There is something deeply ironic happening on social media.

We’ve never had greater access to other people’s ideas, and we’ve never been worse at listening to them.

Millions of us voluntarily log onto platforms specifically designed to connect us with other human beings. We post our thoughts publicly. We comment on politics, culture, religion, science and current events. We ask questions. We share opinions.

In other words, we actively seek conversation.

Gold. Upgraded. Buy real gold from $1. Store it in America. Sell it with one click.

Then someone disagrees with us.

And suddenly, conversation is the last thing many of us want.

Instead of responding with an argument, we reach for an insult.

Idiot.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

Moron.

Brainwashed.

Cult member.

Communist.

Fascist.

Shut up.

Sometimes the person is blocked before they can even respond.

Think about how strange that is.

We have built the greatest communication infrastructure in human history, capable of instantly connecting ordinary people separated by thousands of miles, and increasingly we seem to use it to find people who already agree with us.

We created a global town square and then divided it into ideological gated communities.

And nobody gets to claim innocence here.

This isn’t exclusively a problem with liberals.

It isn’t exclusively a problem with conservatives.

It isn’t MAGA.

It isn’t the progressive Left.

It’s us.

We Don’t Want Information. We Want Confirmation.

Human beings have always suffered from confirmation bias, the tendency to notice, embrace and remember information that supports what we already believe while scrutinizing or dismissing information that challenges it.

Social media didn’t invent that tendency.

It industrialized it.

Today, you can construct an entire information universe in which you’re almost never seriously challenged.

Follow the people who agree with you.

Share the articles that validate you.

Like the posts that reinforce your worldview.

Mute the annoying people.

Block the dissenters.

Mock the opposition.

Then watch as algorithms learn exactly what keeps you clicking.

Eventually, something dangerous happens.

Your opinions stop feeling like opinions.

They start feeling like obvious truths.

After all, everyone you follow agrees with you.

Every video in your feed supports you.

Every viral post confirms what you’ve suspected all along.

So when somebody finally appears and says, “I don’t think that’s true,” your first reaction isn’t curiosity.

It’s disbelief.

How could anyone possibly think that?

And from there, it is an incredibly short trip to:

What an idiot.

Disagreement Has Become a Character Flaw

This may be the most destructive change of all.

We increasingly struggle to separate a person’s argument from the person making it.

Someone doesn’t merely hold an incorrect position anymore.

They are a bad person for holding it.

Disagree about immigration?

You’re heartless, or you want open borders.

Disagree about taxes?

You’re greedy, or you’re a socialist.

Disagree about an election, a war, abortion, guns, climate change, vaccines or virtually any emotionally charged subject?

Within minutes, somebody will attempt to diagnose your intelligence, morality, patriotism or sanity.

There is very little room left for:

“I think you’re wrong, but I understand why you believe that.”

And that’s a tragedy, because those may be some of the most important words a functioning society can say.

Understanding someone’s argument does not require accepting it.

Listening isn’t surrender.

Changing your mind isn’t weakness.

And admitting the other side made a good point doesn’t mean you’ve betrayed your tribe.

It means you’re thinking.

The Most Dangerous Question on the Internet

There is one question every intellectually curious person should occasionally ask themselves:

“What if I’m wrong?”

Four words.

Yet they may be among the hardest words to genuinely consider.

Try something uncomfortable sometime.

Take one of your strongest political beliefs and ask yourself:

What evidence would actually convince me that I’m mistaken?

Not annoy you.

Not make you angry.

Not make you immediately search for a rebuttal.

Actually change your mind.

If the answer is nothing, then you don’t really have a conclusion based on evidence.

You have an article of faith.

And political ideology should never become a religion whose doctrines cannot be questioned.

We Are Rewarded for Being Angry

There is another uncomfortable reality.

Calm disagreement isn’t particularly exciting.

Rage is.

“Here is a thoughtful argument explaining why I respectfully disagree” doesn’t generate the same adrenaline as:

THIS PERSON IS INSANE!!!

Outrage gives us villains.

Villains give us tribes.

Tribes give us belonging.

And belonging is powerful.

Suddenly you’re not merely debating a tax policy or an election.

You’re fighting alongside the good people against the bad people.

Every political disagreement becomes another battle in an endless war between righteousness and evil.

Once politics reaches that point, compromise becomes cowardice and curiosity becomes betrayal.

You aren’t supposed to understand the enemy. You’re supposed to defeat them.

So we stop talking.

And start performing.

Somewhere Along the Way, We Forgot What Debate Actually Is

A debate isn’t supposed to be a contest to see who can humiliate the other person.

The purpose isn’t necessarily to make your opponent change their mind.

Sometimes the most valuable outcome of a debate is discovering that you need to change yours.

That requires something increasingly rare:

Intellectual humility.

The recognition that no matter how intelligent, informed or experienced you are, you don’t know everything.

Neither do I.

Neither does your favorite politician.

Neither does your favorite podcast host.

Neither does the person with 10 million followers.

Neither does the anonymous account screaming at you from behind a cartoon avatar.

We are all operating with incomplete information.

That means the person disagreeing with you might know something you don’t.

Imagine approaching a conversation with that possibility in mind.

It changes everything.

Your Political Opponent Is Probably More Complicated Than You Think

Most people don’t wake up wondering how they can destroy America before breakfast.

Yet spend enough time online and you would think approximately half the country consists of cartoon villains.

Conservatives look at liberals and wonder how anyone could possibly believe what they believe.

Liberals look at conservatives and wonder exactly the same thing.

Both groups frequently arrive at the easiest possible explanation:

They’re stupid.

Maybe.

But here’s a more interesting possibility:

They have different experiences.

Different priorities.

Different fears.

Different sources of information.

Different assumptions about human nature.

Different ideas about government’s role in society.

Different definitions of fairness.

Understanding those differences doesn’t mean agreeing with them.

It means recognizing that people are considerably more complicated than the labels we attach to them.

Try Something Radical: Talk to Someone

Imagine two people sitting across from each other.

One voted Republican.

The other voted Democrat.

They disagree about nearly everything.

But neither calls the other stupid.

Neither searches for the perfect viral comeback.

Neither is performing for an audience.

One asks:

“Why do you believe that?”

The other explains.

Then comes another increasingly endangered phrase:

“I hadn’t thought about it that way.”

They may still disagree when the conversation ends.

That’s okay.

The conversation wasn’t a failure.

Both people now understand something they didn’t understand before.

That is what intelligent disagreement looks like.

And we desperately need more of it.

Because the Alternative Should Terrify Us

A society doesn’t become healthier when everyone agrees.

That’s impossible.

A healthy society becomes capable of disagreeing without destroying itself.

Democracy itself depends on this.

Sooner or later, you’re going to lose an argument.

Your candidate is going to lose an election.

Your preferred policy is going to fail.

Your worldview is going to be challenged.

And you will still have to share a country, a workplace, a neighborhood, or perhaps even a Thanksgiving table, with people who voted differently.

We have two choices.

We can continue retreating into increasingly isolated ideological tribes, convinced that everyone outside them is ignorant or evil.

Or we can rediscover something profoundly simple:

How to talk to each other.

Social media gave humanity something previous generations could barely have imagined, the ability to communicate instantly with almost anyone, anywhere on Earth.

What an extraordinary gift.

What a terrible thing to waste screaming at one another.

Maybe the most revolutionary thing you can do online today isn’t winning an argument.

Maybe it’s encountering someone who completely disagrees with you and saying:

“Tell me why.”

Then actually listening.

Because if we lose our ability to disagree intelligently, the greatest communication technology humanity has ever created won’t have brought us closer together.

It will have simply given us a better way to hate people we’ve never met.

Gold is the oldest answer. SoundMoney makes owning it as easy as the apps you already use.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.