What Magenta Tells Us About Political Interpretation
What is a color?
If answering pragmatically, one might claim that a color is the wavelength it occupies on the visible spectrum of light. But while this interpretation easily accommodates colors like red and violet, which are perceived respectively at about 700 and 400 nanometers, other colors simply do not appear on the visible light spectrum.
Magenta and other red-violet mixes are perceptible and publicly acknowledged yet possess no identifiable wavelength on the visible light spectrum. Instead, magenta occupies a psychologically- and evolutionarily-advantageous position by merging the ends of the ROYGBIV spectrum to complete the color wheel. When presented with wavelengths from both ends of the visible light spectrum, the brain “invents” a new color rather than averaging the wavelengths. It thus perceives magenta, a useful moderation between red and violet, and not a shade of green around the 550nm literal average of the two colors. In other words, when the brain is presented with confusing and conflicting information in the real world, it transforms the input’s perception into one that is pragmatic and helpful, rather than puzzling. Intuitively, it makes more sense that a combination of red and violet would not result in green, but instead in a red-violet mix like magenta.
The interpretation of conflicting political information involves the same process as the brain’s perception of magenta, though admittedly with far greater conscious input than unconscious calculation. For instance, when an individual hears two pieces of mutually exclusive news, they do not interpret the average to be true, but instead form an interpretation that remains consistent with their worldview. Should someone learn from one source that a specific presidential candidate’s healthcare proposal will cost $30 trillion and hear from another that it will only cost $10 trillion, that person will likely not assume the literal average of $20 trillion to be the true cost. Instead, an educated and informed reader will judge the plan’s probable cost based on external applicable information, such as the relative credibility of each source or an acknowledgement of their own political perspectives. Similarly to the brain’s evolved and unconscious creation of magenta due to its practical utility, interpretations of political information follow a conscious process involving assessment within a broader context, rather than a simple average.
Some readers choose to ignore certain information based on personal biases—to see only the red or the violet in their conscious interpretation, rather than the magenta in existence.
Conflicting pieces of news, in other words, do not cancel the information out in the eyes of the reader. If a reader learns from one source that an impeachment investigation was performed in a biased and partisan manner yet reads in another that the same inquiry was fairly undertaken as a matter of national security, they do not “average” the information in an assessment which deems the inquiry to be politically-moderate or unimportant. Instead, the neutral and educated reader considers additional information in a pragmatic attempt to reach a sufficient and sensical conclusion, such as by considering each source, assessing their own biases, or searching for additional information to clarify the grey area.
Some readers, however, choose to ignore certain information based on personal biases—to see only the red or the violet in their conscious interpretation, rather than the magenta in existence. In the debate over the Black Lives Matter movement, for instance, conservative individuals may reflexively respond that “blue lives matter” or that “all lives matter.” By doing so, some Americans choose not to acknowledge one side of the story that creates the society all Americans share and occupy, thereby excluding even a consideration that an idea, movement, or ideology may be more complicated than it seems. It is the exceptional political conflict that is simple, one-sided, and demands a noncontroversial solution. But when today’s multi-faceted issues are simplified to the point of appearing easily-solved, confusion and anger result from any inaction to address them, and any differences in supposedly-obvious solutions cause further frustration.
As a result of the complexity of most contemporary political issues, a sophisticated response is typically required. The average American, however, does not possess the expertise to analyze and rule on the appropriate outcome for every issue from foreign policy to environmental laws. They must either rely on others to synthesize competing information and develop a solution, or forge ahead on their own and often miss the mark in their reasoning. Some choose the latter path, yet still wholeheartedly believe in and argue for their simplistic and flawed plan.
It is thus the duty of those educated citizens to see the magenta in the world, to look beyond the surface-level red or violet and beyond the basic and absurdly green average, to investigate and distinguish between the simplistically appealing and the complexly accurate. Without the appropriate consideration, the wrong responses will be implemented, and the same problems will continue to plague society. Magenta is out there—anyone can see it with enough time and training. But the only ones who have any hope of purposefully resolving the magenta problems of the world are those who can truly examine, acknowledge, and understand the complexity of crises.