“We Aren’t The Same”: Americans Share The Moment They Realized We’re Living In Different Realities

13.

“A model that really helped me get my head around this is Stasis Theory. Basically, it’s an analysis technique to compare two positions for consistency and divergence. Say you’re debating with someone about climate change. If you’re both at the same layer, you can (in theory) have a coherent debate. If you’re not, it’s fundamentally impossible for meaningful discourse to occur because you’re talking past each other. “

“It has four ‘layers,’ which I’ll demonstrate through the lens of climate change:

1) Factual reality – the declaration of absolute truths of being.
Example: Carbon is a naturally occurring element on Earth, and it cycles between land, sea, and air as matter moves between those stages. Carbon in the atmosphere stores energy, which becomes thermal potential.

2) Definition of facts – the framing of facts into a discrete ‘event.’
Example: Human industrial activity has released a large amount of previously captured carbon, meaning there’s far more atmospheric carbon than would have organically ended up there through natural forces.

3) Interpretation of facts – the declaration of quality on the established events.
Example: Human industrial activity is threatening human safety by causing climate change that is detrimental to the long-term survival and sustainability of current lifestyles, which is bad because humans don’t like dying.

4) Response – the understanding of how these events pertain to us and our actions.
Example: Humans need to make drastic changes to industrial activity to mitigate the climate impacts and attempt to repair existing damage.

A person who doesn’t believe anthropogenic carbon release exists (Layer 2) can’t debate someone who believes industrial activity needs to be curbed (Layer 4), because the Layer 4 position is predicated on a Layer 2 presumption that isn’t shared by both parties. The person making the Layer 4 argument is taking something for granted that the person making the Layer 2 argument doesn’t, and so they fundamentally can never agree on a Layer 4 argument predicated on a Layer 2 prerequisite they don’t agree with.

Taking a moment to ascertain whether you’re both on the same layer can be very helpful to diagnosing these situations where you feel like you’re talking past each other.”

—u/funkme1ster