> "Consider two categories of people:"
That's precisely how crazy ideologies form.
The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)
111–120 of 232 posts
Re: The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)
#112The good part of this: don't fall into the trap of believing the proposition "an idiot disagrees with me, so I must be right". That's solid advice, idiots believe countless true things and geniuses believe innumerable false things. The intelligence of a random interlocutor has nothing to do with the validity of their opinions, really, so it shouldn't serve as evidence one way or another. Generally, I try to pay atten…
[flagged]
> Interestingly, he has a lot of people on what he calls the "Woke Right" (e.g Tucker Carlson) who also hate him.
Is that interesting? I get accused of being a labour supporter in conservative areas and conservative in more left leaning areas.
It's all part of the problem being discussed. If you don't precisely agree with someone, you must be one of 'them', and when you're in the middle, or have nuanced views, both extremes disagree with you.
Re: The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Lindsay does not adhere to basic honest critical inquiry. Marxism deserves much better critics!
As a sample this text by Matt McManus shows some of the deep problems with one Lindsay's books https://archive.is/psCEw
Re: The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think knowing about the branches of your government is a prerequisite to having an opinion or good argument about it. It’s not sufficient to just know that but it’s a good filter in the USA where a surprising number of people have “opinions” but lack the most basic knowledge.
It's a prerequisite, but so is breathing. It's necessary but not sufficient. The bar I like to use is pretty simple: do you know who represents you in Congress (I am American so this is my bias, but substitute your country's equivalent if there is one)? As in, your state's two Senators and your district's Representative? If not, you probably don't vote or don't pay attention when you do, and you've definitely never c…
>It's a prerequisite, but so is breathing. It's necessary but not sufficient.
It's the fizzbuzz of political debate.
Re: The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)
#115> Suppose you become politically radicalized and become a Marxist. You get convinced that the labor theory of value is correct. > The number of people in the general population who will know enough about the history and philosophy of economics to give you a clear account of why Marxism and the labor theory of value is incorrect, He's correct most people don't know about labor theory of value. Which is why it's easy f…
The important issue to focus on isn't that long ago people had a model that was not a good model of reality. The issue is that now we have better models and the person who claims they have an educated opinion should know it. Blindly holding to a model that has been shown to be inferior is what makes it an extremist belief. The geocentric model was thought to be true for literally thousands of years by every astronome…
Yes, we should compare the best currently available descriptive models and normative systems. But Masley's claims in the text can then be critiqued for disregarding that there are contemporary thinkers in the marxian tradition who either hold an updated and modified labor theory of value informed by contemporary evidence or hold a marxian view that does not rely on any labor theory of value at all.
Re: The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)
#116There is a much cheaper heuristic: if someone is very confident about their beliefs, can’t critique those beliefs or find flaws or inconsistencies in them, by the very definition, they are religious, and it’s not an intellectual discussion.
I can’t think of a belief I currently hold - other than more instinctive ones like children’s welfare - and that I cannot critique or find flaws in. If I you push me, I might even find inconsistencies there.
Although I agree with the author for the inverse. E.g. I haven’t heard a non-religious or non-grifter argument about AI safety, so far. But I shouldn’t conclude it’s crazy. I haven’t heard of an argument for effective altruism that is even remotely altruistic or one that is not a legitimization of libertarian-style support for social injustice. But maybe I only heard crappy arguments.
Re: The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Feels a little disingenuous to quote this line and not the full section where OP was just asking you to know your local representatives. [...] you have to almost actively not pay attention to not know anything about yours. Feels disingenuous to ignore the fact that what I said applies to the rest of the comment too, don't you think? If it isn't obvious: typically the first year after a move - likely more, at least…
> Feels disingenuous to ignore the fact that what I said applies to the rest of the comment too, don't you think? Then quote the whole thing your responding to, otherwise your response seems disproportionately overreacting. > For starters, something like almost ~half of students move away from their families to attend college. And then look at moves for jobs and retirement and everything else. And then when an incumb…
>If you don't know the names of your representatives you can't vote for them. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
The names are printed on the ballot, along with party affiliation. No memorization needed. In a primary there may be a bit of research needed, but even then you get a sample ballot beforehand so you can research the alternatives, but when the final election happens you generally only have two choices in the US per position and you simply vote for your party of choice.
Re: The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)
#118Here's One Weird Trick™ to avoid being an ideologue: be ok with being wrong. Flipping that over: aspire to be correct in your beliefs, not in "being right". Karl Popper (the man behind the Intolerance of Intolerance "paradox) identified it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
As the article talks about Marx, let us consider the falsifiable predictions of Narx, who died in 1883. * Economic crises (recessions, depressions) would continue, and becone worse over time (example: subprime crisis of 2008) * profitability rates would go down over time * wealth would concentrate more over time * middle class would be slowly shrunk - say, doctor's losing their own offices and made to see people in 1…
Like all historical thinkers making claims in economics, sociology and history Marx was wrong about a lot of things. So was Smith, Ricardo and countless others. However that doesn't settle the question if there is an updated version of some descriptive or normative claims traceable back to Marx, Smith or Ricardo that is well supported today. Agree?
"wealth would concentrate more over time", which it in fact did and keeps doing, on some measures such as the absolute GINI.
Re: The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)
#119If you need use of specific words, slogans, clothing, implements, secrets handshakes, or silly walks to be a member of a club, then it's probably a cult.
Grifters in various media markets have done a very good job on behalf of their respective backers and establishment to divide and conquer and manufacture consent of the audience into atomized disorganization with the above arbitrary elements and almost arbitrary wedge issues that that might be a first step in reevaluating a belief structure. The next might be a bit of introspection and consideration of other people's perspectives.
Stay unsure, curious, and calm.
Re: The main way I've seen people turn ideologically crazy (2025)
#120Great points and nice write-up. At the risk of sounding AI pilled, I find LLM's are fairly good sparring partners if you instruct them well. At least they're more capable of giving you the best arguments against your position than the average bar patron. Almost all of my non-professional prompts are of that nature.
I don't know. AI are basically trained to tell you what you want to hear, including when they're disagreeing with you. If you come off of your conversation with AI with a stronger belief than when you went in, is that merited? "AI Advice Suppresses People’s Willingness To Say “I Don’t Know”, Even When The Advice Is Wrong And Accuracy Is Incentivized" https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/5y6m4_v1
Yeah you have to frame the prompt as if you've come across some potentially extremist view you want to know more about, and pretend you're an outsider needing advice. Then you bias it to favor what you really want to know.