One could suggest that we should track which side has more autistic people on it, because they are less susceptible to social pressure which underlies many of this for the simple reason they can't read it as well.
I'm troubled! I'm more troubled intellectually than in any other way actually. I feel the Other Side are not like me, and I find them often vaguely gross and threatening even and DISTASTEFUL. But I entertain quite a strong suspicion that their beliefs and values are for the most as valid as mine. And it's not at all impossible that they're at least partially kinda more FACTUALLY true. And the same was true when I was in a very different part of the political spectrum in a different geographical place 30 years ago.
At the risk of sounding like the exact biased idiot this article is about, I do think there is more merit to MY political opinions over many others. I try very hard to base my beliefs on a reasonable assessment of the facts and practicality. Others base theirs on pure feelings and speculation it seems. So, I ask myself, dos that make me more right? I like to think so, but then again maybe I’m just biased…
Yea, I think the right way to think about it isn’t whether you’re basing your beliefs on evidence vs feelings. One can find at least some evidence to justify almost any claim, and it’s very easy to cherry pick evidence that supports what you’re already motivated to believe. The right way to think about it is whether you’re evaluating all the evidence (which might include feelings) impartially, in a way that’s not placing an unduly high burden of proof on something you’re reluctant to believe, or an unduly low burden of proof on something you’re motivated to believe. That is really, really hard to do. I know, I feel it in myself all the time. When something challenges the narrative I’m trying to construct, it makes me feel physically uncomfortable. When it supports the narrative, it makes me feel palpable excitement. The only way to transcend this unfortunate part of ourselves, if there’s any way to do it at all, is to constantly and relentlessly question whether we’re actually transcending it, or whether we’re just deluding ourselves into thinking we are. In any case, the real point here is to just try to be more intellectually humble. It’s really impossible to go too far in this direction IMO, because we’re so powerfully biased in the opposite direction. A good rule of thumb is: if it’s not hard, you’re not doing it right.
This all reminds me of Ezra Klein's (great) book "Why We're Polarized."
From chapter 6: "I cover politics because I think policy is important, which is to say, because I think who wins and who loses policy fights is important. And obviously, my views on those questions are rational, judicious, disinterested, and objectively correct. The problem is lots of other people are doing that work, too, and some of them come to different conclusions than I do."
Chapter 9 is titled "The Difference Between Democrats and Republicans," and is where he tries to grapple with how much he can understand his stances to be true, or just another example of tribalism and motivated reasoning. Good read, highly recommend.
Noted! You'll be happy to know that my post next week is a list of links (mostly to academic papers). I'll see if I can write up some book recommendations at some point.
Humanity might be better off if a Many Worlds Approach to Interpersonal Communication were more widely internalized. Imagine we started all of our conversations with the assumption that, even though they might be very similar, we do in fact occupy different worlds and we need to understand each other’s if we’re going to bridge them in the service of constructive co-existence.
Thanks, Jason. I like this way of putting it: the "Many Worlds" approach. I might combine it with the "We're Both Human" approach. We start all our conversations with the assumption that we're members of the same species, with the same biases, including the bias to deny our biases. https://everythingisbullshit.substack.com/p/i-am-not-human
When I speak about the 2nd Amendment and I try to understand the logic of the Anti-gun advocates, I get the feeling that other 2A supporters would consider me to be a hypocrite, rather than someone trying to make of the arguments. On the other side, I can see anti-gunners get fed bad information and base their arguments on that, instead of visiting a gun range and asking safety officers questions. Great post by the way!
One could suggest that we should track which side has more autistic people on it, because they are less susceptible to social pressure which underlies many of this for the simple reason they can't read it as well.
Naturally, this is also a biased idea :D
Haha, yea, I often use this heuristic, and am also wary of my own bias to use it.
I'm troubled! I'm more troubled intellectually than in any other way actually. I feel the Other Side are not like me, and I find them often vaguely gross and threatening even and DISTASTEFUL. But I entertain quite a strong suspicion that their beliefs and values are for the most as valid as mine. And it's not at all impossible that they're at least partially kinda more FACTUALLY true. And the same was true when I was in a very different part of the political spectrum in a different geographical place 30 years ago.
We troubled folk are the last of a dying breed.
At the risk of sounding like the exact biased idiot this article is about, I do think there is more merit to MY political opinions over many others. I try very hard to base my beliefs on a reasonable assessment of the facts and practicality. Others base theirs on pure feelings and speculation it seems. So, I ask myself, dos that make me more right? I like to think so, but then again maybe I’m just biased…
Yea, I think the right way to think about it isn’t whether you’re basing your beliefs on evidence vs feelings. One can find at least some evidence to justify almost any claim, and it’s very easy to cherry pick evidence that supports what you’re already motivated to believe. The right way to think about it is whether you’re evaluating all the evidence (which might include feelings) impartially, in a way that’s not placing an unduly high burden of proof on something you’re reluctant to believe, or an unduly low burden of proof on something you’re motivated to believe. That is really, really hard to do. I know, I feel it in myself all the time. When something challenges the narrative I’m trying to construct, it makes me feel physically uncomfortable. When it supports the narrative, it makes me feel palpable excitement. The only way to transcend this unfortunate part of ourselves, if there’s any way to do it at all, is to constantly and relentlessly question whether we’re actually transcending it, or whether we’re just deluding ourselves into thinking we are. In any case, the real point here is to just try to be more intellectually humble. It’s really impossible to go too far in this direction IMO, because we’re so powerfully biased in the opposite direction. A good rule of thumb is: if it’s not hard, you’re not doing it right.
This all reminds me of Ezra Klein's (great) book "Why We're Polarized."
From chapter 6: "I cover politics because I think policy is important, which is to say, because I think who wins and who loses policy fights is important. And obviously, my views on those questions are rational, judicious, disinterested, and objectively correct. The problem is lots of other people are doing that work, too, and some of them come to different conclusions than I do."
Chapter 9 is titled "The Difference Between Democrats and Republicans," and is where he tries to grapple with how much he can understand his stances to be true, or just another example of tribalism and motivated reasoning. Good read, highly recommend.
I feel like I ask this increasingly from people haha, but you should post reading recommendations
Noted! You'll be happy to know that my post next week is a list of links (mostly to academic papers). I'll see if I can write up some book recommendations at some point.
Humanity might be better off if a Many Worlds Approach to Interpersonal Communication were more widely internalized. Imagine we started all of our conversations with the assumption that, even though they might be very similar, we do in fact occupy different worlds and we need to understand each other’s if we’re going to bridge them in the service of constructive co-existence.
Thanks, Jason. I like this way of putting it: the "Many Worlds" approach. I might combine it with the "We're Both Human" approach. We start all our conversations with the assumption that we're members of the same species, with the same biases, including the bias to deny our biases. https://everythingisbullshit.substack.com/p/i-am-not-human
When I speak about the 2nd Amendment and I try to understand the logic of the Anti-gun advocates, I get the feeling that other 2A supporters would consider me to be a hypocrite, rather than someone trying to make of the arguments. On the other side, I can see anti-gunners get fed bad information and base their arguments on that, instead of visiting a gun range and asking safety officers questions. Great post by the way!