Our societies have become so (extremely) polarized that I almost don't remember a time when it wasn't like that. Although I do.
Nowadays, it's either blue or green, there no more cyan, which is the combination of the two. Obviously, we are not talking about colors here.
It is my impression that polarization is the desired state, because through it, humans are kept at a high level of (generally negative, with some rushes of positive) emotions, and, this way, clouded critical thinking.
The question is, do that medium foster strong convictions based on reason, or are people more likely to have blinders on, much like horses, to only see in one direction?
I think it's more of the latter, especially after analyzing certain behaviors.
It's much easier to see this when you know enough about a topic and a zealot is trying to convince you of their point of view. It happened to me recently, and what I do in situations like these, especially if I know the person well and can't avoid the subject, is to simply listen. It is interesting to see the biases of their arguments this way, while they may have some good points too, but they get lost in the amalgam of points they argue on intensely.
However, it is more likely that at the other end there is someone as convinced of the other point of view and there is a clash, which eventually won't help either of them or their causes. That will become clearer once the "heat" dissipates.
There is a worrying tradition already in our country, "established" by the former president, to not participate in debates with rivals to the position. Without debates, every convinced voter stands with their own bias and likely never gets exposed to the messages of the other candidates. You can imagine how easy it is to brainwash people this way (from all sides).
I found something interesting at Trump administration recently. After the fiasco with Zelenski at the White House, two high-ranked officials in the administration went to give interviews. They didn't go to a favorable TV network, but to the one that is pro Democrats, to my knowledge, and by the questions they asked (CNN). Why did they do that?
First of all, in my opinion, they wanted "their version of the truth" to be heard by the democrats, who don't watch TV networks favorable to Republicans (right... how did we end up here from TV networks that reported on facts?).
Second of all, they wanted to asses what kind of mess they created then at the White House, by hearing some tough questions from the other side, and what fires they needed to put out before they got bigger.
That was smart in my opinion.
I think there's something else that can put critical thinking to sleep. An abundance of information, much of it false but seeming true. Deep fakes are so hard to navigate, and maybe that's another reason why people would rather stay in a zone of comfort and not challenge their biases. What if what they hear, read, or see is not true, right? Although, maybe we haven't even gotten there yet in human consciousness, but we will...