One of the biggest questions we should ask is, "are we now in a post-truth Australia?"

In two ways the 2019 federal election was like the 2016 Brexit referendum and US presidential race that heralded post-truth politics.

First, the polls were wrong. Of course, they are only ever estimates, so the problem is not so much their accuracy, but rather our reliance upon them. Nowadays politicians turn to polls to determine policies, messaging and leaders. And many of us in the media and in the public fixate on them in the same way that a gambling addict fixates over sports odds without ever appreciating the quality of the players, pitch or game.

Secondly, the election has brought to the fore long-festering divisions. Now it is as if helping a Queenslander means harming a Victorian and visa versa. The same could be said of the zero-sum relationship between inner versus outer suburbs, cities versus the regions, old versus young, and especially believers in coal versus climate change. In the ACT there are signs that the "Great Wall of Hindmarsh" is growing with two-party preferred swings going to the Liberal party in the deep south while the inner north moved ever more towards the Greens and Labor.

These divisions are not so deep and resentful as to generate the sort of disparate realities that exist in the UK and US.

However, they have made for a more toxic and nasty campaign and should caution us to avoid spiraling down into a post-truth funk.

Much of the problem relates to the echo chambers that many of us occupy and that are a feature of post-truth politics. They do not so much insulate all sound, but rather discredit other voices out of hand. Under the totalitarianism and propaganda that marred the 20^th century, only one truth reigned. In the post-truth 21^st century the noisy presence of many contesting truths makes us cling more tightly to our own. Thus, social media feeds commonly offer us a buffet of political and cultural dishes, yet we still go back to the same comfort foods.

The unhealthy effect of this in the UK and US means that it is hard to conceive of an outcome to the Brexit process or 2020 US presidential election that would not generate more disgruntlement with the political system and more distrust among divided communities.

So how can we avoid this scenario? In more positive terms, how can we better discuss, determine and share our truths?

In a 2017 Meanjin essay with the subheading, "Reflections on Truth and Truthfulness," philosopher Raimond Gaita provided some useful tips on how we can speak and listen to one another with a view to enlivening public life and improving our personal relationships.

Here are two of them.

First, instead of constant polling, we can judge and assess truths via a "call to seriousness". To say, "Get serious will ya!" or ask, "Seriously?" is not to be snide or dismiss someone as "a joke". Nor is it purely fact checking. Rather it means engaging in good faith and robust conversations about common issues of substance. This might mean asking, "On what authorities are our claims based? Have we considered the best possible information sources? Are we speaking with humility and confidence about things we know well, or are we bullshitting? Do we need to place a check on our interests and emotions?"

But for me a call to seriousness also means regarding others in the same way that Trump supporters regard their president. A CNN reporter famously said that Trump's critics took him literally but not seriously, while for his supporters it was the other way around. In supporting people in our lives, it is valuable to take them seriously, but not always literally.

During the election one of my Vietnam-born family members came across a United Australia Party advertisement warning of the Chinese Communist Party's "takeover of our country". He had also been watching a series of outrage videos asserting that China had taken control of not only the South-China Sea (what many Vietnamese call the "Eastern Ocean") but also Vietnam itself.

"The Chinese are invading again!" he exclaimed, before asserting that Vietnam was the first to fall, and that Australia and the Asia-Pacific would soon follow.

It was relatively easy for me to point out the falsities of these claims and some of the interests at work behind them (the retired air force pilot in the UAP video is also Clive Palmer's nephew and worked at Queensland Nickel which owes its former employees tens of millions of dollars).

What was more challenging and important was to consider the history of experiences and vulnerabilities that my relative was genuinely experiencing.

In our calls to seriousness, rigorous conversations about truth should be buttressed by an empathy that nourishes further interaction and deeper awareness. The aim is not to call out others and excommunicate them from our civic community, but rather to call them in.

Secondly, it helps to listen with what Gaita refers to as an "ear for tone". In contemporary Australia this means recognising that overblown outrage often indicates someone elevating their own ego and interests over the interests of others. It means being attentive to the details and nuances of political life rather than be swayed by sensational, scary and simplistic messages. In politics and life, good listening is the precursor for and much more significant than good speech.

Taking one another seriously and listening with an ear for tone fosters a bigger and better conservational space in which we recognise conflicting ideas and agendas while reconciling them with a shared commitment to truth and love of country.