By Jim Morris
To improve the quality of our connection, my wife and I devised a soft rule to limit our cell phone usage when we were together. I break the rule more often than I like to admit, and I see her breaking the rule more often than she realizes. To preserve the peace, I usually don’t mention it unless she tells me I am breaking the rule. When she calls me out for my usage, I most frequently respond with outrage, saying things like…“YOU break the rule all the time, too!”
Psychologists tell us that this sort of attacking behavior can be motivated by shame. In those moments, after the swell of defensive anger subsides, I can tap into my sense of shame, which, I am discovering, is also the source of my anger.
Recognizing this behavior, known as “false equivocation” and its less caustic cousin, “deflection,” may give the person on the other end of the conversation a chance to interrupt its impact, which is to grind positive communication to a halt.
Even though we didn’t have names for these behaviors when we were young, many of us learned them in grade school, like when a kid called you a harmful name, and you responded with “I know you are, but what am I?” or “I’m rubber you’re glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.” That’s deflection, when someone avoids responsibility or blame by shifting the focus to someone or something else.
You’ve probably heard people using false equivalences, or you may have used them yourself as a means to nullify someone else’s point or make someone’s repugnant behavior look normal. A classic false equivalency is when someone says, “Both political parties are broken; it’s in people’s nature to be power-hungry and dishonest.”
Statements like this sound logical but are based on falsehoods when two subjects, events, or ideas are portrayed as equivalent despite significant differences. For example, President Trump’s now infamous false equivalency “there are good people on both sides” after the death of an innocent protester in Va. during the Nazi rally protesting the removal of Civil War statues was a false equivalency he probably wishes he could take back.
After this event, others blamed the death of the innocent protestor on the act of protesting itself, suggesting, “That is why public protests should be illegal”. Instead of focusing on the wrong behavior of one protestor, we attack all acts of protest, including peaceful ones. This sort of flawed logic then becomes how we spread misinformation, arguing that peaceful public protests are bad while overlooking the behaviors of a person or a group.
I’m most frequently tempted to use a false equivalency when I am likely feeling defensive, angry, or triggered. This may be driven by my shame or unwillingness to accept the facts. At my best, I avoid these discussions when I’m too angry or triggered to engage in them effectively.
False equivalences or “equivocating” shift the conversation from a discussion about feelings and connections to an argument about right and wrong. Unless we are talking about something empirically true, like the boiling point of water at sea level or the number of eggs in the refrigerator, rightness and wrongness aren’t helpful and don’t apply.
Another example of how equivocating spreads misinformation is when someone says, “Climate change denial is just another viewpoint.” No, we’re not comparing two opposing points of view equally valid; there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and its human-driven causes. This false equivalency creates a misinformation haze around the topic, and it’s one of the reasons we continually fail to adequately address climate change issues and legislation.
In addition to avoiding using false equivalences myself, here are a few things I try to do when I end up in a conversation with someone who is using one:
1. Find common ground – if possible. Is there some nugget of perspective you can find in the other person’s perspective that you can agree with? For me, the answer is usually “yes”. For example, if someone equivocates a broad generalization – like “protesting is dangerous and should be banned” you. I agree that protesting can be dangerous because some protestors refuse to do it lawfully. Now, we can have a conversation specifically about what we should do about unlawful protestors versus getting rid of protesting altogether.[1]
2. Clarify Definitions: Clearly defining the terms or concepts being compared may help. When someone says there are bad people on both sides, I can agree that ‘bad people” come in all shapes and sizes and from all over the political spectrum. Then, I need to find out what they mean by “bad people.” There is a world of difference between the “badness” of someone who was arrested for using their car to drive over protesters at a rally vs. someone who was penalized for cheating on their taxes. What do they mean when they say “bad”? If you can, help the person you are talking with understand variables like context, meaning, and the implications of not seeing differences.
3. Check Out Their Assumptions: Question any underlying assumptions contributing to false equivalence. Encourage critical thinking by asking probing questions that reveal discrepancies in reasoning.
4. Provide Counter-Examples: Use counter-examples to illustrate situations where comparisons would not hold up under scrutiny. If someone says, “Climate change is just another viewpoint,” try asking them why they don’t want to consider the volumes of research from scientists worldwide that confirm that fossil fuels used by humans are a significant cause of climate change. And if they say, “I don’t trust them, ask they what they would trust.
5. Stay Calm and Respectful: When addressing false equivalences in discussions or debates, remain calm and respectful toward opposing viewpoints to avoid escalating tensions and promote constructive dialogue. At least ½ the time, I leave these initial conversations simply agreeing to disagree, and it’s through follow-up conversations that we start to find more common ground.
Here are a few other examples of frequently used false equivalences for you to practice responding to in ways that might promote greater understanding:
“There are good people on both sides.” This strategy focuses on the everyday goodness that might be present in individual group members on either side while overlooking the hateful or unlawful behavior of others. If someone participates in a group that promotes hate or supremacy, and they don’t behave unlawfully, but some of the other members do, are they “a good person?” What is their culpability for going along with the group instead of leaving it or calling attention to unlawful acts?
“Both political parties are corrupt, crooked, power-hungry, and dishonest.” This argument suggests that people on both sides engage in similar levels of wrongdoing or extremism without considering the context, frequency, or impact of the actions taken by each side.
“Healthcare reform is socialism”: This oversimplification equates any attempt to expand healthcare access or modify the system (like Medicare for All) with socialism, disregarding multiple healthcare systems effectively utilized in various countries.
“Freedom of speech means freedom from consequences.”: While free speech is a constitutional right, this equivalency implies that individuals should not face any repercussions for what they say, ignoring the distinction between legal rights and social accountability. Defamation, actual threats, harassment, and incitement of violence are forms of speech that are not protected under the 1st Amendment.
” All politicians lie” rather than identifying specifically documented lies: This generalization downplays instances where one political figure may have made egregious or harmful false statements they never admit to compared to others who misstate or misinterpret data points or the facts and are willing to own their mistake.
It’s increasingly clear that closing the divisions between us won’t happen unless we take charge of the matter ourselves. Like never before, we live in a world awash with misinformation and willful dishonesty. The wait-and-see strategy of hoping the culprits become publicly discredited, get canceled, or change their perspective isn’t working. What can work is for each of us to do our part to nip misinformation in the bud, especially when we commit the error.
By recognizing false equivalences used by you or others, we can approach arguments and debates with a more critical eye on the nuances involved in complex issues and, hopefully, close the ideological divides that prevent us from finding answers together.
#Communication
#EmotionalIntelligence
#Mindfulness
#Shame
#HealthyRelationships
#SelfAwareness
[1] ACLED(Armed Conflict and Event Data) recorded more than 10,600 demonstration events across the country from January of 2020 until April of 2021, over 10,100 of these — or nearly 95% — involve peaceful protesters. Fewer than 570 — or approximately 5% — involve demonstrators engaging in violence.