Breaking Down Silos: Fostering Reason and Respect in a Divided World
Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson, psychologist
A recent discussion among New Enlightenment Project board members has highlighted a growing breakdown in meaningful communication across societal “silos.” Groups divided by differing beliefs on divisive issues—such as Palestine, immigration, equal rights for men, gender ideology, or systemic racism—are increasingly polarized. Left, right and people in-between have been undermined with lies, defamation, negative gossip, innuendo, social ostracization, and asymmetric application of institutional ethics guidelines. This divisiveness has fragmented the humanist movement, spawning competing organizations vying for a limited constituency. As a result, some humanist groups avoid discussing controversial issues to prevent further division, but this limits our ability to advance knowledge at individual and societal levels
The Enlightenment-inspired advocate will stick to the argument and not the presumed character of the other. Even when we disagree—perhaps especially when trust is lacking—we must show respect for others, honoring the humanist principle of valuing every individual’s dignity and worth. This requires epistemic humility: acknowledging that our knowledge is limited and subject to change with new evidence. So why does society struggle to embrace respectful, reason-based discourse?
From a psychological perspective, three factors may explain why those engaging in reasoned debate are often maligned or censored. First, individuals with a dualistic worldview—dividing the world into good versus evil—may justify harmful actions against those labeled as “evil.” They may believe that silencing such individuals prevents others from straying from the “right” path. This mindset isn’t limited to religious ideologies; any belief system that paints non-adherents as oppressive, racist, or hateful can foster this trap.
Second, people may actively censor or malign others due to an underdeveloped or fragile sense of self. To such people, presenting ideas that run counter to their beliefs might feel like violence towards them. More extremely, some people run from the responsibility of having a volitional self and instead merge who they are with a religion or ideology. Any attack on the religion or ideology is then felt as violence directed against them and they “defend” themselves accordingly. Since reasoning only invites a reply which is then experienced as another attack, they seek to suppress the offender.
Third, some individuals view power as the only reality, leaving them desperate to control others. Feeling vulnerable when not in charge, they may resort to manipulation or bullying. When aligned with a movement seeking power—often framed as a moral crusade—they gain a sense of legitimacy, justifying their efforts to silence reasoned discourse.
These conditions—moral dualism, fragile identity, and a fixation on power—are treatable through psychotherapy. However, individuals with these traits often seek counselling only when their efforts to silence or control others fail, expecting the world to change rather than themselves. Promoting societies that consciously value objective reason, diverse thought, and free speech at every level may encourage such individuals to reflect and grow. This cultural shift could foster the change we need. Indeed, this is the mandate of the New Enlightenment Project: A Canadian Humanist Initiative.
6 replies on “Breaking Down Silos: Fostering Reason and Respect in a Divided World”
Hello Lloyd. Very timely article. I am writing my book with some of the dynamics you list plus a few others including fear, obedience to authority and support for a purity culture where cleanliness is next to godliness. These are sentiments fromm Johnathon Haidt’s book the Righteous Mind and subsequent writings separating conservatives from liberals.
Thanks again for clear and summarized writing in the NEP. We need to understand why we are polarizing so strongly and its harm. Marty Shoemaker
Unless it is already, that intolerance of emotional intolerance should be the cornerstone of NEP.
Thank you, Lloyd, for brining up this important topic!
The groupthink is powerful, and there are (intentionally?) many debatable subjects out there to engage the limbic system into “us vs. them” mode.
A terrific article, Lloyd. It is, however, written , as expected, from the position of an honest and competent Psychologist. Quite understandable.
In my view, on the other hand, most people are not interested in being unreasonable and are incapable of reason for many reasons. Facts which are available to them if they made an effort to find or obtain them. But they are not interested in facts, just in perpetuating their dogmas and the lies they depend on. They have been trained during their entire lives to hate and lie in support of their dogmas. A cure for this mental confusion or derangement is available, but it requires enough understanding about their mental condition to seek that cure. That is highly unlikely to occur in the minds of dogmatists.
I made an error, obviously in my initial use of the term “unreasonable”. It should have been the word “reasonable”. Regrets.
A wise, old lawyer who had specialized in business partnerships had some great advice for clients drawing up an agreement: “If you think it goes without saying, write it in.”
I think that a great many persistent debates that end, at best, with agreeing to disagree come down to both parties never articulating what their “gut” tells them is right, and starting from there.
We are descended from people who were inclined to cooperate, trade, and share with each other, building group wealth. However, we are also descended from the xenophobic, greedy people who were less affected by plagues and famines. Ma Nature has to hedge her bets by baking such attitudes into each generation in our individual DNA coding as immutably as other inherited variations We always assume that ours the only way to think, and that the other side is just wrong-headed.
My mother survived Warsaw Uprising as a child, and witnessed how her father almost lost his life as he was chased in front of German tanks as a human sheld. But she always encouraged me to “hear out the other side.” She had every reason to believe that some people, and some ideologies, are beyond redemption, and yet was ready to hear out even them.