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

81–90 of 172 posts

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#81

Post by Xcelerate »

carsongross wrote: post #80

Politeness comes from social solidarity: it is a consequence of social harmony, not a precursor. What if the polarization represents actual, fundamental disagreements on politics and, at root, moral axioms? Being polite hasn't done much for the respectable right for the last fifty years. I would rather focus on solutions like secession or federalism that allow groups of people with different and irreconcilable moral…

While I think secession should probably be a last resort, it would indeed be an intriguing thought experiment to separate the two ideological groups and see what happens. Each side thinks a society run under the opposing side's view would fall apart; wouldn't it be interesting if you could actually see which group does better after a century on their own?

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#82

Post by wolfgke »

mfoy_ wrote: post #76
wolfgke wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To add to your point, holding opposing ideas in your mind doesn't mean you accept both ideas as correct and valid and good (as in the Orwell quote). It just means that you can appreciate them and understand some of the points they try to make. If two theses conflict each other at least one of them (perhaps even both) must be wrong. That is basic science. This is also why physicists still try to unify general relati…

In this context opposition is not necessarily conflict. Are two sides of a bridge opposing each other or conflicting with each other? In a client-server security model the client usually wants as much as it can take and the server wants to provide as little as it has to. Are these opposed, or in conflict?

> In this context opposition is not necessarily conflict.

Than it's not an opposition.

> In a client-server security model the client usually wants as much as it can take and the server wants to provide as little as it has to. Are these opposed, or in conflict?

Now you create a malicious client which will pretent it has little, say, computational power or network capacity. So the server will have to do lots of work. Voila - a good beginning for a DoS attack. :-)

So, yes, these goals are in conflict and such an attack is a falsification of the soundness of your security model.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#83

Post by thanatropism »

RobertoG wrote: post #28
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 whil…

Doublethink was a satire/parody of communist "dialectical materialism" - in turn a development of Hegelian dialectics and finally of Heraclitus. Orwell is embarassingly simpleminded in accounting for this, and it's a crying shame he wasn't acquainted with Whitehead and Bergson and other thinkers that were fully aware that reality is process rather than essence.

Bonus: Heraclitus on Wikiquote: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Heraclitus

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#84

Post by emodendroket »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #79
emodendroket wrote: post #42

I find the idea that the current level of polarization is unprecedented kind of questionable. McCarthyist purges? The violence of the Reconstruction era, which followed a literal Civil War? Compared to that people calling each other mean names seems like small potatoes.

You seemed to forget some of these gems: - The collapse of race relations. Everybody thought a black president would do wonders for the issues of race in this country, it's done just the opposite. - Several ongoing wars with seemingly no end in sight. - The illegal immigration ahem "undocumented workers" (for you PC types) issue. 42 million strong at this point and no signs of slowing down. This is quickly approachin…

So you think "race relations" were better during the Reconstruction period? I don't.

The point here isn't that there aren't disagreements.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#85

Post by mfoy_ »

aangjie wrote: post #75
wolfgke wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To add to your point, holding opposing ideas in your mind doesn't mean you accept both ideas as correct and valid and good (as in the Orwell quote). It just means that you can appreciate them and understand some of the points they try to make. If two theses conflict each other at least one of them (perhaps even both) must be wrong. That is basic science. This is also why physicists still try to unify general relati…

I don't know why your answer was downvoted. Your point is a sane approach to handling opposing/conflicting ideas. Though I didn't read the Original quote as accepting opposing/conflicting ideas.

I believe it was originally down-voted for making the assumption that science could solve politics (we're talking opinions, not facts, so you cannot rigourously apply the scientific method).

The comment also fell for the trap of falsely equating opposition with conflict.

As a thought experiment, take the issue of abortion. GP is telling me that certainly either "Abortions should be allowed because of the mother's rights" or "Abortions should not be allowed because of the unborn child's rights" is WRONG. Tell me how anyone could possibly create an "experiment" which would result in a meaningful answer. How would you measure the morality and goodness of the event in a way that everyone could agree upon? Do you see the problem?

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#86

Post by ChemicalWarfare »

Polarization has a very strong tribal component to it. Once you get into the "us vs them" mindset you become the member of the "tribe" purely based on the labels instead of "reality".

At some point in time the label can have a strong correlation with the actual reality,then the label becomes more important than what it actually represents.

Politicians exploit this constantly, "us vs them" is what unites their respective camps and promotes loyalty.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#87

Post by kelukelugames »

emodendroket wrote: post #84
at-fates-hands wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seemed to forget some of these gems: - The collapse of race relations. Everybody thought a black president would do wonders for the issues of race in this country, it's done just the opposite. - Several ongoing wars with seemingly no end in sight. - The illegal immigration ahem "undocumented workers" (for you PC types) issue. 42 million strong at this point and no signs of slowing down. This is quickly approachin…

So you think "race relations" were better during the Reconstruction period? I don't. The point here isn't that there aren't disagreements.

It's obvious he's comparing to 90s and early 2000s. Originally I assumed things are the same, but people are just louder because of Internet. Then birthers and Trump happened, so I think it's debatable.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#88

Post by jm_l »

frobozz wrote: post #78
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.

> Equating political party = belief is a big problem Why? I agree that it's wrong to assume that because person A supports party B, they agree with the party's position on Issue C. However, Surely the party you support is the one that best reflects your beliefs. If it isn't, then why are you supporting that party? > You're forced to pick a side. You're forced to pick a side, secretly, in a booth once every n years, f…

To your first point, I think that's correct when you reach a certain level of granularity, like specific issues. Very often what can happen when people lose the distinction between Party and Belief is that (as touched on in the article):

1. We can only think of two viewpoints

2. We unintentionally assume viewpoints at a level of less granularity;

In explanation of (2), consider that the Iyengar's study finds implicit bias not against "People who Disagree with you on Issue C" but "The Word Republican/Democrat" and that this bias was also exhibited by Independents and Leaners.

To your second point, that the side-picking is mostly separate from everyday life, consider the last section of the Iyengar study, which finds that even in non-political contexts, like awarding scholarships, a signal on a resume indicating ties to a Party exerts a very strong impact on which candidate is selected.

The obvious answer is to say, "Don't associate yourself with the D/R Party unless you agree with all of their viewpoints," but I believe we can end up with an even better answer that allows people to get organized even when they don't completely agree on every single thing, and for us to perhaps make fewer incorrect judgements based on this organization.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#89

Post by carsongross »

Xcelerate wrote: post #81
carsongross wrote: post #80

Politeness comes from social solidarity: it is a consequence of social harmony, not a precursor. What if the polarization represents actual, fundamental disagreements on politics and, at root, moral axioms? Being polite hasn't done much for the respectable right for the last fifty years. I would rather focus on solutions like secession or federalism that allow groups of people with different and irreconcilable moral…

While I think secession should probably be a last resort, it would indeed be an intriguing thought experiment to separate the two ideological groups and see what happens. Each side thinks a society run under the opposing side's view would fall apart; wouldn't it be interesting if you could actually see which group does better after a century on their own?

wouldn't it be interesting if you could actually see which group does better after a century on their own

It very much would be. This is another argument for federalism/secessionism: a laboratory of governments/social structures will provide better feedback as to what works and what does not for various populations.

I think it is also worth bearing in mind that "does better" is inherently subjective, since value is subjective. Some political units may be fine trading GDP for a better environment, while others may be fine trading sexual freedom for stability. The irreconcilability of values/moral axioms dictates that we either agree to allow sufficiently differentiated groups to develop their own political units, or we impose our axioms on them (or they, us.)

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#90

Post by [deleted] »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #48

IMO, A large part of the problem is people of different political views don't talk, face to face, enough. Like in war, it's easier to kill a "gook" or "haji" than a person. The Internet makes it easy to dehumanize the other side; they're just avatars and words on your screen. It's a lot harder to hate an actual person, especially just for having a different opinion than you. [Edited]

[deleted]
Post reply on HN