One of the reasons voting-age Americans give for not participating in elections and government is — in a word — disgust. Or put another way, pain.

It’s not apathy. Far from being apathetic, such non-voters (especially young adults) often have strong feelings about social and political issues. But like the rest of us, they’re smarting from the highly divisive, highly polarized, accusatory and angry atmosphere dominating today’s political scene.

Those who do vote might say that’s all the more reason to participate as the most direct way to effect change. When I’ve suggested as much to a non-voter, the typical reply is that doing so somehow perpetuates or affirms this broken status quo.

Taking a step back, this mish-mash of uncivil and uncompromising negativity (which ironically no side seems to like) reaches beyond politics and national borders. The world seems harsher, scarier, as if our species is head-scratchingly regressing instead of progressing.

Extreme politics hurt. Sure, it hurts. And what do we do when we hurt? We withdraw, fortify protective shells, don armor. Actions that keep us focused on fearful feelings. That just sends the whole thing into some kind of spiraling frenzy, feeding on itself.

In such a mode we become even less trusting, more entrenched. Which further feeds that accusatory, polarized atmosphere …

Why this, why now? Pondering all of this and looking for the big-picture “why,” without succumbing to the same blame-game that has us in this pickle, I finally arrived at an answer. At the risk of sounding like a Luddite, it’s technology.

At first I’d taken comfort in the idea that at other times in human history, big shifts of (mostly) positive progress were preceded by what seemed like all heck breaking loose. I found historians and academics who wrote about this phenomenon to explain what’s happening now. Humans tend to resist change, so early hints of it can elicit fear-behaviors such as anger, withdrawal, distrust and — yes — this polarization into “us vs. them” camps. Even war.

Maybe that’s all this is, in the broader course of human events. But somehow, that didn’t fully answer the big “why.” Something else is at play.

What we see as “news.” Meanwhile in our shrinking, shifting world of mainstream journalism online the “fake news,” bias, and fact-checking phenomena muddy the waters of information. Plus, to the puzzlement of traditional journalists, interest in the professional product seems to be giving way to home-grown “media,” by which I mean some untrained guy (or group) with a laptop.

Which, as it finally dawned on this wee brain, is the other side of the polarized politics coin.

Bias and technology. Think about how the average person gets most, if not all, daily input. Brief smartphone messages. One-minute reads on social media — all shared from connected “friends” who most likely already think as you do. Email and ads targeted to previously expressed, click-based inclinations. Pop-ups, suggested videos, news articles — again — technologically selected, based on stuff already viewed.

Noticing a theme here? Bias. Gobs of it.

We are bombarded with the same opinions, perspectives, and input we’ve already expressed regurgitated right back at us. Day after day.

That biased information highway is new in human history. Yes, man has always sought like-minded friends; that’s only natural. But until recently, most other daily interactions and input was much more varied than this. Man had little option but to hear, read, and interact daily with information and people different from himself.

Never before have we been inundated like this with nothing but what amounts to our own viewpoints. Gone are the days when face-to-face, chance encounters and a variety of beliefs, experiences, and opinions comprised our daily inputs. When we had to think about, process and — key here — take time to thoroughly read or listen or truly consider that daily input. When we had to intellectually explore to get along, face to face or voice to voice.

Now we just unfriend, block, turn off.

We’ve sacrificed depth of information for quantity. Worse, we’ve sacrificed thought-diversity for bias. We fear what we don’t know. Fear and its ugly cousin, anger, drive the wedges and distrust that dominate today’s world.

When we surround ourselves only with what we already know, when our chosen sources (and many more chosen for us via algorhythms) reflect more of the same — instead of others’ perspectives and beliefs — we become entrenched. Polarized. Extreme-ended, with fewer people and viewpoints in the middle.

We can change things. What can we do about it? Three things.

First, accept or share nothing as fact which isn’t verified from neutral sources. Neutral means expressed without opinions, without adjectives which convey a judgment, feeling or perspective of any kind. Using respected fact-checking and media bias-checking sites, this requires less than a minute.

Second, listen/read more than talk/post, especially things you don’t agree with. Ask (open and civil) questions, truly explore why people who feel differently believe what they do. Fully explore “opposing’ perspectives until, at most, you see them as different but not “opposing.” Sometimes — perhaps often, at the heart of things, even if the conclusion remains different the reasons are surprisingly similar.

Third, if agreement can’t be found among the reasons for different opinions (and frankly, that’s rare), we would do well to remember what we have in common, as human beings. And treat one another civilly, even better with respect, for that reason alone.

I can’t help but think of a cherished cousin. Many years ago, we almost died together in a car accident. This cemented a close bond — I love him like a brother, always will. He’s a doting dad and husband. A good man.

And we are truly political opposites. This is a gift, because it reminds me that the “how can they” attitude is flawed. Good people, people who care about fellow man and country, can honestly come to the opposite conclusion on important issues.

Maybe if we focus more on finding out why — putting our own biases aside in the process — we can find more to bind than divide.

•••

Sholeh Patrick is a columnist for the Hagadone News Network. Contact her at Sholeh@cdapress.com.