MY TURN: Thinking can be hard to do

During the 2012 primary, I received a campaign card from the Kootenai County Republican Concerned Citizens, an organization Brent Regan helped fund with over $16,000. (http://sunshine.voteidaho.gov/)

Using the same acronym — KCRCC — as the Kootenai County Republican Central Committee, this group led me to believe the card was sent by the latter organization. This card listed candidate endorsements. I set the card aside intending to take it with me when I voted. After all, I believed these were the Republican Central Committee endorsed candidates. I figured they had vetted these candidates, so I didn’t need to invest time in vetting them myself. I was wrong!

Phil Hart, seeking reelection, was one of the endorsed candidates. After receiving this card, I read an article by Zach Hagadone addressing Hart’s legal issues regarding stealing timber from state school endowment land, and for not paying his income and property taxes for years. (There are numerous articles online about this matter).

After reading the article, I concluded I needed to do my own candidate research and vetting, not to limit my candidate knowledge to what one source was promoting.

The point of this story is not to spotlight Hart’s actions. Rather, it is to point out the importance of seeking information from various sources; to weigh the integrity and credibility of these sources and to exercise critical thought prior to voting.

Where ill-considered opinions and tribal-styled echo chambers rule the day, our world has become so saturated with information many people don’t question the validity of what they are consuming.

We need to be active seekers of reliable information. We need to ask questions and to explore deeply. Understanding is born and wisdom grows from silent contemplation. The antidote to poor governance is to avoid the trap of binary packaging — good versus bad — as we are besieged with requests to bypass reason. Many politicians and their supporters want to deprive you of that antidote.

This commentary is designed to challenge your perceptions, challenge how you view politics, specifically locally, where your voice has the greatest impact. Despite all the distractive noise and demand for your loyalty, truth and facts remain worth seeking.

Thinking is hard; however, it is vital we not fall prey to those whose efforts are intended to discourage us from thinking. They want to condition us for emotional responses and conformity rather than contemplation.

Power structures like the KCRCC depend on the manufacturing of consent. When people are trained to consume information without questioning, and to agree without understanding, they become easily managed and easier to deceive.

Any effort of critical thinking on our part is seen by these power-driven groups as inconvenient or dangerous. What they want from us is outrage, an emotional reaction that will slow or shut down needed debate which can challenge ideologies. Information overload drives this ineffective state of being.

Neuroscientist Daniel Levitin claims we are bombarded with five times more information to process than just a couple of decades ago. Our minds are not built for this kind of overload; to navigate complexity, the mind resorts to taking shortcuts, relying on mental habits like cognitive biases and group-think rather than critical thinking.

For example, when you see an online post with a lot of likes or comments, do you tend to conclude the information is true or important? This is a psychological shortcut. It’s one reason collective stupidity spreads readily. Social media has conditioned us away from discernment and reason.

Critical thinking requires sustained attention; mere sound bites do not provide a full picture. When was the last time you stopped and reflected — rather than quickly reacting — when you read or heard something provocative?

Critical thinking is difficult and uncomfortable. It forces us to acknowledge that we don’t know everything; it challenges us when our beliefs collide with new evidence. This state can feel deeply threatening.

So, instead of thinking critically, some people retreat to their tribes, cancel the value of others, avoid recognizing the needs and rights of those different from them in some way. They avoid engaging respectfully with their fellow citizens.

What can we do differently to improve our lives and to provide a better selection of elected officials than what the KCRCC recommends? We start by questioning and challenging the status quo. We seek specific answers, not limiting our knowledge to catchy campaign slogans and a single information source.

To locate candidate information for yourself, learn how to use Idaho’s iCourt registry at http://icourt.idaho.gov. Visit the Sunshine Financial Disclosure page at sunshine.voteidaho.gov. Search the voter registration and county assessor databases.

Learn from the devastation that has taken place at North Idaho College and the Community Library Network KCRCC-recommended candidates have caused.

Finally, ask yourself:

• What assumptions lie beneath my certainty? Where did this belief come from and why am I so afraid to let it go?

• Do I seek out opposing views, not to attack and insult, but to learn and understand?

• Do I elevate the merit of ideas based on credible evidence or on complacency?

These are key steps on the road to wise voting and critical thinking.

• • •

Deborah Rose is a resident of Kootenai County.