Rapid technological and social change is a powerfully disruptive force – a wave of creative destruction – leaving in its wake a residue of vulnerable people. People are losing a sense of control over their life. They are becoming insecure about how to retain their place and purpose. These creative disruptions of change are not about liberal or conservative political ideologies; rather, they are deeply felt personal psychological issues.

“Forums for a Future” are a personal and social process for restoring civic discussion and reducing divisive political polarization. The substance of the Forums – the significant social issues of our time – only appear to be intractable because they are complex and because there are no simple solutions. The changes that must be made to live in the future all have political, economic, and social elements which need to be reconciled with each other. To move beyond our current political polarization, the requirement is to account for the complex interplay between these three elements: they are interactive, simultaneous, and interdependent. They are not independent, hierarchical, and sequential.

Most people, from all walks of life, and all educational levels, will need to discover new ways of thinking to restore a sense of purpose and direction to living, and to retain a personal identity suitable for an uncertain future. This paper describes a tested methodology that can serve as an example of how we can begin the process of thinking about the future as disruptive events that are defining a new reality – not about competing political ideologies.

Format for Forums for a Future

Forums for a Future are for use with any established group of people — such as students in a high school or college class, a discussion club, or any established group who share a common connection. They have general applicability to a wide range of divisive social issues. The Forums are not debates over who is right or wrong, nor are they designed to reach a group consensus. Rather, to identify different perspectives and the fundamental beliefs and values on which they are based.

For each discussion the participants read an essay on a specific topic to provide a common reference point and to establish a factual focus for the discussion. The moderator is responsible for ensuring that a situation does not unfold where some participants are basing their perspective on one set of facts, and others as if the opposite is true. If essential facts are unknown, there is no reasonable discussion to be had. 

Before starting any discussion, each participant fills out an opinion questionnaire by selecting either strongly agree, agree, mildly agree, mildly disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree with an assertion about the topic of the forum (e.g., “A person should have the right to choose whether to receive the COVID vaccine, versus government authorized vaccine mandates”). Those who agree sit on one side of the room, facing those who disagree.

Another task of the moderator is to facilitate the order of speakers. After a person has spoken, they cannot speak again when anyone else is waiting their turn; this is necessary to avoid two-way dialogues.  When there is full participation and when one person cannot dominate, individuals become thoughtful before taking their turn to speak.

 There are no arguments. If a person on the other side says something that one disagrees with, the only permissible response is to say, “l think about it differently, for these reasons….” The goal is to learn how others are thinking about the question, and why. Listening to another’s explanation offers the opportunity for self-reflection and self-directed change. Each person owns their own identity.

I have moderated many such Forums. It is a rewarding experience to observe a diverse group of people sort through clusters of competing personal values to come to broader individual perspectives. From session to session, the two sides keep reconstituting themselves; the person sitting beside you this time was on the opposite side of the room the last time. Participants see each as more complex rather than simply “them” and “us.”

Forums do not result in absolute answers – a product — on what living in the foreseeable future should or would be like. Rather, each Forum is a unique process; different people reach thoughtful and respectful conclusions at different times, on different issues, in personal ways. In part, this is a psychological process that helps an individual to develop a personal identity.

An Illustrative Forum on: “The Challenge of our Time”

My illustrative Forum on “The Challenge of Our Time” — of living peacefully and sustainably on a crowded planet in the 21^st Century – asks three questions:

1. How to Establish and Maintain a Peaceful and Cooperative World Order
2. How to Live Sustainably, Inclusively, and Equitably on a Diverse and Crowded Planet
3. How to use the power of 21^st Century Science, Technology, and Artificial Intelligence to Advance Human Well Being and Social Progress.

Each of three questions for discovering how to live in the future requires the simultaneous integration of four elements into a coherent sense of direction and common purpose. Each of the four are interdependent and simultaneous; they are not hierarchical or sequential:

1. The Political
2. The Social
3. The Economic
4. The Psychological (i.e., Personal)

The three questions and the four perspectives create a 12-cell discussion matrix for a single “Forums for a Future.” There are multiple examples of specific current disruptions that fit in each of the 12 cells; thus, there are an infinite number of possible Forums, each with 12 sessions to complete a full series on a given topic, as illustrated in the template below:

The Challenges of our Time	A Political Elements	B SocialElements	CEconomic Elements	DPsychological Elements
I.  How to Establish and Maintain a Peaceful and Cooperative World Order	I.  A	I.  B	I.  C	I.  D
II.  How to Live Sustainably, Inclusively, and Equitably on a Diverse and Crowded Planet	II.  A	II.  B	II.  C	II.  D
III. How to use the power of 21st Century Science, Technology, and Artificial Intelligence to Advance Human Well Being and Social Progress	III.  A	III.  B	III.  C	III.  D

Each of the cells has a link to a reading that defines a perspective on a specific issue. After reading the reference piece, each participant (a) rates on a six -point scale whether they agree or disagree with an assertion about the issue, (b) writes and shares with the group an explanation of their thinking and reasoning, (c) considers and discusses the explanations written by others, and (d) then arrives at a thoughtful and respectful written final personal conclusion and repeats the six-point rating scale.

The six-point rating scale provides a quantitative, before and after, empirical metric for identifying where changes of thinking occurred, and the content of the individual material provides the basis for a qualitative analysis. At the end of the 12-week series, the individual task is to better understand their personal cognitive changes and the principles of the process.  At the national level, we need to discover new roles and methods for life-long learning. Ideally, misinformation and conspiracy theories are best corrected through personal civic engagement, not through content regulation of social media or educational institutions.

For my illustrative example on The Challenge of Our Time, I have created a sample matrix with suggested readings for each discussion, that can be freely used or revised. As a generalized methodology, the matrix can be modified to address other divisive topics – such as reproductive rights or transgender issues as examples – by redefining the rows and selecting appropriate reference material for the cells of the matrix. I have 100s of potential reference articles in my Forums for a Future Library for alternative matrices. Suitable material is not hard to find.

We need to focus on the disruptions of technological and social change, and on the future – rather than political ideologies – as one antidote to the polarizing effect of selective news and social media channels.

Edward Renner is a retired Professor of Psychology who has taught at the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Illinois, and the University of South Florida. 

---