension of this divide. Approximately half of Americans report feeling either worried (37%) or pessimistic (14%) about the country's political direction, while the other half express excitement (21%) or optimism (26%). This emotional split mirrors the broader societal fracturing occurring across numerous issues. More
The Psychology of Polarization
What drives this increasing polarization? Researchers at Brown University have identified a fascinating psychological mechanism: intolerance of uncertainty appears to exacerbate partisan thinking across the political spectrum. Their study measured brain activity of committed partisans watching political content and found that regardless of whether someone was a strong conservative or liberal, an aversion to uncertainty strengthened their ideological commitments. More
"Whether a person in 2016 was a strongly committed Trump supporter or a strongly committed Clinton supporter, it doesn't matter. What matters is that an aversion to uncertainty only exacerbates how similarly two conservative brains or two liberal brains respond when consuming political content," noted study co-author Oriel FeldmanHall.
This research suggests polarization isn't simply a matter of different values but reflects underlying psychological processes that shape how we perceive and process information. When faced with complexity and uncertainty, many people gravitate toward more extreme positions that provide clarity and simplicity.
Recent research published in Nature further illuminates how polarization functions as a psychological foundation for collective engagement. As people interact socially—particularly through social media—groups form in ways that integrate beliefs about what should be done to change the world into shared social identities. This process provides a basis for mobilization to collective action.
Extremism and Its Consequences
Political extremism poses particular challenges to democratic functioning. Research from The Open University's OppAttune project examines how extreme narratives infiltrate mainstream political discourse through what they term "everyday extremism."
"The idea here is that extreme narratives become part of mainstream political discourse, via on-line or in-person conversations, and become a part of the person's everyday discussions and interactions," explains Dr. Anthony English. "Such discourse typically involves symbolic violence against a person/group and has the potential to escalate into real-world harm if encouraged."
The consequences of extremism extend beyond rhetoric. Half of self-described strong Republicans now think it is very or somewhat likely there will be a U.S. civil war within the next decade, with 40% of strong Democrats agreeing. Such beliefs, whether justified or not, create a climate of fear and distrust that undermines the foundations of democratic governance.
As writer Gary Acosta pointedly observes: "People on the political right believe that people on the extreme left are the biggest problems in our nation. People on the political left think that people on the extreme right pose the biggest threat. This is one occasion when both sides are correct."
Confronting a Post-Truth Environment
Our divided political landscape exists within what many scholars have termed a "post-truth" era, where objective facts seem less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. This environment makes the task of discerning truth increasingly challenging. More
Fact-checking has emerged as one response to this challenge. While research on fact-checking has primarily focused on how it affects voters, its ultimate efficacy depends on how politicians respond to it. Politicians may react to fact-checking if electoral concerns are significant, but they might also respond due to reputational concerns even when voter reactions are minimal. More
The rise of political blogs and partisan media sources has contributed to the fragmentation of our information environment. Yet these sources also provide something many people seek: a sense of community. "Perhaps what's happening is that the best and more popular blogs provide a sense of community that used to be the lifeblood of traditional news organizations and, especially, of newspapers," notes a recent analysis.
Building Bridges in a Divided Landscape
Navigating our divided landscape requires both individual and collective strategies. Researchers studying everyday extremism suggest several approaches when engaging with someone expressing extreme views:
1. Listen to the person's "why" - understand their motivations
2. Ask "where" their information comes from
3. Explore "what next" to create space for mutual understanding
These simple interventions can help create opportunities for dialogue across divides.
At a structural level, addressing polarization may require reconsidering systems that currently discourage compromise. Gerrymandering, for instance, creates congressional districts where incumbents typically only face challenges from more extreme members of their own party. "Compromise is political death to any candidate in our current environment. This is why our elected officials spend all their time demonizing their political rivals, and real political leadership is a thing of the past," observes Acosta.
Finding Common Ground in Divided Times
Despite these challenges, pathways toward a less divided society exist. Understanding the psychological mechanisms that drive polarization can help us recognize our own tendencies toward ideological entrenchment. Developing media literacy skills enables more critical evaluation of information sources. And perhaps most importantly, engaging thoughtfully with those holding different views—focusing on understanding before persuasion—can begin to rebuild the social fabric that supports democratic governance.
An increasingly divided America "is likely to be even more inward-looking, preoccupied with internal divisions over immigration, race, inequality, and sexual and gender identity issues," with consequences extending beyond domestic politics to international relationships and economic systems. Understanding what drives these divisions is the first step toward addressing them.
The challenges are significant, but by recognizing both the structural and psychological factors that drive polarization, we can begin to chart a path toward a politics defined less by division and more by a shared commitment to democratic values and constructive dialogue."
Citations:
Comments