Mob Justice On a Spreadsheet

A recent New York Times op-ed discussed a spreadsheet that went viral on Twitter (aka X). The spreadsheet was named “Is Your Fav Author a Zionist?”  and categorized writers by their Zionist beliefs. The listmaker’s call to action was to boycott books written by Zionists.  

What a perfect example of black-and-white thinking. No ambivalence or nuance to be found here, folks!

In those little spreadsheet cells, there’s no room for curiosity or understanding.  Like, why are they Zionist?  What does Israel mean to them?  And for those (lucky) authors who are deemed not Zionists, why are they not Zionists? What’s their experience been? Lists like this anchor readers in labeling and distancing instead of understanding. 

This list got over a million - a million! - views. That scares me, and it should scare you, too.

Why is this primitive hatred flourishing right now?  A few psychological processes come to mind.  Splitting is a psychological process that explains this black-and-white listing. Splitting is a defense mechanism that can occur in individuals or groups and leads to destructive black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking. People, things, beliefs, or situations are categorized as either good or bad. Splitting leads to a polarized "us vs. them" mentality. 

Why do we use splitting? Viewing things as all good or all bad is a short-term fix to a problem.  The problem that splitting fixes is the discomfort of conflicting emotions — ambivalence. Psychologically healthy societies recognize our mixed feelings. It's okay to have different and even conflicting thoughts and emotions about something. 

Another black-and-white type of thinking that’s on the rise is the Just-World Hypothesis, the erroneous belief that people get what they deserve because the world is fair. This mindset makes it easier for someone to believe that victims (Israel on October 7th and Jews in general) must have done something to deserve the terrorist attack, maintaining their belief in a just world.  Keep the “good” in life’s spreadsheet of good cells and the “bad” in the bad cells, and you’ll somehow feel safe and certain.

Speaking of a fear-based culture, a survey of over 4,000 college students found that:

• 64% of students were worried a misunderstanding of their words or actions could damage their reputation

• 48% reported they would be "very or somewhat uncomfortable" expressing their views on campus on a controversial political topic 

• 38% said they would be uncomfortable doing so during an in-class discussion 

So what do they do? Probably just stay silent. And the slide into restriction gains momentum. Restrict what you think. Restrict what you say. Restrict who you associate with and tolerate.

This is college … where we send our kids to learn and be exposed to … new ideas! 

In my last blog, I talked about zero tolerance for ambivalence and nuance on college campuses. The example I used was the chilly response Jerry Seinfeld got from his Duke commencement speech. It was a black-and-white reaction in a world where mobs are in charge.

In a recent interview, Seinfeld summed it up like this:

You can’t act like we don’t see this every day in many realms. Let’s just talk politically, left and right. You’re watching mobs. They’re mobs believing their own crap. That’s what a political party is. “We’re going to make up a bunch of nonsense and we’ll all agree to it, right? Right. Okay, let’s print up some bumper stickers and get out there, kids.” That’s politics. We’re tribal animals. We’re social creatures. We’re driven by agreement and consensus. And mob rule gives us comfort and certainty. It’s all BS. 

How Do We Stop the Slide Into Mob Mindset?

Stephen Covey used to say, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” This is simple but not easy wisdom.  

A great example of Covey’s advice is the Braver Angels. This inspiring group uses family therapy practices to create dialogue among people in opposing political parties. Their goal is to bring Americans together, even if they have different political opinions, and strengthen our country by promoting understanding and cooperation.

These dialogues force people to step outside of the black-and-white and roll around in their own ambivalence, helping them better understand other perspectives. 

One of their exercises is called “Finding the Kernel of Truth.” Each group brainstorms about how there might be a kernel of truth in the stereotypes the other side has about them.  It’s an exercise in group self-reflection and humility.  

Self-reflection and humility are the antidote to mob thinking.  I’d like to think that we can each find our inner “braver angel” and commit to understanding more of our ambivalence and the nuanced experience of others. 

I’ll finish with Peggy Noonan’s recent excellent article, “We Are Starting to Enjoy Hatred,”.  She sums it up this way:

Normally in a column like this you give a suggestion or two on how to turn things around. I don’t know, but I suppose it at least starts with understanding that the people we’re so harshly judging are our countrymen. They share the country with you. We have to go forward into the future together, because if we don’t we won’t have a future.

We have to ease up, we have to slow down our desire to look down, we have to be a little more generous, we have to stop enjoying our hate so much. And we’ll have to come up with thoughts that are better than that, because we can’t go on indefinitely like this.

Living in a world where everything is black and white is fragile, frightening, and not where we are our best selves. The Braver Angels have it right.