The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People • Hacker News Board

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#31

Post by pjc50 » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 2:41 PM UTC

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.

Your related example is not an example of A and not A!

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#32

Post by JshWright » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 2:42 PM UTC

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.

Do you mean liberalism? Libertarianism and Conservatism aren't that far apart to begin with.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#33

Post by Tiksi » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 2:44 PM UTC

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #10

vardump wrote: post #4

So, soon it's time to elect another scapegoat, a social lightning rod. U.S. presidents seem to get blamed (and sometimes praised) for things they can't really control.

Absolutely. My favorite example is the price of gasoline. This often comes up with the seasonal price shifts (Americans drive much more in the summer than in other seasons, so gas is more expensive then). We might as well blame them for the weather.

>We might as well blame them for the weather.

Oh we have, remember how Bush caused Katrina?

(for broad definitions of we)

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#34

Post by CJKinni » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 2:46 PM UTC

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.

The competing positions in most arguments, especially political arguments, are not of the form 'A or Not A.' Including your own example.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#35

Post by collyw » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 2:47 PM UTC

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

That sounds like the definition of doublethink in Orwell's 1984.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#36

Post by sillysaurus3 » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 2:49 PM UTC

JshWright wrote: post #32

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you mean liberalism? Libertarianism and Conservatism aren't that far apart to begin with.

Thanks, fixed.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#37

Post by qznc » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 2:50 PM UTC

jschwartzi wrote: post #24

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.

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.

Mixing reality and absolute statements seems like a recipe for falsehood.

Probabilities work much better. "I'm 50% certain of A and 50% of not-A", which means complete ignorance. A "80% A" means you have an opinion, but you acknowledge a 20% possiblity of being wrong. If anybody claims "100% sure of something", it is an obvious sign of idiocy.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#38

Post by sillysaurus3 » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 2:50 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #29

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Talk to them. Ask them for their point of view. Listen carefully to what they say, and try to put yourselves in their position.

Only then should you hate them, if you really choose to. Not before.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#39

Post by bryanrasmussen » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 2:50 PM UTC

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.

well, political parties have platforms describing their beliefs and goals as a party. I know if I'm a member of political party it is because I agree with a large number of those beliefs and goals. So I naively assume that other people who are members of political parties must also agree with those beliefs.

So it seems to me that not equating political party with belief would be a very strange thing - why do you think people are in political parties?

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#40

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 2:51 PM UTC

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.

[deleted]