Reducing partisan rancor is going to require the human touch

Every year, it seems, Americans get madder at each other. Heck, make that every hour. Is there any way for us all to take a collective deep breath and actually have a civil discussion? A new study, recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and written about by Ezra Klein of Vox, attempted to answer that question.

A group of sociologists and political scientists tested the common theory that ideological "cocoons" are contributing to increasing partisanship, as people increasingly consume only information that dovetails with their views. Last year, the researchers paid more than 1,000 politically engaged folks on Twitter $11 to follow a bot for a month, which would expose them to messages from the other end of the political spectrum. The subjects were also paid to fill out surveys before, during and after the experiment.

Depressingly, the researchers discovered that the exercise in being exposed to the other side’s views actually increased people’s partisanship. Republicans became “substantially” more conservative; Democrats “exhibited slight increases in liberal attitudes.” Maybe we can’t just all talk it out.

Or, at least, not on social media. As the authors noted, the results contrast with other studies that had seemed to indicate "intergroup contact increases the likelihood of deliberation and political compromise." The researchers added: "However, all of these previous studies examine interpersonal contact between members of rival groups."

Which makes a certain amount of sense. If you meet me in person, I can learn that you have an endearing laugh and are extraordinarily considerate about offering others that last doughnut. You can discover that I went to third grade with your favorite cousin and am capable of driving a car under the most stressful circumstances without losing my temper. These little human interactions build a certain amount of trust when we ask each other to reconsider our most cherished views. They also give us a reason to reconsider, fostering greater potential harmony in our budding personal relationship.

Perhaps most important, we can have a lengthy, open-ended discussion, one which both parties have an incentive to keep from becoming too heated. Even if we never come around to the other's view, we are constantly reminded that opinions we abhor may be held not by a monster, but by a decent person who is kind to dogs and children.

On social media, all we get are strings of text. We don't have to reconcile views we dislike with the delightful individual standing in front of us; rather, we simply imagine an awful person with matching horrid opinions.

That's bound to be worse on Twitter, where the 280-character limit bars any sort of nuance or lengthy explanation -- discourages anything, really, except a quick sneer at the other team. And as we can all attest from our personal life, repeated involuntary exposure to people we dislike can aggravate mild distaste into wild revulsion. It is hardly a surprise that forcing alien opinion into someone's Twitter feed makes them even more oppositional. What would be surprising is if it didn't.

Which helps explain the increasing vehemence of America's political divide, especially among the chattering classes. More than a decade ago, journalist Bill Bishop coined the term "the big sort" to describe how Americans were increasingly relocating to places dominated by people who resemble them politically. But the paper on Twitter users adds a new wrinkle: Our neighbors in the physical world might tend to think like us, but online, Americans -- particularly the chatterati -- are constantly barraged by the opinions of their political enemies, mostly filtered by co-partisans saying, "Look what those awful people say and do." And even exposing people directly to the source doesn't lessen the friction, since it increases the number of irritations they encounter.

It is the worst possible combination and, unfortunately, few solutions immediately present themselves. The phenomenon emerges from millions of private decisions over which no authority has any control.

But there is one small thing that might help, which is using social media to talk to each other, rather than at each other. Over nearly 20 years of writing on the Internet, I’ve encountered plenty of people who are enraged by my views. But I’ve also discovered how many of them will calm down if they receive a cheerful, patient response.

Suddenly, I move from being one of those faceless enemies to a human being who is talking to them directly. It certainly doesn't work in every case; sometimes trolls gonna troll. But it's amazing how often a respectful reply elicits an apology and an open ear.

If we want to live in a less polarized nation, we should try opting for a more personal one. When others start shouting, instead of banging on our own ALL-CAPS key, we can offer them the digital equivalent of a friendly hand and invite them into our virtual living room for a cozy conversation.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.