Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

the-american-interest.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 172 posts

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#21

Post by agentgt »

I believe many of the problems of polarization are caused by cognitive dissonance [1] in particular "confirmation bias" (the article is sort of light on references to academic social psychology and cognitive behavior).

Confirmation bias is often exarcebated with greater choices (as the number of choices brings greater discomfort). An example would be the GOP primaries (ie sheer number of candidates).

I also think certain personality types (ie myers briggs/jung) have a tendency to behave in a polarized manner. I don't think being polarized = stupid as another commenter posted albeit probably being ignorant does have an affect.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#22

Post by RodericDay »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #7
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #6

well, first off it says that people distrust people of opposite political parties more than of different races like that's a bad thing ( distrusting people because of their beliefs instead of their race seems an improvement to me), furthermore has this data been adjusted for political affiliation and race - do white Republicans, for example, really distrust white Democrats more than they distrust people of other race…

it says that people distrust people of opposite political parties more than of different races Yes. like that's a bad thing No. It did not say this. distrusting people because of their beliefs instead of their race seems an improvement to me Equating political party = belief is a big problem. It's basically the definition of tribalism. You're forced to pick a side.

At the point where you've picked a party, you've picked a side all by yourself.

For example, knowing that someone is a self-described "American republican" in 2016 doesn't let me know if they are a good person or a bad person, but it does let me know that abortion rights for women isn't one of their main priorities.

The goal is not to do away with categorization/heuristics entirely. It's to continually revise and improve them. Political party affiliation is on a whole different ballpark than race.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#23

Post by heegemcgee »

senekerim wrote: post #20
brightball wrote: post #15

One of my favorite quotes actually embodies this pretty well. "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

OTOH if you've reached a point where you are ready to accept both 'A' and 'not A', you need to go back and re-examine your premises/assumptions (sort of a real life example of reductio ad absurdum). Related example: accepting 'the left is delusional and corrupt' and 'the right is delusional and corrupt' leads one to re-examine the validity and usefulness of this whole left-right spectrum of political thought.

I take the original "Hold in mind" to mean "consider, in detail", and it works better. Perhaps in line with "seek first to understand".

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#24

Post by jschwartzi »

senekerim wrote: post #20
brightball wrote: post #15

One of my favorite quotes actually embodies this pretty well. "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

OTOH if you've reached a point where you are ready to accept both 'A' and 'not A', you need to go back and re-examine your premises/assumptions (sort of a real life example of reductio ad absurdum). Related example: accepting 'the left is delusional and corrupt' and 'the right is delusional and corrupt' leads one to re-examine the validity and usefulness of this whole left-right spectrum of political thought.

There's a difference between considering A and not A, and accepting A and not A. In formal logic, one or the other statement must be true. The point being made is that we should refrain from choosing the true statement until we've taken the time to consider both on their own merits.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#25

Post by ch4s3 »

heegemcgee wrote: post #23
senekerim wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OTOH if you've reached a point where you are ready to accept both 'A' and 'not A', you need to go back and re-examine your premises/assumptions (sort of a real life example of reductio ad absurdum). Related example: accepting 'the left is delusional and corrupt' and 'the right is delusional and corrupt' leads one to re-examine the validity and usefulness of this whole left-right spectrum of political thought.

I take the original "Hold in mind" to mean "consider, in detail", and it works better. Perhaps in line with "seek first to understand".

I'm inclined to agree with this interpretation.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#26

Post by sillysaurus3 »

RodericDay wrote: post #22
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it says that people distrust people of opposite political parties more than of different races Yes. like that's a bad thing No. It did not say this. distrusting people because of their beliefs instead of their race seems an improvement to me Equating political party = belief is a big problem. It's basically the definition of tribalism. You're forced to pick a side.

At the point where you've picked a party, you've picked a side all by yourself. For example, knowing that someone is a self-described "American republican" in 2016 doesn't let me know if they are a good person or a bad person, but it does let me know that abortion rights for women isn't one of their main priorities. The goal is not to do away with categorization/heuristics entirely. It's to continually revise and imp…

Actually, you haven't. You are allowed to pick either group A or group B. Both groups are idiotic in their own ways.

On the spectrum from hardcore libertarianism to hardcore conservatism, the two political parties are huddled closely together in the middle of it.

You don't get a choice. But you get to be branded for the rest of your life as one of those two groups.

It's a game I refuse to play.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#27

Post by RobertoG »

agentgt wrote: post #21

I believe many of the problems of polarization are caused by cognitive dissonance [1] in particular "confirmation bias" (the article is sort of light on references to academic social psychology and cognitive behavior). Confirmation bias is often exarcebated with greater choices (as the number of choices brings greater discomfort). An example would be the GOP primaries (ie sheer number of candidates). I also think cer…

My irony bias makes me think that attributing problems to confirmation bias should be classified as a type of confirmation bias.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#28

Post by RobertoG »

brightball wrote: post #15

One of my favorite quotes actually embodies this pretty well. "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

Not without its dangers.

Doublethink:

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies[..]"

1984, George Orwell

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#29

Post by pessimizer »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #26
RodericDay wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the point where you've picked a party, you've picked a side all by yourself. For example, knowing that someone is a self-described "American republican" in 2016 doesn't let me know if they are a good person or a bad person, but it does let me know that abortion rights for women isn't one of their main priorities. The goal is not to do away with categorization/heuristics entirely. It's to continually revise and imp…

Actually, you haven't. You are allowed to pick either group A or group B. Both groups are idiotic in their own ways. On the spectrum from hardcore libertarianism to hardcore conservatism, the two political parties are huddled closely together in the middle of it. You don't get a choice. But you get to be branded for the rest of your life as one of those two groups. It's a game I refuse to play.

You're not forced to pick from either, as you seem not to have. If you decide to publicly pick one, you will be judged for that.

Exactly what better criteria would you use to judge people if not their choices and actions?

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#30

Post by pessimizer »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #6

well, first off it says that people distrust people of opposite political parties more than of different races like that's a bad thing ( distrusting people because of their beliefs instead of their race seems an improvement to me), furthermore has this data been adjusted for political affiliation and race - do white Republicans, for example, really distrust white Democrats more than they distrust people of other race…

It's worth quoting because it is so weird:

"[...]Americans today are less friendly to people in the other political party than we are to people of a different race. The researchers conclude that 'Americans increasingly dislike people and groups on the other side of the political divide and face no social repercussions for the open expression of these attitudes.' As a result, today 'the level of partisan animus in the American public exceeds racial animus.' That’s saying something!"

Is this a bit of light humor about how virulently racist the US is, or is it a call for racial unity beyond politics? I have no idea.

Post reply on HN