How to out-compete toxicity

I like focusing on what I can control and what I am directly connected to. One way of thinking about localism is as a letting go of global problems and just focusing on things within your local sphere. I think that's a fine way to think of it, but this video from Veritasium suggests that even if we are just acting locally, our influence might be more than we expect (thanks to Adam for reminding me about this).

The video is all about the "six degrees of separation", but the idea that we are no more than just 6 degrees of separation from anyone else on the globe is more than just a cute observation. It also means that the influence of our lives and choices is never just local. Diseases, ideas and culture can all spread very quickly in an interconnected world.

This means that very bad stuff can spread quickly. This can be very scary and discouraging, but as Veristasium claims, it's not inevitable. A small group of good faith actors can, not just undermine the spread of toxic culture, but out-compete it. 

The key is building connections with those that want to cooperate and setting boundaries with those that "defect" (what does it mean to "defect"? You also must watch this video).

To make this work, we have to be very clear about what it means to cooperate and what it means to defect. This can be tricky to suss out in world that is so polarized. You may know friends and family that hold views totally abhorrent to you. Do you cooperate with someone whose views are destructive? Is it a defection on their part to not agree with you? Are you defecting on vulnerable populations by befriending those with destructive viewpoints?

Getting clear on this is essential to out-competing toxicity. Fortunately, there is already some very good groundwork laid in making clear when you should cooperate, and when you should set a boundary.

Search for Common Ground is an organization that has been working on this problem for a long time. They have decades of experience in evidence-based conflict resolution around the globe. This interview with Shamil Idriss is a great introduction to their approach.

Their approach involves two parts: 1. Understanding and 2. Working on issues of common ground. It's important to note that understanding does not require compromising your values or positions, it just means understanding! You can still totally disagree as long as you are willing to understand. At that point if you are willing to cooperate in a way that does not compromise your values, it's probably worth cooperating. If you can't find a mutually beneficial way to cooperate, then walk away.

There also happens to be a fantastic, real-world example of this approach in the life and work of Daryl Davis. Daryl is a black R&B musician that has spent much of his life befriending members of the Ku Klux Klan, and with time, convincing them to leave. He has a room full of robes as a tribute to his many successes. He estimates that he has been directly responsible for 20–40 individuals leaving the Klan and maybe indirectly responsible for 200 or more.

If you listen to Davis's account of this process, it sounds just like the Search for Common Ground approach. He listened to his racist friends, but never backed down from his own position. Over time, his willingness to understand and find common ground out-competed the racism. 

One of the things I love about relatefulness, is that it sets the context for these types of interactions to happen. You have the opportunity to make space for the complexity of relationships. There is space for dramatic differences to co-exist and space to find common humanity.

So it's not trite to decide to start by building a friendship and hope to change the world. It's already happening. We're already doing it. Our job now is just to out-run the toxicity.