Translator: Gisela Giardino
Reviewer: Sebastian Betti I have quite an issue with truth
and conversations. I'm a scientist but I ended up
taking some weird paths. Science is a way of asking
questions to the world and of listening to the answers. We will never know everything. But that doesn't mean we know nothing. There's a lot that we already know. However, the evidence
is sometimes set aside when making decisions
or forming an idea of the world. For example, we already know
that climate change is real, but some still deny it. We already know that vaccines
work and are safe. But some still doubt about it. That was my first disappointment. Evidence is necessary but not sufficient. This opened up a new path for me. I thought the problem was education. So I left the lab and I turned to teaching. I love teaching. The classroom is one
of my favorite places. But there I found the same problem. I was teaching on vaccines and one student said
she didn't get vaccinated because vaccines seemed dangerous. My hunch was, "She says this because she doesn't know, if I explain, she will change her mind." I explained to her, but it didn't work. The evidence is not enough. Education is not enough. Second disappointment. This that happened with my student was my first personal experience
with post-truth. It's what happens when,
although the information is there, it's set aside and emotions
or beliefs ensue. With this, another new path opened up. Maybe, it's a communication problem? Given that science is a tool, I used it to study post-truth. I started having conversations
with people who don't trust vaccines, while meeting doctors and journalists in an attempt to improve
communication on this subject. And there I realized that
I had never learned to talk with those who think differently. For example, how do we dialogue when
the problem is not the evidence but an ideological disagreement? Experiments show that when people talk
only with those who think alike their opinions become
more extreme and homogeneous. But in order to have a healthy democracy, don't we need that
those who think differently engage in broad, honest
and deep conversations? This is far from happening. Every discussion, every disagreement,
every conversation looks like a battle between good and evil. Our opinions, instead of being temporary, bridges to communicate with others, are immovable, a ditch that we dig and tells apart those on our side from the others. Dialogue disappears,
agreements are impossible, and the world shatters
in an explosive combination of aggression and distrust. Can we do something about this? Not all opinions are born equal. Some are weak, or short-lived. Others are intense, or long-lasting. And others become part of our identity. When that happens,
any doubt on what we think becomes a doubt on who we are. And that is unbearable. In addition, the need
to protect our integrity makes us team up with
those in our same situation. This is tribalism. That's why sometimes neither
evidence nor education works. We don't think something,
we are that something. (Applause) Let me ask you a question. Did it ever happen to you
of going to a meet up with people you don't know and thinking something like, "Mm, I don't know what these people think,
I better not talk about this or that"? Did it ever happen to you? Let's see, raise your hand
those who lived something like that. Look at you. The harm of tribalism is not only that
it creates a climate of permanent conflict but that it also creates silence. Some of us withdraw from the debate, not because we don't have opinions
or we don't care about what happens. We are not halfhearted. It's the atmosphere of aggression,
it's things not moving forward, it's fear, exhaustion,
and the social punishment of dissent. It's for one or more of these reasons
that we leave conversations in silence. A loud silence. And so, the inability to dialogue causes the number of voices to go down. Until there is only one left, sometimes. Silence is confused with agreement. And the illusion of consensus is created. Because one opinion is heard,
there seem to be only one. And then any other opinion
is not only different, but dissonant, alien,
and must be eliminated. In general, we think of censorship as a power which bans from above. But there is another, more subtle way. Censorship from below. Through tools of social discipline, such as raising the tone of the fight,
it makes us withdraw. This is a threat to free expression. And it makes me think that
it's also a problem for democracy. Both in our small environment
and on a large scale. It would seem then
that we only have two options. Whether we share our ideas despising
those who don't think alike, or we shut up. And by doing that, we give up control
to those who speak up. But this is a false dilemma. There is another option,
but we need to make it evident, because it is hidden
in this sea of tribalism. We can have defined positions,
even very intense ones, without riding on the dynamics
of intolerant speech. It's one of the things I learned
when talking to people who doubt vaccines. To break tribalism, to find more voices, to break this "friends or foes" dynamics, I propose to distinguish between
what we believe in and how we believe it. And if we make this "how" non-tribal, we can raise our opinions without allowing what we think
to become who we are. The nuances reappear
and conversations become possible. And from that point
we can build consensus which are the product of agreements,
despite our differences. However, when I talk about these ideas
I usually get some criticism. It seems that in order to avoid conflict I suggest that we let consensus
happen anytime. No, that is not what I mean. If we don't express ourselves because
we feel alienated or expelled we are not taking part in decision making. But we all live with the consequences
of those decisions. So, since we do care, we need to talk. But if we don't want to talk
in this hostile atmosphere because it's exhausting
and we see that it leads nowhere, let's try to move past tribal mode. Beyond what we think. We may have more in common with those who think differently
yet want to talk, than with those who share with us
same opinions but are intolerant. (Applause) They also usually tell me that there isn't much we can do
on the individual level to move past tribal mode. But I think there are some
very concrete things to do. And I have three suggestions
that could help. First, look for pluralism. Promote it actively. So dissent becomes visible and this is important because
only if we include dissent we can achieve a true consensus. For this to happen
we need to be able to talk without feeling that
we are socially punished. But it also requires listening to voices we don't like. The moment to defend
freedom of expression is now. Taking care of it is easier
than recovering it. Learn to have better conversations. To find better ways of disagreeing. A conversation is not waiting
for our turn to talk, trying to impose our ideas
by force or insistence. It's about listening
to understand others. Without listening there's no conversation. Third, separate ideas from people. Under tribalism, attacking an idea
makes the person feel threatened because they feel attacked as a person. But how are we going to improve ideas
with that attitude? We need to discuss them,
so that the best survive. People deserve respect. Ideas have to earn it. Humans are inventors. At some point, somewhere, we invented the idea of sitting
by the fire to talk. And at some point,
both conversations and fire look alike. Both are always in between two dangers. The danger of dying
or growing out of control. It took us time but
we learned to handle fire. We learned to keep it alive
so it doesn't go out. And to handle it so it doesn't destroy us. Maybe, it's time to learn
to do the same with conversations. Thank you. (Applause)
