Searching for the truth in a stable world

For years, I was fascinated by how people’s lives are formed, especially the life of the polarized groups held in historical disputes. In my research at Harvard University, for the first time, I gathered the descendants of the Holocaust survivors and the Nazi grandchildren to examine their interactions.

We used a statistical approach called serial analysis to analyze their conversations, measure the possibility that someone says something and the possibility of the other’s response. What we found was amazing: both groups felt as victims, very well -firmly in their history of pain and justification.

We have noticed similar patterns when the descendants of slave people and slave holders gathered. Each side has been identified by his suffering or a feeling of inheritance Guilt.

The struggle to hear the other side

This perception, that every group in a very rooted conflict in its own novel is so far as it is struggling to hear the other side, not limited to historical atrocities. The same dynamic play in marriages, where couples in the past argue each other; In political discussions, where opponents deal with each other as enemies; Even in the classroom.

As a professor of psychology who spent three decades in teaching and searching for polarization issues, I noticed a shift in the dynamics of the semester. The discussions are increasingly tense, like battle bottles as students defend fixed positions instead of exploring ideas.

The prevailing model is the discussion: it is designed to win, not to search for the truth, deep understanding, or the diversity of the view. Whether in polarized groups, relationships, classrooms, or public discourse, people often become rooted in their views and are not really able to hear the other side. Many have become very confident in their right, making it difficult to see honestly at alternative views.

The effect of Dunning-Kruger on polarized discussions

This excessive confidence is in line with Dunning-kruger effectCognitive prejudice Where individuals who have a limited knowledge of the estimation of their efficiency. They lack self -awareness by getting to know the gaps in their understanding, and they mistakenly believe that they are more aware of what they are.

In polarized discussions, this trend feeds strict thinking, making discussion a tool for self -confirmation rather than a way to deeper understanding.

Provide a method of diversity

These experiments led me to develop what I call the method of diversity. When I gathered the descendants of the Holocaust survivors and the Nazis, the grandchildren of worshipers and the owners of slaves, I was not looking for a meeting of reconciliation. I was studying their interactions, and the data revealed a fixed pattern: each side was quickly to defend its location instead of asking questions.

This insight has become the basis for the method of diversity, which encourages people to shift from defending beliefs to examining their thinking through investigation and evidence. Although the term “diversity” has become controversial in some circles, I simply use it to mean DifferencesIn views.

As a professor of advanced research methods, I spent years training students to design studies, analyze data and think scientifically using evidence -based thinking. Over time, I began to see that the same tools we use to examine research questions can be applied to address the polarized social issues.

Scientific thinking includes asking questions, forming assumptions, collecting data, and opening up to the challenge of our own assumptions. Unlike the discussion, which aims to defend the situation, scientific thinking tests ideas and encourages intellectual humility.

The role of restrictions in scientific thinking

In fact, every article that the peer has reviewed includes a section on restrictions so that other researchers can repeat the work, address these restrictions, and approach the truth.

Academic readings and basic skills

Imagine if someone said, during a discussion, “Reducing my argument is …”– It will be surprising. However, in science, recognition of restrictions is necessary to discuss truth and progress in a deeper understanding.

An evidence based on evidence to attract issues

Take the polarization issue like Social media And mental health. One of my sides argues that social media is harmful to the luxury of young people; The other sees that it reflects the current social dynamics.

A scientific approach to evidence avoids taking my side. It begins to clarify the definitions (for example, What is a decrease in mental health? On what time frame? How is it measured?), Collecting data, testing alternative interpretations, and staying open on any results that appear, even if they contradict previous beliefs.

How can artificial intelligence help

Now, we have a powerful new tool to enhance this process: artificial intelligence. Amnesty International can quickly process the amounts of data, and when using it responsibly, it can help identify the patterns and visions that may be difficult for humans to see.

Humans are affected by the beliefs and identities of the group subliminal The motives, even when we try to be objective. In contrast, artificial intelligence can help us see the patterns and contradictions that we may miss.

For example, Amnesty International can analyze millions of social media posts to detect mood shifts, Feeling lonelyOr anxiety. The links through data groups from the user sharing can reveal mental health polls and identify sub -groups that social media may have different effects.

This leads us to the “good” or “bad” research conclusions to a more accurate and deeper understanding of evidence for the impact of social media.

Amnesty International as a partner in evidence -based thinking

However, artificial intelligence is not enough. Without scientific and based on scientific thinking, its outputs risk misuse or misunderstanding. some Fearful Artificial intelligence will replace human thinking, but I see it as a tool that enhances our minds by detecting patterns that may pass without anyone noticing. This only works if we get close to artificial intelligence data with doubt, and we deal with the results of it as assumptions to explore, not as a release to defend our beliefs.

Enhancing humility and curiosity

By combining artificial intelligence with evidence -based thinking, we can overcome our narrow views and analyze complex and polarized social data on an unprecedented scale.

In the semester, I ask students no, “Who is the correct?” but “What is the evidence that your mind may turn?And “and”What are your limits?These questions enhance humility and curiosity, and attributes that support more constructive dialogue in our polarized world.

A new path forward

Artificial intelligence and evidence -based thinking are not magic repairs, but they provide a way forward. Treating the polarized social issues requires a discussion of the discussion of the search for the truth, considering the diversity of the view, and the adoption of a mental that does not focus on winning, but on learning and gaining deeper visions.