Of all the sites to raise the question, and of all the people to write about it, Ezra Klein at Vox says that going outside one’s “echo chamber” doesn’t serve to expand one’s understanding, but to increase polarization.

There’s a simple story for how the media is driving political polarization. Unlike in yesteryear, when there were three nightly newscasts and two local newspapers, the media today is fragmented, competitive, algorithmic.

We watch (because who reads anymore, amirite?) news channels that are flagrantly biased and feed us the spin on the news that confirms our bias.

This story suggests a straightforward solution: If only we crossed the informational aisle, if only the liberals would watch a bit of Fox and the conservatives would spend some time with Rachel Maddow, we would realize the other side is more like us than we thought, that they make some good points too, and our enmity and polarization would ebb.

Cue Mencken. So naturally, someone did a study to test whether this obvious solution was obvious, or whether it backfired. Guess what?

The backfire theorists won the day. The results of the month-long exposure to popular, authoritative voices from the other side of the aisle was an increase in issue-based polarization. “We find that Republicans who followed a liberal Twitter bot became substantially more conservative posttreatment,” write the authors. “Democrats exhibited slight increases in liberal attitudes after following a conservative Twitter bot, although these effects are not statistically significant.”

For the thinking impaired, this doesn’t necessarily mean Dems were more open-minded by suffering a slighter backfire, but could mean that they were so extreme in their views from the outset that there was no place left to go. But the point remains that exposure to alternate ideas didn’t soften bias, but strengthened it.

My twitter feed is poly-curious. I follow some people on both sides of the fence, as well as some who tend not to agree with either side. It’s not that I’m particularly open-minded, but more interested in seeing what others are saying, thinking, shrieking, than seeking validation. Old guys don’t tend to need other people’s approval to feel good about themselves.

Klein notes that one problem stems from our reaction to information that conflicts with our belief system:

The first possibility, he said, was counter-arguing. If you’re a liberal browsing Twitter and you’re suddenly confronted with a Mitch McConnell tweet touting the benefits of tax cuts and the harms of Obamacare, your mental response isn’t to think, “Hmm, that McConnell makes some good points.” It’s to instantly come up with an argument for why he’s wrong.

This strikes me as a bad example of a serious possibility. Cocaine Mitch isn’t playing to persuade the other team, but to preach to the choir. But the notion that the reaction of a closed mind to alt arguments seems valid.

No one is better at convincing us of a position than, well, us, and so as we see and instantly reject the arguments made by our political opponents, we become more convinced in the rightness of what we initially believed, and we come up with more reasons to believe it.

Klein goes on to consider whether the problem isn’t one of bias, but “values” because Klein gonna Klein.

Another possibility turns on the differing values of Democrats and Republicans. A strain of research called moral foundations theory shows that Democrats tend to construct their moral lives atop values like diversity, change, and fairness while Republicans build their moral frameworks atop values like authority, tradition, and certainty. Perhaps the reason Republicans reacted more strongly to being confronted with contrary views is that they’re more offended by challenges to authority, while Democrats have built more of an identity around openness to change.

Of course, the problem of polarization isn’t a Rep v. Dem problem, even if Klein conflates politics with party and ascribes good “moral values” in accordance with his bias. After all. the Dems are for “fairness,” while the Reps are for “authority.” It’s almost as if he’s crafting an argument to convince himself of the rightness of his beliefs.

Klein concludes that the problem is tribal.

I tend to believe a variant of the first explanation. “Republican” is an identity. “Democrat” is an identity. When you log on to Twitter and read someone attacking the people you admire, the people you ally with, the people you see as your group, you become defensive of your side and angry at the critics.

But what of people who don’t identify with a tribe? There are strong incentives to belong to a tribe on social media, for validation and love as well as protection when the tribe’s self-interest is threatened. But that doesn’t cover everyone.

My timeline gets a number of views that are in deep, direct, inherent conflict. Some present silly, often irrational, arguments, even if I agree with the outcome. Some are obviously distorted, omitting material facts in order to reach the desired level of outrage. I regularly cringe at expressions that strike me as wrong, even though they receive adoration from the tribe.

Some people follow me on twitter because I am often a critic of police misconduct. I don’t hate cops, and I am appalled at this meme. Yet, meme it is and it was twitted by someone who is both smart and passionate. It’s not that it’s absurdly simplistic, but it’s intellectually dishonest. It’s not just that a smart person is a member of a tribe that would twit something so dumb, but that the same person would RT it to prove his solidarity and enjoy the validation it brings.

So while Klein may be right about tribalism, that doesn’t explain why people embrace the worst, the wrong, the stupidest their tribe can come up with. Maybe there’s one further step that prevents people from sinking to the lowest and worst bias their tribe has to offer.

There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking.

— Sir Joshua Reynolds.

You can agree with a tribe, at least generally, and yet recognize that the other side isn’t evil and devoid of rational arguments. And realize that some of your own are just as wrong. Yet, even smart people just can’t bring themselves to do so, even when they see good arguments that counter their own beliefs.