Social/Political Cognitive Dissonance

Looking at these forums and seeing the manner in which many subjects are intensely debated makes me wonder exactly what is happening here. How can there be groups of people so vehemently in opposition of each other, whose opinions are of such stark contrast you wonder if they are even talking about the same event? Party politics is divisive by nature, but what I am seeing on these boards, and in real life, is far beyond toeing party lines or even drinking the cool-aid. It is much worse than that.

I am not referring to trolls, though we all know they exist in every public forum. This is different but can be mistaken for trolling in some cases.

Excluding the fringe element referred to above, how does the more sensible population explain this stark contrast of opinions on public events? Some people blame the media and big brother for manipulation and coercion. Some say it is a lack of intellect on the part of “the other guy”. But both sides say that. So if it's true, then both sides are lacking in one way or another. I refuse to believe that people are incapable of understanding it, at least in most cases. If you can figure out how to mash a keyboard and make words come out you should be able to figure this out too.

I found myself reading through page after page of disjointed rants by people claiming they know what is really happening, and refuting anything anyone else says. All the while they offer no more proof than anyone else does, and in most cases they actually offer less, as though they are beyond reproach. And when proof, or what would pass as proof for most people (up to and including eye witness accounts or first hand experience) is presented to them they simply re-brand it as something else and continue the rant. I tried to understand that mindset. I failed. It made no sense to me. That doesn't mean I blindly agree with everything I see. If I did, there would be no point in me saying anything at all. I would just be passing out stars all day. And I realized that applied to others also. So where is this understanding we are looking for and why cant we find it? Are people really that different? With the exception of those trying to grasp concepts clearly beyond their ability, I don't think they are. Deep down inside, I don't think they are.

So there is something else working in the background here. Something keeping people from agreeing on things that one side sees as so obvious it is mind boggling that anyone could deny it. While others see nothing that makes sense and refute and deny tooth and nail as though their lives depended on it. And it made me wonder why. Of course, there is no single reason to explain all of it, but I think this may play a key role.

Cognitive dissonance. Social/political cognitive dissonance.

When a situation is stressful and potentially threatening to a person their brain tunes it out and will not allow them to acknowledge it. Acknowledging it would be so frightening that it would alter the person's behavior, possibly rendering them helpless victims to whatever the threat is. This is the brain's method of coping. Unfortunately, it also means threats go unnoticed, or at least unacknowledged often until it is too late.

In a book called “Collapse” there was a great example of this effect. In the scenario, a damn was about to break. The people living in the valley downstream of the damn were asked how they felt about it. The results were very revealing. The people three miles from the damn were out of their minds with fear. They could barely function at all. The people two miles from the damn were freaked out but otherwise able to function and were trying to figure out the best way to deal with the situation. The people one mile from the damn were fine. No worries at all. Cognitive dissonance.

Now, apply cognitive dissonance to the current state of affairs in the world in regards to any of the issues currently being hotly debated. Some people perceive themselves to be far enough away from the problem to see it for what it is and be afraid of it. Some are just far enough away to know there is an issue but not fully understand it or acknowledge it. And some are simply too close to it to even acknowledge that it exists at all.

The downside of this revelation is that if cognitive dissonance is at play here, the people suffering from it the most will not see it or acknowledge it. That is what cognitive dissonance is. So these are the ones who will argue the most vehemently against it. They cant see the forest for the trees, so to speak. They know what a forest is and they can recognize a tree two out of thee times, so they will think they know everything there is to know about this and surely whether they suffer from it or not. But they will not see this problem for what it is and how it impacts them. That is the nature of cognitive dissonance.

Sooner or later something will have to shock people back to their senses. In the old days it was a cold hard slap in the face that calmed the panicking person. But that did nothing to the person so frightened they could not even panic. All slapping them did was start a fight. Pointing at the problem did nothing because their brain would not acknowledge what it was seeing. Even when it was right in front of them.

Denial usually begins with attacking the source, then questioning the motives of the person. This is often followed by straw man tactics, personal attacks, questioning the validity of eye witnesses, denying first hand accounts, and ultimately a lot of name calling.

And that is what led me to this point. It doesn't matter what your sources are, or who they are, or whether they have first-hand experience with the subject, or how much experience or knowledge they have. None of that matters. The people who are so blinded by fear or ignorance or both will deny anything and everything you say, all with no real evidence of their own. Just chest thumping showmanship and insults. The more you prove them wrong, the more they shout that you are a childish, ignorant, war monger, hater, racist, x - phobe. All because either they cant admit they were wrong, or they simply don't know the difference. And the worst part is that they attack and spew hate and their own agenda, all in the name of denying ignorance. /Drowning in irony.

So the question is:

“How do you get people to acknowledge the problem without having them become so incapacitated by it, or their own agenda, that they are of no value whatsoever in finding a solution, or in other words, become part of the problem?”

a reply to: Vroomfondel

A tightly bound set of questions here that deserve consideration. Nice post.

Aristotle suggested that the function of public discourse (The Rhetoric) was to instruct, delight or persuade. Using this definition, I expect that many folks here are motivated by a blend of all three, with some seeking to instruct, some seeking delight, and others seeking to persuade. Likewise, some are seeking instruction, delight, or to be persuaded.

Overall, this is a 21st century form of entertainment, that has the trappings of a higher calling, and the semblance of enlightenment.

At the end of the day, no one is running to ATS to post when things get really bad for them. They are dealing with the problems, and then maybe posting about it much later, after the crisis has subsumed normal life. My truck broke down on Saturday morning on the side of the road. I didn't go to ATS – I called a tow truck.

Perspective.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

First, kudos to a great OP! Very well thought out and presented. I can't address all of it and need to think about it a bit more, but.......

Your presentation about Denial brought up an interesting question. " It doesn't matter what your sources are, or who they are, or whether they have first-hand experience with the subject, or how much experience or knowledge they have. None of that matters. The people who are so blinded by fear or ignorance or both will deny anything and everything you say, all with no real evidence of their own."

I see that, and maybe I've been guilty of it. But isn't there another side to this? What I've become aware of is that no one believes much of anything anymore......think about it. You post a picture of a UFO landing on the White House Lawn and its dismissed as "photoshopped" or CGI. You post a link to a story about anything and its dismissed by way of its source, "you can't believe that, so-in-so is an unreliable source". Then......if you present something as of scientific interest, its dismissed as being "pro-government propaganda" or "anti-government propaganda.

Seems to me the whole internet has become a giant presentation of unreliable sources and politicized opinion disguised as fact.

Just a thought.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I have seen what you are saying on here as being quite true. I could go on and on with examples but won't bother. In answer to your question.....there is no cure for ignorance. If you are being willfully blind,there is no hope for you at all,and you will just have to suffer the consequences for that. Sad but the facts of life. In many situations you see this happen to people who "Get caught with their pants down" because they would not see the threat and prepare for it. Oh well, it culls out those who are determined to be blind.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Great question. And Post. Thank you.

I've become very jaded on the subject of 'civil discourse' when it comes to any media forum. The internet is by nature (see "The Bubble Filter" by Eli Pariser) ...

Filter bubble
A filter bubble is a result of a personalized search in which a website algorithm selectively guesses what information a user would like to see based on information about the user and, as a result, users become separated from information that disagrees with their viewpoints, effectively isolating them in their own cultural or ideological bubbles.

duckduckgo.com...

.... divisive, even 'radicalizing' by narrowing the scope of 'information' to which we are exposed.

Public (face to face) discussion exposes us to other points of view and by convention we used to at least (in order to maintain the facade of open-mindedness) listen to one another but there is little of that any more.

The problem has many causes and will require many solutions. Primary is the ability to communicate, not just shout out your opinion however cleverly composed, but the skill to listen to another, take the time you verify understanding of what another is saying and respect for that differing opinion.

If I reject an idea 'on principle' and stop listening, I'm always wrong on some level. If I only listen to those that 'agree' with me (or that I agree with) and not to those I disagree with or dismiss them as 'crazy' or whatever perjorative that comes to mind, I am denying myself the ablity to grow and my 'principles' become rigid and therefore very non-productive.

Communicating in writing is very difficult especially in a culture as diverse as the US. We don't even use 'common' definitions of words any longer, we make up our own individual meanings for words rather then look in a dictionary (educational lack).

This is a very important topic that deserves wide attention here on ATS and other public arenas.

originally posted by: olbe66
a reply to: Vroomfondel

A tightly bound set of questions here that deserve consideration. Nice post.

Aristotle suggested that the function of public discourse (The Rhetoric) was to instruct, delight or persuade. Using this definition, I expect that many folks here are motivated by a blend of all three, with some seeking to instruct, some seeking delight, and others seeking to persuade. Likewise, some are seeking instruction, delight, or to be persuaded.

Overall, this is a 21st century form of entertainment, that has the trappings of a higher calling, and the semblance of enlightenment.

At the end of the day, no one is running to ATS to post when things get really bad for them. They are dealing with the problems, and then maybe posting about it much later, after the crisis has subsumed normal life. My truck broke down on Saturday morning on the side of the road. I didn't go to ATS – I called a tow truck.

Perspective.

Thank you. Excellent perspective.

After the event is dealt with, when the post is issued, how then do people become so divided and rabid in their positions? Your truck broke down. Armed only with that information some here would suggest you abused the vehicle. Others would say the government didn't keep the roads in a good state of repair. Others would blame corporate America for selling defective product. Still others would suggest some nefarious scheme to endanger the commuting public. And still others would suggest alien intervention. And all would argue their 'facts' as though they were chiseled in stone.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Vroomfondel

First, kudos to a great OP! Very well thought out and presented. I can't address all of it and need to think about it a bit more, but.......

Your presentation about Denial brought up an interesting question. " It doesn't matter what your sources are, or who they are, or whether they have first-hand experience with the subject, or how much experience or knowledge they have. None of that matters. The people who are so blinded by fear or ignorance or both will deny anything and everything you say, all with no real evidence of their own."

I see that, and maybe I've been guilty of it. But isn't there another side to this? What I've become aware of is that no one believes much of anything anymore......think about it. You post a picture of a UFO landing on the White House Lawn and its dismissed as "photoshopped" or CGI. You post a link to a story about anything and its dismissed by way of its source, "you can't believe that, so-in-so is an unreliable source". Then......if you present something as of scientific interest, its dismissed as being "pro-government propaganda" or "anti-government propaganda.

Seems to me the whole internet has become a giant presentation of unreliable sources and politicized opinion disguised as fact.

Just a thought.

Thank you.

There is a certain degree of skepticism. I am guilty of that myself, and I feel it is a necessary trait to possess. But I don't deny a point I am not familiar with just because it doesn't suit me or my beliefs. I try to perform due diligence and research the subject for myself. Unless it is something I am already familiar with I try to educate myself before denying someone else's claims. We are all subject to emotion and bias, but there is more to consider than just that.

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: Vroomfondel

I have seen what you are saying on here as being quite true. I could go on and on with examples but won't bother. In answer to your question.....there is no cure for ignorance. If you are being willfully blind,there is no hope for you at all,and you will just have to suffer the consequences for that. Sad but the facts of life. In many situations you see this happen to people who "Get caught with their pants down" because they would not see the threat and prepare for it. Oh well, it culls out those who are determined to be blind.

Thank you. I started to cite examples but thought better of it. As you said, everyone has seen it for themselves.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Great question. And Post. Thank you.

I've become very jaded on the subject of 'civil discourse' when it comes to any media forum. The internet is by nature (see "The Bubble Filter" by Eli Pariser) ...

Filter bubble
A filter bubble is a result of a personalized search in which a website algorithm selectively guesses what information a user would like to see based on information about the user and, as a result, users become separated from information that disagrees with their viewpoints, effectively isolating them in their own cultural or ideological bubbles.

duckduckgo.com...

.... divisive, even 'radicalizing' by narrowing the scope of 'information' to which we are exposed.

Public (face to face) discussion exposes us to other points of view and by convention we used to at least (in order to maintain the facade of open-mindedness) listen to one another but there is little of that any more.

The problem has many causes and will require many solutions. Primary is the ability to communicate, not just shout out your opinion however cleverly composed, but the skill to listen to another, take the time you verify understanding of what another is saying and respect for that differing opinion.

If I reject an idea 'on principle' and stop listening, I'm always wrong on some level. If I only listen to those that 'agree' with me (or that I agree with) and not to those I disagree with or dismiss them as 'crazy' or whatever perjorative that comes to mind, I am denying myself the ablity to grow and my 'principles' become rigid and therefore very non-productive.

Communicating in writing is very difficult especially in a culture as diverse as the US. We don't even use 'common' definitions of words any longer, we make up our own individual meanings for words rather then look in a dictionary (educational lack).

This is a very important topic that deserves wide attention here on ATS and other public arenas.

Thank you.

The Filter Bubble is something I had not considered. Targeted advertisement extending beyond advertising and into selective exclusion of information. And you are right, most people would never think the search results are filtered to provide results based on their own preferences. This is something I intend to look at more closely.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Loved your response.

The truck broke because the alternator failed after 110,000 miles of loyal service. The old beast is at the repair shop today, and I will have it healed as there is no good reason to toss it out. As it gets older, I will be on more familiar terms with the tow truck operators in my area, just like I go to see the doctor more often.

I think people need to find causality in everything that happens. In humans, it seems to me, we want to find a reason for what is going on, good or bad, and ascribe an agent or actor behind it all. You are right when you note that people will find all kinds of hidden causes for outcomes – witches make me sick, aliens disturb my sleep, communists are putting chemicals into the drinking water supply, Tony the Tiger is causing brain cancer among my children....

Sometimes an alternator wears out on your truck. Lot of moving parts, brushes, electricity, and heck – did you think that thing would run forever?

So we can have fun speculating if the NSC rigged my alternator on Saturday to break down at the exact moment that I would have otherwise uncovered a vast conspiracy to turn the world into a slave-race of mole-people, or we can be sensible, and say “Naahhh.”

But for the sake of this site, I am betting on the mole-people theory.

originally posted by: olbe66
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Loved your response.

The truck broke because the alternator failed after 110,000 miles of loyal service. The old beast is at the repair shop today, and I will have it healed as there is no good reason to toss it out. As it gets older, I will be on more familiar terms with the tow truck operators in my area, just like I go to see the doctor more often.

I think people need to find causality in everything that happens. In humans, it seems to me, we want to find a reason for what is going on, good or bad, and ascribe an agent or actor behind it all. You are right when you note that people will find all kinds of hidden causes for outcomes – witches make me sick, aliens disturb my sleep, communists are putting chemicals into the drinking water supply, Tony the Tiger is causing brain cancer among my children....

Sometimes an alternator wears out on your truck. Lot of moving parts, brushes, electricity, and heck – did you think that thing would run forever?

So we can have fun speculating if the NSC rigged my alternator on Saturday to break down at the exact moment that I would have otherwise uncovered a vast conspiracy to turn the world into a slave-race of mole-people, or we can be sensible, and say “Naahhh.”

But for the sake of this site, I am betting on the mole-people theory.

Good point. Let me take that a step further. People are creatures of habit. They like to see familiar patterns in things. When something happens that breaks that pattern, it is upsetting. They instinctively look for ways to make sense of events that do not fit the normal pattern. If there are gaps, they have the tendency to fill in the blanks with things that look familiar. A person predisposed to seeing conspiracies will find gaps in every day events and fill them in with just enough selective data to support a conspiracy theory. It cant be dismissed out of hand because there is the possibility, no matter how slim, that it is true. Same for those who deny conspiracy theories. They would fill in the blanks with just enough plausible normality to suggest that everything is perfectly normal. That could in fact be the case, but they don't know that for sure.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
“How do you get people to acknowledge the problem without having them become so incapacitated by it, or their own agenda, that they are of no value whatsoever in finding a solution, or in other words, become part of the problem?”

Parables.


For example; from your signature: "Never play chess with a pigeon. It doesnt matter how good you are the bird will still sh!t on the board and strut around like it won the game."

This allows the brain to still process the information, because it is presented in an abstract analogy format.


Mike Grouchy

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I live in Pennsylvania, and have backpacked the Appalachian trail for years with my friends and my two sons. Whenever I set camp, I make sure that there are no deadfall trees around, or dead limbs in the tree above us. I am really paranoid about this.

Once we set up camp after dark and I shined my flashlight up and saw a dead limb about 12 inches wide hovering about 50 feet up and freaked out. I made the boys take down their tents and move about 30 feet away. Nothing happened during the night, so they were calling me out on how paranoid I was about deadfalls and dead limbs during the next days' hike.

At lunch we sat down off the trail to start a fire and eat. It was perfectly calm, no wind, and no weather. About 100 yards away on the trail we had just hiked down a massive oak toppled and crashed to the forest floor. It hit so hard we could feel it from where we sat. The kids were awestruck.

Trees do fall.

Go out into an old forest some time and sit down and listen. You will hear limbs and trees falling all the time. If you don't pay attention to this, and spend enough time in the woods, sooner or later a piece of wood is going to come down on you. Statistically it is never going to happen on any given day. Or month. Or year. But if you spend enough time out there......

Like you said about habits. Some seem foolish. Some are wise. The tree never got me or my boys, and I am pretty sure they will never camp under a deadfall again.

As you said “They would fill in the blanks with just enough plausible normality to suggest that everything is perfectly normal. That could in fact be the case, but they don't know that for sure. “

A little enlightened paranoia is better than a tree on your skull.


And sometimes even the crazies are correct. !

a reply to: Vroomfondel

You know, lately I've been doing a lot of independent research myself lately to try to get the truth of several matters.

That effort has produced a VERY SURPRISING RESULT I'd share with you and others to see if you've encountered the same thing. One of my favorite "fun" research topics is Nazi UFO technologies and their development.

Now of course, we all know its probably a long shot the Nazi's developed a UFO, but when I have to go to a party or something and find myself surrounded by entirely obnoxious people inclined to insult me, I will adopt a rather "all knowing" scholarly tone and deliver a windy speech about the Nazi UFO projects. And of course I'll tie in the secret societies, the Thule and such and mention Sigrun and Maria Orsich, et al. But here's the real deal.

If you start to research that topic on the Internet you discover an amazing phenomenon.......there are really only 5 or 6 "original" sources, but there are hundreds of websites that almost word for word Parrot those sources, and at great length! The whole topic, although covered on HUNDREDS of websites, is an almost entirely CLOSED INFORMATION LOOP!

I got interested in the topic of AGW and found the same damn problem.......Closed Information Loop that seems to fold back on itself and returns to the same 5 or 6 base sources, one of which is Nasa and the NOAA. Really strange. I did find some seemingly scholarly works on the topic and I haven't finished my research because I think I found another "thread" or rabbit trail that slinks off into some University web sites and research materials available there. (really heavy reading stuff that gives me a headache).

Anyway.....just to share.

I don't know, I don't really see my goal as being to persuade others to agree with me or come over to my opinion.
There's isn't really any reason for me to want that. What difference does it make to me?

Although, I think sometimes my behavior could make observers think otherwise... because I don't just walk away easily. I will sometimes continue to go back and forth in an argument for quite a while- even when it is obvious there is no way in heck the other would change their mind, and sometimes even when it is a troll that barely has two brain cells to communicate with.

The reason is just that the opposition poses an opportunity for me to organize my thoughts. To put them into words, clarifying and becoming more and more precise as I try to explain in different ways. It is for me, not them.

It is this way that I come to a shorter and more precise way of expressing myself, that will come in handy next time, in a thread or conversation of that topic - I'll have a way of saying it in two sentences instead of fifteen.

It's just process for me.
But the other? They are welcome to keep their opinion. Though I admit I think they'd be smarter to do the same and use the exchange to work on it. Just insulting snidely is a waste of time. But that too, they have the right to do.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Vroomfondel

You know, lately I've been doing a lot of independent research myself lately to try to get the truth of several matters.


If you start to research that topic on the Internet you discover an amazing phenomenon.......there are really only 5 or 6 "original" sources, but there are hundreds of websites that almost word for word Parrot those sources, and at great length! The whole topic, although covered on HUNDREDS of websites, is an almost entirely CLOSED INFORMATION LOOP!

Five or six independent sources is enough to validate the material in question. Traditionally Journalists only need one corroborating source to run with a story. You are not ever going find dozens of independent primary sources on any topic.

I've researched 'fads' (oil pulling for one) that all lead back to one primary source and are not believable because of it. It's very difficult to trace the origin of 'facts' because few media outlets even cite their sources.

However I do like your idea of a "closed information loop" . Again I recommend "The Filter Bubble".

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Vroomfondel

You know, lately I've been doing a lot of independent research myself lately to try to get the truth of several matters.

That effort has produced a VERY SURPRISING RESULT I'd share with you and others to see if you've encountered the same thing. One of my favorite "fun" research topics is Nazi UFO technologies and their development.

Now of course, we all know its probably a long shot the Nazi's developed a UFO, but when I have to go to a party or something and find myself surrounded by entirely obnoxious people inclined to insult me, I will adopt a rather "all knowing" scholarly tone and deliver a windy speech about the Nazi UFO projects. And of course I'll tie in the secret societies, the Thule and such and mention Sigrun and Maria Orsich, et al. But here's the real deal.

If you start to research that topic on the Internet you discover an amazing phenomenon.......there are really only 5 or 6 "original" sources, but there are hundreds of websites that almost word for word Parrot those sources, and at great length! The whole topic, although covered on HUNDREDS of websites, is an almost entirely CLOSED INFORMATION LOOP!

I got interested in the topic of AGW and found the same damn problem.......Closed Information Loop that seems to fold back on itself and returns to the same 5 or 6 base sources, one of which is Nasa and the NOAA. Really strange. I did find some seemingly scholarly works on the topic and I haven't finished my research because I think I found another "thread" or rabbit trail that slinks off into some University web sites and research materials available there. (really heavy reading stuff that gives me a headache).

Anyway.....just to share.

Very interesting. I think we kind of fool ourselves thinking that the internet has unlimited knowledge available. It might be a very limited amount of knowledge, just repeated a lot of times.

originally posted by: Bluesma
I don't know, I don't really see my goal as being to persuade others to agree with me or come over to my opinion.
There's isn't really any reason for me to want that. What difference does it make to me?

Although, I think sometimes my behavior could make observers think otherwise... because I don't just walk away easily. I will sometimes continue to go back and forth in an argument for quite a while- even when it is obvious there is no way in heck the other would change their mind, and sometimes even when it is a troll that barely has two brain cells to communicate with.

The reason is just that the opposition poses an opportunity for me to organize my thoughts. To put them into words, clarifying and becoming more and more precise as I try to explain in different ways. It is for me, not them.

It is this way that I come to a shorter and more precise way of expressing myself, that will come in handy next time, in a thread or conversation of that topic - I'll have a way of saying it in two sentences instead of fifteen.

It's just process for me.
But the other? They are welcome to keep their opinion. Though I admit I think they'd be smarter to do the same and use the exchange to work on it. Just insulting snidely is a waste of time. But that too, they have the right to do.

As you pointed out, getting others to change their opinions isn't easy, and of questionable value. I would offer though, that although it isn't necessary to have the same view to work together to find a solution to a problem, it is necessary for two people to first agree what the actual problem is. To that end I think it is worth trying to convince others.

Now, apply cognitive dissonance to the current state of affairs in the world in regards to any of the issues currently being hotly debated. Some people perceive themselves to be far enough away from the problem to see it for what it is and be afraid of it. Some are just far enough away to know there is an issue but not fully understand it or acknowledge it. And some are simply too close to it to even acknowledge that it exists at all.

You could also apply it not to just the debated issues in the world(e.g War in ME, Mass shooting's in the U.S,climate change) But you could apply it to every individual on the planet has to some extent cognitive dissonance regarding the operations of human civilization as a whole. I think it will take an outside force for all of us to finally accept all the problems of this world for what they really are..

For example the current economic system is not sustainable and most economist(there are those who do not) choose to ignore the problem that growth will come to a halt. This sort of thinking trickles down to the peasants of the Information age, consumerism has now in recent decades become a recreational activity for most rather than a utility. As we continue to rape this planet of it's resources people on both sides of this issue are in denial about the fact that we may have to change our ways.

I think denial of certain issues can be attributed to people having their world views being challenged, because if they accept the rhetoric of the other side than they have to admit they were wrong... And since everyone sharing their ideas wants to think they have it right, in there eyes it makes them look like an idiot. I think your more than right though, many people are in denial about the issues plaguing this world.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

As you pointed out, getting others to change their opinions isn't easy, and of questionable value. I would offer though, that although it isn't necessary to have the same view to work together to find a solution to a problem, it is necessary for two people to first agree what the actual problem is. To that end I think it is worth trying to convince others.

But I am not in any position of power to propose or put into action any solutions. If I was a politician or someone of influence, maybe. But I am a regular person having discussion on the internet. At the most, I might be able to work on my communication and thoughts enough to be better at persuading people in my area, that I talk to in person, and might influence voters around me. But strangers on the other side of the world? I have no great expectations.....