Polarization is not madness, it is bad method

People say, “How can you be so rational and still so divided?” Easy: you spend your scarce attention not on truth, but on refuting the other camp, because that is the local move that feels safest. Then every mind becomes a little courtroom, and politics becomes an endless trial where victory matters more than weighing reasons on both sides. @Public disputations and critics yield little genuine profit for truth, since school debates aim at victory and verisimilitude rather than rigorous, equitable examination of reasons.

Call it a tragedy of the commons of attention. The cure is not louder “facts,” but stricter method: accept only what you perceive clearly, split the question, climb from the simple to the complex, and review what you omitted. @Descartes’ four methodological rules: accept only what is clearly and distinctly known; divide problems; proceed from simple to complex in orderly fashion; and make complete enumerations and general reviews to omit nothing.

If your feed rewards outrage, how often do you actually doubt yourself?