[Psudo]

When you find out someone disputes your view, especially someone who should know better, what is your reaction?

My reaction tends to be a moment of rejection and denial followed by a willful intent to find out what precisely they believe and why. I intellectually believe that any view held by anyone contains some amount of valid reasoning, but it takes a moment to control my gut reaction when I hear something objectionable. I work on making the search for understanding an automatic habit, but it's not automatic yet.

I have no idea how common or unique my reaction is except that I am noticeably annoyed when I see people taking what is, to me at least, a destructive gut reaction and pursuing it to the extent of their ability.

While reading about Jesse Helms' career (I'm ignorant of almost everyone's career; I'm more interested in ideas and reasoning than personal behavior for it's own sake), I bumped into a passionate criticism of racism among conservatives, specifically a criticism of a black conservative group called "Project 21".

Pam's House Blend wrote:

black conservatives pushing for Thomas as Chief Justice of SCOTUS. Where do they find these people? [...] Do they enjoy being a tool of the Right?

It's obvious she opposes conservative politics. It's obvious Project 21 disagrees with her and she believes they should know better. She also has some reasonable points: what is a white guy doing at the head of a black conservative organization? But what bothers me is that there is no attempt here to understand those she criticizes. A black organization supporting Thomas (a black man) for Chief Justice of SCOTUS makes pragmatic sense, but she doesn't even pause to address that point. When I get an urge to utterly disregard the other guy, I resist it as a destructive impulse. She seems to embrace and support it.

Don't read anything into my choice of a liberal voice as divisive; I'm well aware that people of all political stripes are equally capable of habitually dismissing the other guy's views. It's common enough that I hold my head in my hands in shameful shock after hearing a truly moronic defense of some view I hold dear.

But why does she dismiss the views of Project 21 out of hand? It's clear she thinks their conclusions are wrong, but it's equally clear they believe their conclusions are right. She doesn't even consider how the conclusions were formed, that there may be (and quite likely are) some arguments they use that she doesn't know. Until the reasoning is considered, she's just as likely to be wrong as they are.

Why do people do that? How can you assume, by default, that the guy who disagrees with you must therefore be stupid, brainwashed, without valid argument? And if you do believe that opposition to your view inherently denotes an absence of thought, how can you possibly claim to support democracy, free speech, or a pluralistic society, ideas founded on the reasoning that all people can reason?

Or am I wrong to resist the urge to dismiss views dramatically opposed to my own? After all, as long as she ignores the opposition's reasoning and I do not, she never risks changing her mind and I do. Doesn't that mean that people who agree with me will eventually lose out to people who agree with her regardless of the logic or reasoning behind the conclusion? I don't want my views to face extinction.

[Pseudonym]

I blame the public schools.





There are many possible reasons for this behavior. One I find particularly appealing is intellectual laziness. Many people have ceased to use critical thinking to analyze their own views.

Don't bother about your views dying out, however. There will always be someone to carry on the torch, although it may burn brighter and dimmer, as is the way with all things.

[Chumley]

Hey, where's the filibuster cartoon? I want a filibuster cartoon!!!

[CanadianJeff]

well it all boils down to acceptance. If your with the conservative crowd by social interaction then you will tend to adopt conservative views to fit in. It doesn't even matter if common sense requires another belief. This is one of the key dynamics in the sociological study of groups.

Solomon Asch conducted an excellent experiment to this end to prove the will of group conformity can overpower the will of logic.

David Milgram's research being so extreme (for lack of a better word)is also worth a look in that regard. There's a few links to his research on the wiki page I just listed above. (sorry most of my copies of this stuff is out of my textbooks so wikipedia will have to do).

That's mostly what I place the blame of people blindly and loudly trying to defend a view without justfication on. Simply the social need to fit in politically with their group.

I can speak a bit from experience on this one as well. Back in high school I was part of a group of very politically active students who just happened to identify more with the liberal cause then the conservative cause. I was at the time very uneducated about politics and to fit in with their group I would often engage in debate with my heart set on upholding the core ideals of the liberal cause. Mostly personal freedom above all and pushing to expand the rights and oportunities of minorities.

Needless to say without contact from that group and with all the study I've done on the art of critical thinking in university my ways of thinking are vastly different now. Becuase of this I have begun to understand conservative viewpoints much more clearly and try as much as possible to examine the idea rather then simply the intents behind it.

Overall it's brought me far more towards the centre line even if I am just a tad more liberal then conservative.

So that's where personally I place the blame is the needs for social acceptance over an act of logical accountability.

It's also why I see a great danger in the ideas of "right and left". It's more about seperation into two social groups then any kind of thinking about the ideas themselves. It's much easier to label and condem an oponent to certain viewpoints by placing them on the other side of the fence. Most easily and especially if that's not what they really think about all views.

The idea and policy of those who use the left and right terms condemns them to make assumptions about those they label in an effort to protect and identify themselves with what they have chosen as their political social group.

So that's what I blame it on. People simply trying to fit into a larger puzzle rather then set out to make their own puzzle. And it's got a lot of danger to it.

But hey that's just my opinon. I'm curious to hear other's thoughts.

edit: please forgive the horrid spelling so help me It's getting better but it still kills me to have to keep saying this.

[Psudo]

I have to admit, I blame schools in part as well. I never felt educated so much as I felt babysat.

I can also see how the social pressure to fit in with your social group makes sense for the general population, but again I only intellectually understand that rather than witness the effects for myself; most of the political discussions I enjoy are with people who generally disagree with me. I don't feel engaged or that my opinion is relevant to the conversation unless it's adeptly countered. When I discuss politics with people who agree with me, I too often find myself defending views I despise just to get them to provide an argument I haven't heard before.

As to CanadianJeff's spelling: it doesn't bother me, but if it makes you self-conscious you might want to use Firefox (it has spellcheck for textareas like this one) or SpellCheck.net (nice little online spellchecker).

[CanadianJeff]

Aye I've used firefox for years now. It's odd though. My spell check just seemed to stop working one day.

[Psudo]

In Firefox 3, go to the Tools menu, select Options, click the Advanced icon, then the General tab. In the Browsing field, there's a checkbox that says "Check my spelling as I type".

If that doesn't help you, I'm stumped. I'd probably reinstall, but I tend to reinstall with very little incentive.

[Wally_Sconce]

I think we could all take a lesson from forums like the american diabetes forum. There are about 2-3 dozen regulars there that would like nothing less of helping ever person that comes through that website. There is a spirit of sharing and learning instead of bunch of people with 'problem personalities' that perceive every post as a challenge or slur against them.

[Yogi]

Some people just LIKE to argue regardless of the topic or THEIR knowledge of same. Ignore them. Some don't have the education to be able to carry on an intelligent debate. Ignore them.To do otherwise brings YOU down to their level.

[Wally_Sconce]

Way too many people that don't focus on helping other people.

[Pseudonym]

Psudo wrote:

I have to admit, I blame schools in part as well. I never felt educated so much as I felt babysat.

*high fives*


If one thing has shown me the full spectrum of political viewpoints, it has been this website. Sometimes I never know when someone is going to agree with me or insult my mother.

[Psudo]

Yogi wrote:

Some people just LIKE to argue regardless of the topic or THEIR knowledge of same. Ignore them. Some don't have the education to be able to carry on an intelligent debate. Ignore them.To do otherwise brings YOU down to their level.

How can I ignore them when they still vote?

And technically, I like to argue. I just prefer meaningful arguments.

[Yogi]

Psudo wrote:

Yogi wrote:

Some people just LIKE to argue regardless of the topic or THEIR knowledge of same. Ignore them. Some don't have the education to be able to carry on an intelligent debate. Ignore them.To do otherwise brings YOU down to their level.

How can I ignore them when they still vote?

And technically, I like to argue. I just prefer meaningful arguments.

Am I correct in assuming that you are refering to SOME others who post here? If so, totally disregard and ignore their posts as if they didn't exist. Another option of ending any argument, which is sure to drive them nuts, is to TOTALLY agree with them!

[Psudo]

Yogi wrote:

Psudo wrote:

How can I ignore them when they still vote?

Am I correct in assuming that you are refering to SOME others who post here? If so, totally disregard and ignore their posts as if they didn't exist.

I suppose SOME others from this website don't actually vote. But everyone is politically relevant to some degree; even the oppressed can rise against a dictator. But I don't think that's what you meant anyway.

The Filibuster section of CKA has the least instant rejection of others' views of any forum I've found. Which is why I stick around. It's great!

But the people who want to ignore me and who I want to ignore are still politically relevant. They can still affect if not the same elections as me, then at least the social forces in the same world. What part of those vast political divisions that isolate us into factions would be overcome if we try to debate across those divisions?

[CanadianJeff]

Psudo wrote:

How can I ignore them when they still vote?

Thank you!!!!!!!

So help me every single time that I get into some debate with an absolute moron I come to two conclusions.

a) Political education (Ie. understanding the election process and how politics work) NEEDS to become a mandatory part of high school education. In a way it's just as important as history. In fact I would argue one won't fully work without the other.

b) Allowing everyone to vote does have it's downsides. I just have to remember that as much as I might hate it there are worse evils in politics then idiotic voters. Lobyists come to mind. As do floor crossers.