Civility

A reporter for Business Insider writes:

Recently, my family group chat buzzed when I asked if we should say "please" and "thank you" to ChatGPT when making requests. My mother, always polite, insisted on using manners with AI to "keep myself human."

As AI like ChatGPT becomes part of daily life, our interactions with these tools are shaping new social norms. Digital etiquette expert Elaine Swann notes that, just as we've adapted to new technology—like knowing not to take phone calls on speaker in public—we're still figuring out how to treat AI bots.

Kelsey Vlamis, another Business Insider reporter, noticed this shift personally. While vacationing in Italy, her husband had to stop himself from interrupting their tour guide with rapid-fire questions, realizing that’s how he interacts with ChatGPT but not with people. "That is not, in fact, how we talk to human beings," Vlamis said.

Swann emphasizes that maintaining respect in all interactions—human or digital—is important. After OpenAI CEO Sam Altman revealed on X that it costs "tens of millions of dollars" to process polite phrases like "please" and "thank you" sent to ChatGPT, Swann argued that it’s up to companies to make this more efficient, not for users to drop politeness.

"This is the world that we create for ourselves," Swann said. "And AI should also understand that this is how we speak to one another, because we're teaching it to give that back to us."

Altman, for his part, believes the expense is justified, saying the money spent on polite requests to ChatGPT is money "well spent."

As we navigate this new era, how we interact with AI may shape not just our technology, but our humanity as well.

Possible Preaching Angle:

This story about politeness toward AI can be used to illustrate several Biblical themes, such as human dignity, respectful communication, and ethical responsibility. 1) Kindness – Making kindness a habit reflects the nature of God (Eph. 4:32); 2) Human nature – The mother’s desire to “keep myself human” through politeness reflects the imperative of Col. 3:12 “Clothe yourself with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience.” 3) Respect for others - The husband’s struggle to avoid ChatGPT-style interruptions with his tour guide highlights the tension between efficiency and humility (Phil. 2:3-4).

Over the past few years, Christians have often been warned that we're "on the wrong side of history" in regards to same-sex marriage. Robert P. George, a law professor from Princeton and co-author of What Is Marriage, said:

I do not believe in historical inevitability …. No good cause is permanently lost. So, my advice to supporters of marriage is to stay the course. Do not be discouraged. Do what the pro-life movement did when, in the 1970s, critics said, 'The game is over; you lost; in a few years abortion will be socially accepted and fully integrated into American life ….' Speak the truth in season and out of season …. Keep challenging the arguments of your opponents, always with civility, always in a gracious and loving spirit, but firmly.

If you are told that you are on 'the wrong side of history,' remember that there is no such thing. History is not a deity that sits in judgment. It has no power to determine what is true or false, good or bad, right or wrong. History doesn't have 'wrong' and 'right' sides. Truth does. So, my message to everyone is that our overriding concern should be to be on the right side of truth.

For decades, a social psychologist named John Bargh has conducted studies on the way words affect behavior. In one such study, undergraduate students were given a scrambled-sentence test. One version of the test was sprinkled with rude words like “disturb,” “bother,” and “intrude.” Another version was sprinkled with polite words like “respect,” “considerate,” and “yield.” The subjects thought they were taking tests measuring lan­guage ability, but they were actually being subconsciously primed by those words.

Priming is a psychological phenomenon related to stimulus and response, and words are the lead actors. The word “nurse” is recognized more quickly if it’s preceded by the word “doctor.” The same goes for “dog” and “wolf.” Why? These words are semantic primes that cause you to think in categories. If I say Empire State Building, it puts you in a New York state of mind. In the same sense, the word “please” is a politeness prime.

After taking the five-minute scrambled-sentence test, stu­dents were supposed to walk down the hall and talk to the person running the experiment about their next assignment. However, an actor was strategically engaged in conversation with the researcher when the students arrived. The goal? Psychologist Bargh wanted to see whether the subjects who were primed with polite words would wait longer before interrupting than those who were primed with rude words.

The result? Sixty-five percent of the group primed with rude words interrupted the conversation. Those primed with polite words? Eighty-two percent of them never interrupted at all. If the test hadn't timed out at ten minutes, who knows how long they would have waited?

Possible Preaching Angle:

A few polite words. What difference do they make? In quantitative terms, they can make a 47% difference. Don’t underestimate the power of polite words.

Artist Wendy McNaughton was distraught about the incivility in the U.S. So, she started using a drawing technique, called “blind contour” or “look closely.”

It works like this. Two people who have never met before sit at a small table across from each other. Then they follow these rules. Rule number one: never lift your pen off the page. Use one continuous line. Rule number two: never look down at the paper you’re drawing on. Keep your eyes fixed on your partner’s face the whole time.

McNaughton encourages participants to go slow and pay attention. Draw what you see, not what you expect to see.

Nearly all the participants fretted over their artistic ability, but I insisted they just start drawing. And when they were finished, they looked down and inevitably cracked up. The drawings were always hilarious. Teeth on foreheads and scribbles where lips should be. ... But the point of this isn’t the final product. It’s the process. Seeing each other. Participants were stunned by the connection they felt with someone they hadn’t met before, even after just 60 seconds. These former strangers were now, kind of, friends.

McNaughton concludes: “Imagine what would happen in our communities, if we slow down to look at one another.”

When a video of an American Airlines pilot scolding his passengers during a pre-flight announcement went viral, some people deemed it patronizing. Others are hailing the pilot’s speech as an example of strong leadership—at a time when passengers desperately need it.

In the video the pilot set some ground rules for his passengers—including what they should expect from their flight attendants, and how they should treat each other during the journey.

The pilot said, “Remember, the flight attendants are here for your safety. After that they’re here to make your flight more enjoyable. They’re going to take care of you guys but you will listen to what they have to say because they represent my will in the cabin, and my will is what matters.”

The pilot added: “Be nice to each other. Be respectful to each other. I shouldn’t have to say that ... But I have to say it every single flight, because people don’t. And they’re selfish and rude, and we won’t have it.” He told passengers to store their bags properly, avoid leaning or falling asleep on other people, and use headphones instead of playing audio out loud on speakers.

The speech—“a little bit of fatherhood,” as the pilot deemed it—serves as a counterpoint to a bevy of recent videos depicting outbursts aboard aircrafts. Airlines have seen a significant uptick in unruly passenger reports: nearly 2,500 in 2020 and 6,000 in 2021, compared to roughly 1,200 in 2019 and less than 1,000 in years prior, according to FAA data.

The FAA has referred more than 250 of those cases to the Federal Bureau of Investigations since 2021, a move reserved for particularly violent incidents.

In spite of our polarized politics, it seems that there has long been bipartisan respect for Abraham Lincoln. Theodore Roosevelt (R) kept a portrait of Lincoln behind his desk and would turn to it in contemplation during difficult times. Franklin Roosevelt (D) made regular trips to the Lincoln Memorial and once wrote to a friend, “I think it is time for us Democrats to claim Lincoln as one of our own.” Both Ronald Reagan (R) and John McCain (R), accepted their party’s nomination for the presidency highlighting their allegiance to “The Party of Lincoln.” And Barack Obama (D) cited Lincoln in his 2008 victory speech, taking his oath of office on the same Bible Lincoln used.

But to claim Lincoln, one must follow his example. In a recent issue of The National Review, Cameron Hilditch offers this advice to those who wish to practice the politics of Lincoln:

To recover it, all we need to do is think seriously, deeply, and regularly about the fact that none of us are, in any intrinsic or objective way, better than the people whose politics we loathe. If you’re interested in practicing the politics of Lincoln, try to bring to mind the person in public life whose views you find the most appalling, and meditate long and hard on the fact that they are your … equal. Our sixteenth president was quite adept at this. On the night that Robert E. Lee surrendered, Lincoln, after four years of being cursed, warred against, and burned in effigy by the soldiers of the South, turned to the White House band and asked them to play “Dixie.”

We all know bad manners are toxic. But new research now shows that bad manners can kill. In this study, when doctors spoke rudely to their staff, both accuracy and performance suffered. The medical teams exposed to bad behavior and nasty comments demonstrated poorer diagnostic and procedural performance than those who were not exposed to incivility.

As the lead researchers commented: "Relatively benign forms of incivility among medical staff members—simple rudeness—have robust implications on medical team collaboration processes and thus on their performance as a team."

Rudeness and lack of kindness undermine people's ability to think clearly and make good decisions. It steals confidence and weakens motivation.

Editor's Note: On a positive note, we could assume that there is just as much power for good in simple and ordinary acts of kindness and gentleness.

Parents used to always tell their children, "Now you play nice." But rudeness and bad behavior is growing, especially in the workplace. As The New York Times points out, "How we treat one another at work matters. Insensitive interactions have a way of whittling away at people's health, performance, and souls." The results of a recent study shows that acting civil pays off. The article notes that "those seen as civil were twice as likely to be viewed as leaders." The story concludes with a great reminder for all of us: "In every interaction, you have a choice: Do you want to lift people up or hold them down?"

Possible Preaching Angle:

Wait a minute, I recall reading that somewhere before. Hum, maybe Ephesians 4:29 or Philippians 2:3-4.

"The tone of our truth-telling can build a wall or a bridge," said Ed Waltz.

Ed and his wife, Barb, from Ann Arbor, Michigan, should know. They witnessed two types of truth-telling by two doctors. The Waltz's daughter, Deb, has cerebral palsy.

Barb had hoped that Deb would walk one day. After performing a battery of tests, the first doctor led Ed and Barb into a small conference room where he bluntly laid out for them what they could expect. In a tone that was cold and emotionally disconnected from his patient, the doctor said, "It is extremely unlikely that your daughter will ever walk."

Still in a state of shock from the devastating news, Barb asked, "But what kind of shoes should I buy for my daughter?" She was thinking about some special corrective shoes, or perhaps shoes connected to a brace.

Without softening the blow, the doctor retorted, "Buy her whatever kind of shoes you want. She won't be using them to walk in." And with that, he quickly left the room, where Barb burst into tears.

Several months later, the family met with a second doctor. This time the entire scene felt different, though. Ed said, "My wife asked this new doctor essentially the same question she had asked the first one. She was still wondering if there was anything we could do that might enable our daughter to take even a few steps."

The doctor paused for a moment, thinking. Then, he looked compassionately and directly into Barb's eyes and said, "You know what I would do if I were you, Mrs. Waltz? I'd buy my daughter the prettiest little pink shoes I could find, with purple shoe laces."

Barb knew what he meant.

Ed said, "We talked about our experience on the way home. Both doctors had told us the same thing—Deb would never walk. I'm ashamed to say what we felt like doing to the first doctor, but we felt like hugging the second doctor."

How we tell the truth makes a difference in how that truth is received.

If anyone had a right to unleash an uncivil, scathing … attack on his opponents, it was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. It is hard for [many people today] to remember the conditions under which many African Americans lived throughout the South just over 40 years ago. Segregation, lynchings, African American churches and homes firebombed. Jim Crow laws even prevented "colored people" from attending the circus and playing pool with whites.

Yet civil rights leaders painfully, persistently, and peacefully protested the injustice of segregation. In doing so, they often broke segregation laws. All too often, protesters reaped a reward of fire hoses, police dogs, and incarceration.

Several Birmingham clergy admonished the protesters, urging them to work within the law. King's letter was a response to those clergy.

Put yourself in his place. Who would not be furious, even enraged, by the statement of these ministers? How was King able to respond in such a civil and well-reasoned manner? Remember that King himself was a Baptist pastor. His response—known today as the "Letter from Birmingham Jail"—reflected his deeply held Christian convictions. He quoted the words of Jesus, and appealed to the example of Paul, as well as Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Bunyan.

Also, he did not question his opponents' motives. Instead, he called them "men of genuine good will" whose "criticisms are sincerely set forth." "I want to try to answer your statement," he wrote, "in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms." And that he did.

Yes, King clearly cataloged the injustices faced by African Americans. He called "white moderates" to task and forcefully reminded them that justice delayed was justice denied. And most famously, citing Augustine, he claimed that "an unjust law is no law at all."

But King never engaged in name calling or personal attacks. Without distortion, he patiently and fairly acknowledged his opponents' positions—and then dismantled them.

King had reason, justice, facts, and conviction on his side—as well as the gospel. He did not need vitriol, and he did not employ it.

Our country is grappling with many high-stakes, emotionally charged issues….We should defend our positions vigorously and with conviction—but with civility. That is why our nation more than ever needs the spirit contained in King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail."