Confronting Mediocrity

“Truth is not changed by what we believe.” — Plato

“There are no facts, only interpretations.” — Nietzsche

Plato insisted that truth is eternal and absolute, existing independently of our beliefs or perceptions. Nietzsche turned that idea upside down, arguing that all truths are perspectival — shaped by the standpoint of the observer. This clash of philosophies is more than ancient debate: it echoes today in our polarized politics, where people argue with “facts” yet talk past one another because they inhabit different perspectives of truth.

One of the most serious problems we’re facing as a society is the entrenched political polarization that permeates our daily lives. Recently, I’ve realized that a core contributor to the divide is that opposing sides seem to argue with facts. What could be wrong with that?

Once the exchange of facts begins, the conversation is doomed to failure. The reason is that two people can view the same event and walk away with two different sets of facts. It may sound odd, but it’s not as simple as facts are facts – end of story. If we understand why that is a fallacious statement, we can shift the dialog in a more productive direction. It may not sell as many ads on TV (confrontation sells!) but understanding why your facts are not my facts is the only way to achieve a more harmonious society. It won’t be easy because we have been inculcated with Plato’s view that facts are absolute regardless of the observer.

Before diving into the conversation between Bill and Sarah, there are a few key ideas that guide their discussion.

• Perspectivism: The view (from Nietzsche) that all truths are seen from a perspective. No one has a neutral, “view from nowhere.”
• Relativism: The idea that all truths are equally valid. Unlike Perspectivism, it leaves no room to compare or critique perspectives.
• System 1 (Fast Thinking) Kahneman: Quick, automatic, emotional thinking.
• System 2 (Slow Thinking) Kahneman: Careful, deliberate, reflective thinking.
• Amygdala: A brain structure that detects threat and fuels rapid emotional certainty.
• Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC): A brain region that helps us tolerate ambiguity and integrate competing inputs.
• Neuropolitics: The study of how brain processes shape political attitudes and behavior.
• Emotional Intelligence: The ability to notice and manage emotions – in yourself and others – to guide thinking and relationships constructively.

The story of Bill and Sarah

Bill and Sarah live across the street from each other in Indiana. They’ve been friends for years, but politics often trips them up. One summer evening, they sit on Sarah’s porch, iced tea in hand, while the news shows footage of migrants crossing the southern border.

Bill shakes his head.
“Look at that. Thousands just walking in. It’s an invasion. The government’s lost control. That’s the fact.”

(Bill is reacting through System 1 — fast thinking, guided by the amygdala, which spots threats and drives quick, emotional certainty.)

Sarah watches the same clip but sees something else.
“I see families with kids, worn out from traveling. To me, the fact is that our system isn’t handling humanitarian needs. We’ve got asylum laws that don’t match reality. That’s the truth here.”

(Sarah is using System 2 — slow thinking, with help from the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), which can juggle conflicting inputs and tolerate ambiguity.)

Bill leans forward.
“But it’s illegal. You can’t just walk in and expect benefits. It’s not sustainable.”

Sarah replies calmly.
“And yet, our economy depends on immigrant labor — farms, construction, caregiving. Without them, we’d collapse. That’s also a fact.”

(Here’s Perspectivism at work — two people see the same event but derive different “facts” based on their perspectives. This differs from Relativism, where both would be treated as equally true without critique.)

Sarah pauses, then shifts the tone.
“Bill, can I ask why this feels like such a fact to you? What makes you call it an invasion?”

(This is emotional intelligence (EI) — recognizing emotion in another person and asking a curious, not combative, question.)

Bill exhales. “Because I don’t trust Washington anymore. They lie. And I don’t want my kids growing up in a country that doesn’t feel safe.”

Sarah nods. “I hear that. I don’t want my kids unsafe either. For me, the bigger risk is a broken system that leaves problems festering. That’s why I frame it differently.”

(This is neuropolitics in action — Bill’s distrust and threat focus come partly from brain pathways tuned to vigilance, while Sarah’s tolerance for complexity reflects different neural circuits. Neither is “wrong,” but they emphasize different aspects of reality.)

They still disagree, but the tone has shifted. By moving away from flinging facts and into the why behind them, they’ve found common ground in shared concerns: safety, children, and the future of their country.

The key point: Two people, same event. Two different “facts.”

---

Perspectivism at Play

If this were relativism, both Bill’s “invasion” and Sarah’s “humanitarian crisis” would be equally valid and unchallengeable. But Perspectivism frames it differently: both are partial truths seen from particular lenses. Bill’s perspective prioritizes safety and institutional distrust. Sarah’s perspective integrates legality, economics, and compassion. Neither view is the full truth, but each reveals part of it.

The shift from clashing facts to shared concerns is subtle, but it’s the hinge that turns confrontation into dialogue.

---

Takeaway

Bill (MAGA) exemplifies System 1 and amygdala-driven processing: rapid, threat-focused, emotionally certain. Sarah (non-MAGA) exemplifies System 2 and ACC-driven reasoning: slower, integrative, tolerant of complexity. Their dueling facts are not simply errors or lies—they are perspectival truths shaped by cognitive and neural processes. Perspectivism, neuropolitics, and dual-process theory together explain why polarization is so resistant to factual persuasion, and why dialogue requires moving beyond “fact battles” to perspective-bridging.

The question is how we shift the dialog in this direction when the tribes are deeply rooted in their emotions and their conflicting facts. Maybe it’s as simple as recognizing that people will see different facts in an event and rather arguing which one is correct and asking the simple question of why and then waiting for an answer. It won’t be easy because today’s social media thirsty culture seems to prioritize System 1 thinking over System 2.

The real challenge is not to win arguments with more facts but to recognize that people will often see different facts in the same event. Perspectivism, neuroscience, and cognitive psychology all point to the same conclusion: our truths are filtered through perspective. If we accept that, the path to dialogue is not asking “Which fact is correct?” but rather “Why does this fact feel true to you?”

That simple shift won’t erase polarization overnight, but it reframes the conversation from combat to curiosity. In an era dominated by System 1 speed and outrage, slowing down to ask why may be our only chance to build perspectives strong enough to hold us together.

Remember – consensus doesn’t start with facts; it starts with curiosity. Ask why something feels true, and you may find common ground where you least expect it.

---

Appendix: Deeper Dive

For readers who want to explore the theory and research behind Bill and Sarah’s story, here are the essentials.

1. Perspectivism

• Origin: Nietzsche, 19th century.
• Core Idea: All truths are seen from a perspective shaped by culture, biology, and values. No neutral “view from nowhere.”
• Key Distinction:
  • Relativism → all truths equally valid.
  • Perspectivism → truths are perspectival, but some perspectives can be stronger (broader, more evidence-based).
• Politics Example: Immigration: one person sees “invasion,” another sees “humanitarian crisis.”

2. Dual-Process Cognition (Kahneman: Thinking, Fast and Slow)

• System 1 (Fast Thinking): Quick, intuitive, emotional; tied to the amygdala.
• System 2 (Slow Thinking): Deliberate, analytical, reflective; tied to frontal cortex and ACC.
• Bill vs. Sarah: Bill’s “invasion” framing = System 1. Sarah’s structural analysis = System 2.

3. Neuroscience of Fact-Formation

• Amygdala: Threat detection, emotional salience → produces heightened certainty about danger.
• Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC): Detects conflict, tolerates ambiguity, integrates competing signals.
• Implication: Divergent facts often reflect which system dominates: amygdala-driven (threat) vs. ACC-driven (integration).

4. Neuropolitics

• Definition: The study of how brain processes shape political attitudes and behaviors.
• Findings:
  • Conservatives show stronger amygdala reactivity to threat.
  • Liberals show more ACC activation when dealing with uncertainty.
• Note: Differences don’t mean one side is smarter — they reflect different neural filters.

5. Implications for Dialogue

• Why facts fail: Neural systems privilege different perspectives, so data alone rarely persuades.
• How to bridge: Ask why something feels true, uncover shared concerns, and aim for stronger, integrative perspectives.

---

Further Reading

• Nietzsche, On Truth and Philosophy (Cambridge Univ. Press)
• Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar, Straus & Giroux)
• Kanai et al. (2011). Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure. Current Biology.
• Schreiber et al. (2013). Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Liberals and Conservatives. PLoS ONE.
• PNAS Nexus (2022). Functional Connectivity Signatures of Political Ideology.