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

121–130 of 172 posts

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#121

Post by scott_s »

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…

In this context, "hold" likely does not mean "accepting". I read it to mean closer to "consider", which means that one is able to consider two opposing arguments, and understand them to the point that one could articulate the negatives and benefits of each side. That is very much not doublethink.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#122

Post by dragonwriter »

wolfgke wrote: post #93
mfoy_ wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rig…

> 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 everyo…

No, the problem is that they are "should" questions, and thus experiments can't answer them at all. Now, if you assume a moral framework in which a certain combination of consciousness or intellectual capacity on the part of the mother makes her rights paramount (or one which does so for the child, or one which does some calculus on the relative levels of those traits between the mother and the child to determine which is paramount) then you can reduce this to a fact question that is conceivably resolvable by experiment (and, thus, leave only the problem that you mention), but I would assert that there is no such consensus moral framework, so you've actually identified the easy problem with resolving the conflict, while ignoring the fundamental and intractable one.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#123

Post by jarjoura »

specialist wrote: post #97

The increasing political divide in the US is the direct result of ever more aggressive gerrymandering. Jurisdictions are becoming ever more partisan. So now only the most partisan (divisive) candidates can win their primary election, which then pretty much makes the general election moot. The fix is California style redistricting, where citizens and not politicians are in charge of the process.

That's definitely a cause for what we're seeing out of Congress, but it's not related to what we're seeing with Trump. He is winning at the polls with his hateful angry rhetoric and it's pretty damn strange.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#124

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

The difference between Fitzgerald's intelligence and Orwell's doublethink, as I see it, is that Orwell's doublethink is when the conflicting ideas are understood as binary absolutes, held to exactly represent reality, while Fitzgerald's intelligence is when the conflicting ideas are understood as fuzzy approximations held to convey something important about the world without exactly representing it.

And, going further, I think the root of the danger found in Orwell's doublethink lies even lower -- the danger starts with holding even one idea as a binary absolute that perfectly reflects the real world. Ideas, particularly ideas which can be reduced to language, are more like Platonic forms, which elements of the natural world might fuzzily reflect but will never perfectly embody.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#125

Post by clock_tower »

sanderjd wrote: post #116
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]

I agree, but anecdotally, as someone who spends a lot of face-to-face time around people on both sides of the typical left-right division, neither of which represent my views, it is very frustrating for me, and I suspect rather pointless for them. I've never left a political conversation like this feeling like I made a dent in anyone's ideology; they just leave thinking I'm a weirdo.

I think the same, and I'd go a step further. I don't particularly _want_ to get along with people who have no problem with abortion, nor with people who have no problem with torture. Why should I see being de-polarizing as something desirable? (And where can I move to?)

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#126

Post by bryondowd »

specialist wrote: post #97

The increasing political divide in the US is the direct result of ever more aggressive gerrymandering. Jurisdictions are becoming ever more partisan. So now only the most partisan (divisive) candidates can win their primary election, which then pretty much makes the general election moot. The fix is California style redistricting, where citizens and not politicians are in charge of the process.

Not familiar with 'California style redistricting' and I'm curious. Have a short explanation or a link?

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#127

Post by mantas »

Xcelerate wrote: post #95
carsongross wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

It would be interesting if we had "virtual countries" where you could choose among the tradeoffs for yourself. I suppose the difficulty would be handling the interactions between each person's virtual country, but the idea that everyone signs up for a different set of laws and freedoms has interesting implications.

Although that's a very long shot, life in most parts of Europe was kinda similar before industrial revolution. Nobility had their own laws. Church had theirs. Jews were living in pretty much a "virtual country", both culturally and legally. Peasants were living in another totally different world with different rules. IMO French revolution and Holocaust were the ultimate endings of "virtual countries".

On the other hand, I totally support independent communities who could live on their own terms, as long as their rules don't conflict with other communities.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#128

Post by clock_tower »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #70
wolfgke wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't it be that it is much better that persons of very different political views don't talk so much, face to face? I can imagine quite well that this would easily in yelling at each other etc. Also at least me I even get more hate to views someone says if I talk to him/her personally than when I only have to see his/her arguments in the internet. In other words: That people of very different views don't talk much…

I disagree. People generally have to work themselves up to a place of such strong opinions. This usually happens when people cocoon themselves in echo chambers. If you spend 4 hours a day on zerohedge or infowars, you will reach a point where differing opinions piss you off to the point of yelling. If, however, you were getting different perspectives from other human beings on a regular basis, you would likely be les…

I think that when the stakes are high enough, you have to work to wind yourself down -- not to wind yourself up. And at this point, between Roe v. Wade and Guantanamo Bay (I oppose both, if you're curious), the stakes are definitely high enough.

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#129

Post by clock_tower »

tomjen3 wrote: post #107
tat45 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking from personal experience only, I work with people who are on the other side of the fence from me politically. We manage to have conversations on political matters without it boiling over into contempt and dislike. Probably the fact that it is a workplace and we all want to keep our jobs serves to keep a lid on it. I find it far easier to depersonalize someone who I don't see in the flesh on a daily basis.

Are you sure about the contempt and dislike? When I hear somebody say something stupid at work I won't necessarily say anything, or say what I think, but I will change my like/dislike of that person.

I think he's explicitly saying _expressed_ contempt and dislike: "Probably the fact that it is a workplace and we all want to keep our jobs serves to keep a lid on it."

Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

#130

Post by bovermyer »

clock_tower wrote: post #125
sanderjd wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but anecdotally, as someone who spends a lot of face-to-face time around people on both sides of the typical left-right division, neither of which represent my views, it is very frustrating for me, and I suspect rather pointless for them. I've never left a political conversation like this feeling like I made a dent in anyone's ideology; they just leave thinking I'm a weirdo.

I think the same, and I'd go a step further. I don't particularly _want_ to get along with people who have no problem with abortion, nor with people who have no problem with torture. Why should I see being de-polarizing as something desirable? (And where can I move to?)

I think the idea is to apply "depolarization" generally, rather than specifically. You call out two specific issues; it's fine to not get on with people who have different (and strong) opinions on those positions, but it's entirely different to label an entire broad category of people ("conservatives" or "liberals" in the context of the article) as Evil and Not Worth My Time.
Post reply on HN