How Nutpicking Leads to Increased Polarization
As we grow more polarized, a vital driver of this polarization is often mentioned but not given enough thought. In the following paragraphs, I will explain how nutpicking (defined below) works, how it increases polarization, and what we can do to anesthetize ourselves against it.
On most issues and subjects, people fall into a normal distribution centered around whatever the median individuals believe. And as you move towards more extreme positions, there will be fewer and fewer adherents to that position. While most people have perspectives somewhere in the middle of any issue, it is inherent that 50% of the population will fall on each side of the question. The center of any topic may move over time, and there are broader and tighter distributions for any given subject. Some issues will even fall outside the normal distribution pattern, with multiple clumps centered around different positions.
Nutpicking is a derivative of straw man arguments, where an individual attributes a radical idea to the entire population who hold less extreme but congruent perspectives. Nutpicking is a term I first heard reading David French but it describes a topic many people have discussed. For example, imagine a public debate about cats or dogs being the best pets. On both sides, most people would agree that while their preferred pet is the best, there is nothing wrong with liking the opposite. But extremists on each side think that their preferred pet is better and that we should exterminate the non-preferred pets. A cat person could nutpick by proclaiming that all dog people want cats eliminated.
While nutpicking is different than a straw man in that it is grounded in some reality, it is similar in that it attributes arguments to the majority with whom they disagree. The core problem with nutpicking (other than it is dishonest) is that each side’s good opinions will not be addressed. In my example, if a dog person thinks dogs are better pets because dogs do tricks and cats won’t, the cat person’s nutpicking leaves this dog person feeling attacked — and the cat person did not address the reasonable argument. The dog person would now feel more secure in the perspective of dog supremacy, as they assume that if there were a sound refutation to their opinion, the cat person would have made that argument instead of nutpicking. The dog person will also feel less inclined to listen to the cat people they interact with as the dog person will be wary of being attacked again. The combination of not wanting to feel attacked and being more secure with their opinion leads the dog owner to be more willing to listen to the extreme perspectives on their own side. As both sides of the argument do this to each other, the population grows more polarized, and more and more people think that exterminating the other side’s pets is a sensible course of action. While this example is a bit silly and extreme, the overall trend does exist.
One other factor is at play here, it is that the people who nutpick the most tend to come from the small extremes on each side, and nutpicking is one of their best tactics to recruit people from the middle into the more extreme camps. In a less polarized population, most people will see a lousy argument from people on the opposite side of an issue and be disgruntled by it. Still, they will also know that it is not representative of the whole of the other side.
As individuals, there are a couple of actions we can take to avoid nutpicking. First, we must recognize when we are nutpicking ourselves. It is easy to see one person on the opposite side of an issue from you making a terrible argument and then attributing that argument to everyone that disagrees with you on the subject. Second, we must recognize when the individuals around us are nutpicking. If the situation is appropriate, you can point out that not everyone on the other side agrees with the flawed argument — but merely recognizing the nutpicking for yourself will lead you to more reasoned beliefs. Third (and finally), we should notice when the thought leaders we follow are consistently nutpicking. It is easy to listen to someone you trust make arguments against people you disagree with, but when we notice that the people we follow are not making good-faith arguments, we should be more skeptical of what they say.
