The false consensus effect is a cognitive bias that makes us think that most people are like us, that they share our beliefs, values and behaviours. We flock to those who reinforce our views in order to be accepted, to feel safe, and to improve our self-esteem. We're fed information by social media algorithms that marries with our world-view and we gravitate towards news that confirms our existing beliefs. Thus, we rarely interact with those who clash with us, encountering them only when they're used as a pawn in our discourse.

One effect of this bias is that we view these others as defective. We say, “Who on earth reads this shit?” or “Who the hell voted for them?”. We consider them less educated, less intelligent, and driven by inferior values. We bolster our self-esteem by mocking and affirming our superiority over them.

This polarisation prevents constructive and nuanced discourse. It stops us from trying to understand why people hold their views. We assume they are inferior, and we ignore the huge impact experiences have on how people respond to circumstances.

Have you ever seen anybody change another's opinion by telling them how stupid they are? And yet it's the continual tactic of those who dehumanise anti-vaxxers, the no-boundaries, pro-EU remainers who think all who voted for Brexit are racists, and those who can't understand why 'defund the police' is a terrible slogan for trying to convince people that change is needed.

Why do people hold certain views? And why do they hold them so strongly? Digging deeper on these positions that so divide public opinion, we find that views form on very shallow, often emotional, foundations. Sound bites on social media or in the news trigger strong emotional responses—and are designed to do so—cementing the person in their position and eroding any desire to understand the topic deeply. We surrender to emotion and wallow in the safe bolstering of our existing views.

Consider Brexit, the UK referendum to leave the European Union. European politics, trade, and economics are complex beasts. Experts in these fields admitted that they didn't understand the ramifications of Britain leaving the EU. How could we expect the public to know what to do?

Both the Remain and Leave sides campaigned on emotional levels. There were claims of extra money for the NHS, increased immigration and loss of 'our jobs', trade routes grinding to a halt and no imported food, no more 'regulations' for businesses, and so on. The media painted pictures of Armageddon, empty shops, an invasion of foreigners and no jobs for the 'true' British citizen. They latched onto peoples' fears, and their identity, to get them onside. The resulting strength of feeling was in stark contrast to the knowledge people had of the issues at hand.

In the wake of the referendum, a team from the National Theatre of Great Britain spoke to people of all ages from across the UK to hear their views on what had happened. They created a production, weaving the interview recordings into a debate between the people of the UK.

The contrast between strength of feeling and lack of knowledge was soon obvious. The director, Rufus Norris, said, “they’re all talking about a subject about which there isn’t one person in the country who knows fuck all about it. Most people, like me, can say what they think about Brexit, or European funding or immigration control and all of it will be what we've read”. And yet there was so much passion. Why?

People were angry. Emotions were already running high. Brexit became a vehicle for their existing fears. And both sides were quick to damn the other: 'leavers' tagged as xenophobes, 'remainers' as scaremongers. There was little attempt to understand the other's perspective. Any further conversation was bitter and only entrenched each side in their position. Nobody wanted to understand anybody else. You were a 'remainer' or a 'leaver' and there was no room for nuance.

As Norris says:

You don’t know what it’s like to be someone else. You can judge them because you’re better educated or have a wider vision, and they can judge you on the basis that you’re spoilt and stuffed full of opportunities. Even understanding that simple fact, that everyone in the country thinks they stand upon the moral high ground, is perhaps the first place to get the audience to. Whatever you think about right and left wing, even as a relatively political person, just falls away in the face of the 'human music'.

We need more human music in all our debates.

Caleb Wallace founded the 'San Angelo Freedom Defenders' with a mission to “end Covid tyranny”. He organised frequent 'Freedom Rallies', railing against vaccines and mask-wearing. He died from Covid-19 in August this year. The responses to his death on social media are an example of how polarisation can suck the humanity from people.

There's no doubt he contributed to the spread of misinformation, putting lives at risk. And his actions contributed to his own death by not defending himself against the disease, but also by the treatment he self-administered: the parasite infestation medicine, ivermectin, which comes with no evidence to show it prevents Covid-19 or its symptoms.

The criticism of his rallies and his views shouldn't be up for debate. More worrying is the immediate and ecstatic celebration of his demise. Some examples: “Got what he deserved”, “He NEEDS to go to his maker”, and “I have to say my ability to drum up sympathy for these people is at zero”.

The last one is telling. The other side no longer consists of people we care about, and can show even an ounce of sympathy for, even when their beliefs have caused their own death. Yes they were misinformed, yes they were wrong, yes these beliefs have caused the deaths of others, and yes here we are celebrating how wrong they were and how right we are. Are we ready to celebrate people's deaths now because they have a different set of beliefs to us? Is the Covid schadenfreude we're witnessing enjoyable to us?

Caleb wasn't an evil person. I doubt his intentions were to cause as many deaths as possible. The self-defeating nature of that mission would show otherwise. Digging into the 'freedom' rhetoric and the scepticism of science and vaccines uncovers some valid reasons for anti-vaxxers to start on the path they go down. Caleb's ended with him dying from the disease he spent the last months of his life fighting against on the stage, and then in the hospital.

It's vital that we stop this dehumanisation of the other side. We must introduce curiosity and respect. We should seek to understand, to assume that the other side is not dumb, to accept we may be wrong, and to empathise. If we don't, the other side won't, and nobody's opinion will shift–the gap will continue to grow larger.

Only when we understand why people have the views they do can we begin to have real discussions. Engage with them. The answer is rarely as simple as you're wrong and I'm right. Most of the big topics that cause polarisation are complex and nuanced and need time and deep understanding. For this we need a conversation, with curiosity and respect. To look for the human music.