The holiday season is upon us. Traditionally this is a time for reflection on our values, both our personal values and those shared by society at large. We are also in the midst of a heated political campaign season, made divisive largely through a fearful shift throughout our culture. Because these holidays, pretty universally across religious boundaries, are focused on peace, it seems like a good time to consider some of the foundational concepts that have created the divisiveness we are experiencing. By addressing some of these, perhaps the peace we aspire to will be easier to grasp for all of us.

The topics of gun control, national security and terrorism, taxes, healthcare and climate change are issues we all agree are important to our society. Ideological divides often prevent productive conversations on these issues, largely because we, as a society, are quite uninformed about the facts underlying each issue. And our politicians frequently do not help this situation, preferring to fan the fires of discontent rather than address issues in an open and honest fashion. We, however, as cognizant and inquisitive humans, have the ability to sidestep the easy rhetoric and parroting of sound bytes in order to debate issues in a civil manner not currently reflected by many high-profile politicians and certainly not reflected by most pundits in the media.

While it is easy to blame the 24 hour news cycle, which rushes to judgement and flings incomplete data on “breaking news” stories that have not been vetted (often without legitimate sources), the fault lies deeper within our culture. We have, for decades now, been more and more accustomed to ingesting factoids rather than researched and complex knowledge. We have, for decades now, been more and more accustomed to accepting out of context quotes as stand-alone statements when, lacking context, they frequently also lack meaning. We have, as a society, become lazy and accepting; people spread un-cited (and frequently unverifiable) statistics or quotations attached to unsourced images through social media accounts, where these memes are shared indiscriminately and put forth as truth. We hear what we want to believe and share that info without checking to see where it came from. We let confirmation bias drive how we choose to look at the limited data presented, ignoring that which does not support our views. Then we yell at each other, WHETHER IN CHAIN EMAILS or through televised debates, thinking that the loudest person must be right.

But deep down, we know that is not the truth.

Being right does not mean being blustery. Nor does right equate to being soft-spoken. In the greater world, there are many styles of presentation and often they are used to obfuscate the intention of the presenter. Some people try to overpower other views through force of their voice, others to disarm their opponents through more subtle means. Some people simply use bigger words to appear to know what they are talking about, a technique very pervasive in pseudoscientific arguments. In the end, there are many ways to lie.

There is only one way to tell the truth.

That is to be honest, open and willing to really look at and understand other viewpoints. One can be honest but still incapable of telling the truth because of a myopic perspective. That is, if you can only see things one way, you could be missing important aspects of the full picture. Without peripheral vision, we cannot know what might have transpired to cause events that are witnessed only through the narrow tunnel straight ahead. By accepting that other forces we cannot see have been integral to the results we have witnessed, it gives us the opportunity to step into another set of shoes and look at issues through fresh eyes. While this may not change our ideological perspective on what the right approach should be, it does allow for a more nuanced approach to solutions — and frequently it also dissolves barriers that otherwise would prevent compromise or, surprisingly, agreement.

More often than not, people agree on solutions when the truth of the problem is not hidden. But our society feeds on misinformation. It is one way in which the powerful maintain their power. Whether this is a government politician who wants to stay in office, a powerful corporate officer who is looking to increase market share, or a religious leader intent on controlling his or her flock, misinformation is the key tool of mind control. It is often said that knowledge equals power, and this is correct. Learning how to tap actual knowledge is the best defense against the misinformation being pushed in the service of any agenda. But we have been taught to inquire less. Our critical thinking skills have been largely diminished through schools that no longer value them and a general cultural apathy. Too many people have no idea how to properly vet sources before determining whether they can be trusted.

For just a moment, I am going to pick on Sarah Palin, because she is an easy target. She famously argued against the concept of climate change, suggesting that it was disproven because a glacier in Alaska had actually grown larger while environmental scientists had been claiming glaciers were shrinking. Does the growth of a single glacier invalidate the concept of global warming? To understand this, one must look beyond the tunnel she presented as a complete field of view. What she had done, in essence, was cherry pick her data. Her own confirmation bias might have led her to actually believe that what she was saying was true, though it is doubtful an intelligent person with access to the level of information she had would actually believe her statement. What she did, in essence, was look at hundreds of measurements and choose only the one that supported her position to present as the defining factual element.

Here is the reality of Alaskan glacier expansion as of September of 2015, when Palin made her statements. “In a study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in July, researchers from the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, the U.S. Geological Survey and the University of Washington in Seattle measured the “mass balance” of 116 glaciers in Alaska … extrapolated the results to the rest of the state. They found that Alaska’s glaciers are losing 75 gigatons of ice every year.” That is 75 billion metric tons of ice every year. (“Palin Off on Glaciers and Global Warming,” Sept. 9, 2015)

So, whether or not she believed what she was saying, Sarah Palin offered a dishonest assessment because she did not look at or try to understand viewpoints outside of her own. The practice of climate scientists is to assess complete data, including areas where there is unusual or extreme cold, glacier growth, etc., and include it in the overall model of climate trends. By looking at this data as a complete set, the reality of climate change is easily visualized. There may be debate about how much of this change is due to human intervention — although the correlations are extremely obvious when compared to changes in industrialization and explosive population growth, we must also recognize that correlation does not always equal causation — but we should not ignore the dire consequences that are already proving to impact human lives across the planet. Coming up with solutions like those proposed through the recent Paris accord should have been an easy process many years ago. Now, the agreements between countries are poised to slow the long-term effects slightly, but they are not enough to prevent short-term problems or the long-term dangers unless more aggressive actions are taken.

This leads to us asking why we must experience a problem before acting to prevent it. Gun control is a classic example of this phenomenon. While there is fairly universal agreement that gun deaths — especially from mass shootings — can be prevented, there is little accord regarding how to accomplish this. One extreme is to take away all the guns, but few people actually try pushing that agenda. The opposite end of the political spectrum stands on their interpretation that the 2nd Amendment provides an unmitigated right to own weapons and any attempt to limit that right is Unconstitutional. While I am not alone in arguing that gun ownership (for anything other than military use) is not fully protected by the 2nd Amendment, I also stress that the 14th Amendment fairly clearly protects gun owners from having their legally obtained weapons taken away. By diffusing the extreme ends of the argument, it is much easier to find common ground, but too many politicians relying on fear as their tool of choice to rally voters will continue to raise the specter of Big Government taking away everybody’s guns. Then there is a lot of shouting, mostly about things that make little sense or have no bearing on the actual process.

Then everyone gets kind of hoarse. The shouting turns into whispers. Everyone grows quiet.

Until the next big shooting, probably within the week if the local media chooses to cover it. If it is at a school, the voices are bound to be loud again. But nothing gets done because the demagogues spout vitriol, lie to their base and prevent positive and useful change because it suits them to maintain the status quo for whatever reason. They do this even if there is a solution that almost everyone would readily agree upon in an attempt to keep guns — especially those designed to kill groups of enemy combatants quickly — out of the hands of mentally ill people, terrorists (who are probably also mentally ill) and known criminals. Those solutions do exist, without infringing on any perceived rights, but the misdirection of too many powerful individuals keeps this issue from being resolved.

Which is the opposite of that ubiquitous holiday message: Peace on Earth.

Whether you watched the debates or just watch the media play with their clips and commentary, whether you have a fixed idea of who you are going to vote for or you are waiting until after the primaries to make up your mind, try to put your bias aside for a while. Whether you feel righteous and moral because of your religious conviction, or you are a deeply committed humanist striving to fix social ills through secular means, take the time to embrace your common goals. When you see that inflammatory statement, that extraordinary claim, that seemingly absolute declaration on the cause or solution regarding whichever issue, step back and think before clicking “share.”

We need to pause, as a society. Pause and think, long and hard, about the values we want to share with one another. This is an important moment, not just because of the holiday season, but because our world is shifting in the 21st Century. Media and technology have evolved dramatically in recent years, increasing the flood of information that so many of us are subjected to whether we want it or not. News channels strive to engage and entertain rather than offer thoughtful and accurate reporting. Wars rage on; increasing class divisions and discrimination lead to disenfranchisement, which leads to religious or social radicalization…

So do we stand for love, for peace, for compassion? Do we choose to care for our proverbial brothers and sisters who are less fortunate? Do we set a positive example for the next generation, for our children who will inherit this world from us? These are questions we should ask not only during the holidays, but every day.

If we take the time to listen to one another, to genuinely try to see from each other’s perspective and understand opposing ideologies, then we can also put in the effort to work together. If we learn how to take in and process information before jumping to conclusions or having knee-jerk reactions, we can foster a clearer understanding and find areas where our ideas can come together. If we let go of our preconceptions, recognize and reduce our own confirmation bias, and begin to vet everything the same whether we want to agree with it or not, then we can jointly discover new solutions to old problems without the clutter and distractions being flung from every direction. If we replace dogma with common sense and an open hand, we can walk together in unison and actively bring these values forth in the world.

Love. Peace. Compassion. It isn’t difficult. It just takes commitment. Make the choice to tell the truth. Demand critical thinking, not just of yourself, but of anyone disseminating information. Find where and how you can integrate common goals rather than looking for that which sets you apart. The rest will follow.