That number rises to 85 percent when you look at those who vote Conservative but drops to about half that, 43 percent, for Liberal supporters. Interestingly, these people live in the same country but it’s like they live in two different worlds.
So, who’s seeing things as they really are? Research suggests those who congregate to the right of the political spectrum likely have a view more closely aligned with reality.
Various studies prove that people on the right, more than those on the left, have a better sense of arguments for both sides of contemporary issues and, therefore, are more able to accurately judge the truth of a situation.
Specifically, research shows this comes from progressives being more prone to selective exposure—meaning they don’t seek out news sources that contradict their pre-existing biases.
Of course, when it comes to understanding the position of their ideological opponents, conservative types also have an advantage (although most wouldn’t see it as such). Most mainstream news in Canada heavily promotes left-wing ideas; therefore, anyone even superficially exposed to legacy outlets will know the progressive talking points on a topic. That is, right-wingers know the left-wingers’ take on issues because they can’t escape hearing about it.
Progressives are also more prone to selective perception. This occurs when an individual’s existing biases gets them to accept a message based on its alignment with their core convictions more than on its presentation of evidence. Their biases “blind” them to evidence that supports the position of people they don’t like.
Of course, knowing that those on the right are not wrong might not be comforting news. Let’s recall, what they’re feeling is that our country is in a downward spiral toward social dissolution. In light of that revelation, for the continuance of our nation, we need to be asking ourselves: “What’s causing this downward spiral?”
At the risk of being reductionist, I think I can identify the greatest catalyst to the problem. We’ve abandoned the “reciprocity norm.”
The concept is derived by studying historical and empirical evidence linked to social flourishing. It explains that from an evolutionary perspective, people are naturally tribal, so we seek to advance our own tribe—people who are like us.
The trouble with that is it leads to a lot of war and death. So, at one point along the evolutionary route, humans in certain parts of the world—typically influenced by Christian values—gravitated to the idea of the reciprocity norm.
The gist of it was this: I promise not to favour my tribe members if you promise not to favour your tribe members. Instead of skin colour or ethnicity or gender determining who will move ahead, these societal innovators said, “Let’s use merit and competency as the measure for social and economic advancement.”
They realized that it was not going to be perfect, but merit and competency were criteria that individuals could more fairly control than external factors like race or gender.
But the reciprocity norm only works insofar as the same rules apply to everyone. As soon as you explicitly introduce laws or policies that go against the norm, people in general begin to revert back to tribal mentality that’s inhospitable to those not like themselves.
People stop trusting each other. Society divides.
Canada, through government legislation and new educational imperatives that focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, has almost completely rejected the reciprocity norm. DEI expressly teaches that discrimination in the name of promoting better outcomes is a good thing. But it isn’t a good thing, not if you want a functioning society.
Of course DEI increases hostility and division—anything that destroys the reciprocity norm destroys tolerance and unity. Canadians are feeling it.
