The Downside of Consistency in Political Debates

How Context Blindness and Pragmatic Language Impairment Affect Our Conversations

In a conversation about something someone said the other day, I asked the person if they knew the context of the comments they were talking about. They did not and challenged me to explain the context. I refused, saying that I wasn't the one offering the quote, and when I was, I tried to understand the context. As you may imagine, I annoyed the person who was, I thought, suffering from what I have heard is called 'context blindness.'

In reality, 'context blindness' describes individuals who have difficulty understanding the context in which communication occurs. It is often associated with conditions like autism spectrum disorder (ASD). My friend was more likely suffering from 'Pragmatic Language Impairment' or was looking for proof to maintain a consistent view without examining their beliefs.

What is Pragmatic Language Impairment?

Pragmatic Language Impairment (PLI), also known as Social Communication Disorder (SCD), is a condition characterized by difficulties in the social use of verbal and nonverbal communication. This impairment can affect children and adults, though it is often identified in childhood. Here's a detailed discussion on PLI and its effects on individuals in everyday life:

• Understanding and using language in conversations: Individuals may struggle with turn-taking, staying on topic, or understanding conversational cues.

• Nonverbal communication: Challenges include interpreting body language, facial expressions, and gestures.

• Adjusting language to different social situations: Involves changing speech according to the listener (e.g., talking to a child vs. an adult) or setting (e.g., casual vs. formal).

Symptoms and Signs

1. Conversation Difficulties: Individuals with PLI often need help initiating, maintaining, and ending conversations. They might interrupt frequently or fail to respond appropriately to social cues.

2. Narrative Skills: They may need help telling stories or relaying information coherently, often omitting key details or providing irrelevant information.

3. Understanding Humor and Idioms: People with PLI may take jokes or idiomatic expressions literally and have difficulty understanding sarcasm or irony.

4. Nonverbal Communication Issues: Misinterpreting body language and facial expressions is common, leading to misunderstandings in social interactions.

5. *Topic Management: They might switch topics abruptly or fixate on a single subject without considering the listener's interest or understanding.

If you know someone who may suffer from this, there are several management and support strategies, including speech and language therapy, social skills training, educational support, counseling and psychological support, and family education.

Pragmatic Language Impairment significantly affects social interactions and daily functioning. While it presents challenges, with appropriate support and interventions, individuals with PLI can improve their communication skills and lead fulfilling lives. Awareness and understanding from society, educators, employers, and family members play a crucial role in supporting those with PLI.

The Need for Consistency

In my example, I do not believe the person's problem was PLI. As you can imagine, this was a political conversation, and the comment they took out of context was from someone on the 'other side' of the political spectrum.

People's need for consistency is deeply rooted in psychological principles such as cognitive dissonance theory, which suggests that conflicting beliefs or behaviors cause discomfort, prompting individuals to seek alignment. Self-perception theory also highlights that consistent behavior reinforces a stable self-concept. Consistency allows individuals to predict their actions and maintain a coherent sense of self, reducing cognitive load and fostering efficiency.

Consistency in Political Debates

Social and cultural influences play a significant role in the desire for consistency. Society often views consistent individuals as reliable and trustworthy, and cultural norms frequently emphasize the importance of maintaining consistent behavior to fulfill social roles and expectations. Consistency in actions helps build and maintain relationships by fostering trust and predictability, which are crucial for social harmony and personal interactions.

Moreover, practical and functional reasons drive the need for consistency. It creates predictability in life, reducing uncertainty and anxiety and allowing for the development of efficient routines. Consistency is also a powerful tool in social influence and persuasion, as seen in tactics like the "foot-in-the-door" technique. Ultimately, consistency reflects integrity and moral values, aligning one's actions with their beliefs and ethical standards.

The Downside of Consistency

One significant downside of the need for consistency in political debates is that it can lead to an inflexible adherence to previously stated positions, even in the face of new evidence or changing circumstances. Politicians often feel pressured to maintain consistent viewpoints to avoid being labeled as flip-floppers or unreliable by their opponents and the public. This inflexibility can stifle constructive dialogue and hinder the ability to adapt policies that better address current issues.

For instance, a politician who has previously taken a strong stance against climate change measures may continue to oppose such initiatives even as new scientific evidence emerges highlighting the urgent need for action. The fear of being perceived as inconsistent or losing political support can prevent them from acknowledging the latest data and adjusting their stance accordingly. This can result in outdated or ineffective policies that fail to address critical problems, ultimately hindering progress and innovation.

This need for consistency can also polarize political debates, as politicians double down on their initial positions rather than engaging in open-minded debate. This can create a more divisive political environment where compromise and collaboration become difficult, reducing the chances of reaching mutually beneficial solutions and impeding effective governance.

So, in the example I started with, even if I had given the person context, they probably wouldn't have accepted it. Believing the context they want makes them more comfortable and is a story they like to tell themselves.