With the rise of technology (i.e. internet), we are overwhelmed with an abundance of information. How can we tell what is accurate or not? How can we be discerning when it comes to biases in arguments, assumptions made in claims, and fact vs fiction (#alternativefacts anyone)?
Recently James Damore from Google's Alphabet published a memo about how men are discriminated against when companies such as Google focus on hiring more women. His argument was based upon specious evidence that men are actually better coders than women. Here's the original memo he published (keep an open and critical mind - treat this as your GRE/SAT exam and examine his assumptions/claims!): https://medium.com/@Cernovich/full-james-damore-memo-uncensored-memo-with-charts-and-cites-339f3d2d05f
The Economist provided a great perspective and response in answering Mr. Damore. It is the kind of response
that can be universally applied in the face of arguments that are driven by
motivated reasoning. Given today's political climate (white supremacy/neo-Nazis/alt-right rallies, anti-immigrant sentiments, Brexit/Trump election) I think it's really important to be aware of this rebuttal example so
that we can apply it when appropriate.
There's also been a discussion on the tolerance paradox going viral these days - as we encourage our societies to be more tolerant and inclusive, we inevitably bump up against intolerant people and have to become intolerant of intolerance in order to maintain tolerance in society...which forms the paradox. Where do we draw the line of tolerance and intolerance? Where do we draw the line between freedom of speech and hate speech? Where do we draw the line between listening to our coworkers and friends talk about incorrect facts/beliefs, vs us challenging their strongly held belief system that is tied to their core identity? It's almost like disagreeing on religious principles, how can we handle huge discrepancies in opinions that are really emotionally charged beliefs?
At least all these issues are prompting critical discussion and thoughtfulness among our youth (i.e. me), who are no longer as apathetic to politics or changes in the world. What I see is people with privilege and entitlement on one hand, vs targets who suffer inherent disadvantages and unconscious biases (implicit or explicit). What I see are folks who are afraid of change and are comfortable with the way things were, vs folks who embrace change as the constant in life.
There are a lot of interesting arguments for both sides, and I would say the key as always, is to encourage empathy, gratitude and kindness. We should teach our kids, peers, family and ourselves to continually step back, see the bigger picture, keep an open mind, and to travel so we truly encounter cultures and people who are different from us. To engage in conversations with people who hold different opinions from ours, and to suspend our judgment. Don't jump to conclusions that our belief system is always right, and that others' are wrong. The more we learn, the more we'll realise that we don't know much at all.
And that's the fun of being alive! :) (and having the privilege of education, of not being dark-skinned, of having $$, etc etc...)
Update on 9/5/17: There is also a new website called Verrit (backed by Hillary Clinton) that verifies and contextualizes news so we can be more informed about "facts" that are going around on the internet: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-verrit-hillary-clinton-news-media-for-the-65-8-million-2017-9 Interesting idea, definitely needed in today's world - but who's watching the watcher?
Update on 9/5/17: There is also a new website called Verrit (backed by Hillary Clinton) that verifies and contextualizes news so we can be more informed about "facts" that are going around on the internet: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-verrit-hillary-clinton-news-media-for-the-65-8-million-2017-9 Interesting idea, definitely needed in today's world - but who's watching the watcher?
