Society of extremes result of negative thinking in response to our choices

Carol Forsloff — In asking the question, "Are we a society of extremes?" the heart of the question references not just Americans but an attitude that seems to believe in the worst not the best of us, copies and reports that, and finally becomes what social scientists, literary giants and motivation experts maintain, "As a man thinketh, so is he."

When what we talk about, listen to, read, and respond to are the negatives of life, what happens to our psyche? Do we become what we think? Evidence suggests we do. That evidence is anecdotal and scientific as well. And to the extent that is true, what does it mean for our global and individual well-being if we become the worst of our thoughts and fears?

Daily news is fraught with tragedies at the outset. NBC Nightly News highlights the most high-profile news of the day, whether it is a weather disaster or President Obama's trip to Israel, in 10 minutes or less. The rest is commentary, and the good news at the end of the program with the segment "Making a Difference." But suppose we had that good news at the outset, and at the end, with the negatives in the middle so it is somehow literally embraced by the good in ourselves as opposed to our worst.

Most people these days find their email crammed with "news" that isn't news but an opinion from someone with a blog or from a newspaper that has resources and contact information difficult to find and that could be done by a 16-year-old with a great knowledge of Wordpress. Yet these news bites are given as truth and passed from one person to another like Thanksgiving dinner. But most of it does not make us thankful, and often it is not truth but an opinion and often opinions not based upon evidence. It strikes, however, at the heart of our social order, making us look for the worst in ourselves and become gleeful when we find it.

In that way, we are becoming a society of extremes. It's not enough those extremes are reflected in our economic times globally. At the same time, we are pitted against each other because of the movement of people from the middle to the extremes at either end in the socio-political spectrum. We hear Sarah Palin and the Fox News commentators and the MSNBC group or Al Sharpton speaking for the right and left, when there are people in the middle who feel compelled to pick a side. That's in the US, but there are surely divisions in other parts of the world that reflect these tendencies.

Extremism, whether it is in the defense of liberty or for the 'fun' it generates, does not protect but instead creates more divisions, lack of trust, and less serious communication. We become purveyors of conspiracy theories, murder stories, constitution, or Bible thumpers that embrace the ridiculous, and often the contrary and false, in order to substantiate our "side". In doing so, we exacerbate those extremes, bringing the poles of opinion further and further apart and making it difficult for government leaders to make a decision about anything practical. So they reflect us, our differences as well, since we have these grassroots networks that spread the falsehoods in order to get attention that is not always relevant or warranted.

For that reason, there are no links to these sources, since that too increases the exposure of the worst in our midst.

Instead, despite the traditional media making its mistakes, there are some reference points for all of us, that is centrist and from which we can anchor our material. Is it verifiable is the major question for what we hear and read? Otherwise we become what we think, that thinking based not upon evidence or reality but the greed and fears of others instead.

Scientists point out our brains are complex and now part of the discussion in our personal references. But this is what science tells us about ourselves that needs to be examined so that extreme thinking does not occur and we achieve balance instead. Because much of what we believe is inaccurate and based not upon facts but folk psychology, as this selection discusses:

One of the difficulties scientific psychology has faced is that it gives reasons for behaviour that often conflict with folk psychology. Most people assume that their experience of their own mind and other people's actions makes them sufficiently expert to discount any other explanation even if it's scientifically validated.

For example, a great deal of psychology research has shown that we tend not to have a good insight into why we make certain choices. In one of the many studies in the area, Lars Hall and colleagues gave people a survey about their moral beliefs but used sleight of hand to change the choices they had originally made. When asked to justify the beliefs they hadn't endorsed, more than two-thirds of people didn't notice the switch and happily gave reasons for why they supported the opposite of their original position. Folk psychology tells us that we can accurately explain our actions and, consequently, many people think that these well-validated psychological effects never apply to them or simply don't exist. Suggesting that someone may not fully know their own actions and that their post-event justifications might be improvised simply won't wash in everyday conversation.

As a man thinketh, so is he. And only we can change what we think, and that takes going past extremes to looking at substantive evidence and not creating consternation where none exists.