4 ms·

What you propose is inherently paradoxical and irrational. You say people (or intellectuals, at least) should make a conscious effort to avoid the psychology a

What you propose is inherently paradoxical and irrational. You say people (or intellectuals, at least) should make a conscious effort to avoid the psychology and biases of in-group/out-grouping. But what you are proposing is simply the creation of another in-group: "those of us who don't in-group," contrasted with the new out-group of "those who do in-group and out-group." You advocate for everyone to join your in-group of "non-in-groupers," and condemn the out-groupers, those not aligned with your prescription for correct behavior -- exactly as all in-groupers have done before you, and precisely what you claim to be deploring. It is thus a wholly and profoundly self-contradictory proposition, which cannot be admitted as logical or rational.

hawkfish 11y ago
But what you are proposing is simply the creation of another in-group: "those of us who don't in-group," contrasted with the new out-group of "those who do in-group and out-group." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29 You advocate for everyone to join your in-group of "non-in-groupers," and condemn the out-groupers, those not aligned with your prescription for correct behavior -- exactly as all in-groupers have done before you, and precisely what you claim to be deploring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man It is thus a wholly and profoundly self-contradictory proposition, which cannot be admitted as logical or rational. Ironically, this conclusion rests on nothing but logical fallacies.
- pjlegato 11y ago
  The parent comment proposes that Nazis as such are not the actual problem, that Nazis are merely an extreme case of typical in-group/out-group behavior, and that "21st century intellectuals" need to avoid all the badness of Nazis by being more aware of their own in-group biases. The first proposition is then not a non sequitur at all: it is simply a restatement of the original poster's view that certain people ought to be more aware of their in-grouping bias. Even if the proposal had not been explicitly limited to "21st century intellectuals," this explicitly calls for the differentiation of people into "those who are aware of their in-group bias" and "those who are not aware of their in-group bias." The point I made follows even more strongly from the explicit qualification of "21st century intellectuals": the original post is stating directly that 21st century intellectuals ought to act a certain desired way -- that is, forming an in-group with a certain sociall prescribed norm of belief. It indeed follows from this that not only all people who do not adhere to the "be aware of your in-group bias" proposal, but indeed all people who are not intellectuals, form an out-group. I believe this explanation of how my reprhasing correctly restates the original proposition adequately addresses the "straw man" point, as well.
  - hawkfish 11y ago
    'The first proposition is then not a non sequitur at all: it is simply a restatement of the original poster's view that certain people ought to be more aware of their in-grouping bias.' No, it isn't a restatement. You make the (new) claim that "being more aware of one's own bias" creates another in-group, but it does not follow that this is your opponents position. You made no argument as to why this would be the case, either. 'Even if the proposal had not been explicitly limited to "21st century intellectuals," this explicitly calls for the differentiation of people into "those who are aware of their in-group bias" and "those who are not aware of their in-group bias."' This is your claim. Even if it was accepted (which I will do for the sake of argument), you did not make an argument on how this logically invalidates the original proposition, which merely calls for awareness and doesn't claim that in-grouping itself is to be avoided, or that it is avoidable at all. Your proposed in-group that mandates awareness of (various) in-group biases would also call for awareness about its own biases. This is not paradoxical, at all. 'I believe this explanation of how my reprhasing correctly restates the original proposition adequately addresses the "straw man" point, as well.' It does not. In your "straw man", you misrepresent your opponents view in quite strong terms, accusing them of "condemning" those who do not belong to an in-group that you (not your opponent) defined. This accusation holds no ground whatsoever.
jasim 11y ago
This kind of reasoning has a certain universal appeal at first blush. Something deep about calling out the hypocrisy of those who profess to disdain the very thing they are co-opting. But it is a vacuous and illogical argument and subtracts meaning from the discussion at hand. The leap of assumption made here is long and unfortunately negative. We need to make value judgements to make sense out of reality. That is an irreducible aspect of thought. But the original post was about asking people to be more aware of their own biases, and not about condemning people in the vein of in-groupers and out-groupers with fascist tendencies.
- pjlegato 11y ago
  It is neither vacuous nor illogical to point out the inherent internal contradiction in someone's proposal for how society ought to act. It only adds to the discussion to show that what seems on the surface like a nice idea is actually intrinsically illogical. That one dislikes the ramifications of the proposition being illogical is beside the point. What seems appealing at first blush is the superficial "just be nice to everyone" aspect of the proposal. That sounds nice at first glance, and that's why people ignore its inherent paradox to accept and promote it. But not only is it intrinsically illogical, it's not desirable. Should we not define and maintain social out-groups for, say, neo-Nazis or child molesters or (insert your favorite bad guy figure here)? In-groups and out-groups are not intrinsically good or bad. How they are used can be. Encouraging people to get rid of them is not only impossible (as it embodies a paradox), but also undesirable in the soft sense that ignores rational analysis which you are calling for. All human societies have always and always will have in-groups and out-groups, and that's not inherently a bad thing. Being aware of them (the weakest possible formulation of the OP's point) changes little except making a certain group of "21st century intellectuals" grow pompous and self-righteous, and weakening what little respect there is in society for reason and logic by advancing a paradoxical proposition as though it were a virtue. It certainly won't do anything to prevent the emergence of a future group like the Nazi Party. If anything, it makes it more likely by allowing the elite group of self-aware intellectuals to feel certain of their own moral superiority, and thus authority, over the supposed unrefined dullards who are less aware of their biases.
  - 11y ago
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
What would you propose to do instead?
- pjlegato 11y ago
  What would I propose to do about what?

hawkfish 11y ago

But what you are proposing is simply the creation of another in-group: "those of us who don't in-group," contrasted with the new out-group of "those who do in-group and out-group." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29 You advocate for everyone to join your in-group of "non-in-groupers," and condemn the out-groupers, those not aligned with your prescription for correct behavior -- exactly as all in-groupers have done before you, and precisely what you claim to be deploring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man It is thus a wholly and profoundly self-contradictory proposition, which cannot be admitted as logical or rational. Ironically, this conclusion rests on nothing but logical fallacies.

pjlegato 11y ago
The parent comment proposes that Nazis as such are not the actual problem, that Nazis are merely an extreme case of typical in-group/out-group behavior, and that "21st century intellectuals" need to avoid all the badness of Nazis by being more aware of their own in-group biases. The first proposition is then not a non sequitur at all: it is simply a restatement of the original poster's view that certain people ought to be more aware of their in-grouping bias. Even if the proposal had not been explicitly limited to "21st century intellectuals," this explicitly calls for the differentiation of people into "those who are aware of their in-group bias" and "those who are not aware of their in-group bias." The point I made follows even more strongly from the explicit qualification of "21st century intellectuals": the original post is stating directly that 21st century intellectuals ought to act a certain desired way -- that is, forming an in-group with a certain sociall prescribed norm of belief. It indeed follows from this that not only all people who do not adhere to the "be aware of your in-group bias" proposal, but indeed all people who are not intellectuals, form an out-group. I believe this explanation of how my reprhasing correctly restates the original proposition adequately addresses the "straw man" point, as well.
- hawkfish 11y ago
  'The first proposition is then not a non sequitur at all: it is simply a restatement of the original poster's view that certain people ought to be more aware of their in-grouping bias.' No, it isn't a restatement. You make the (new) claim that "being more aware of one's own bias" creates another in-group, but it does not follow that this is your opponents position. You made no argument as to why this would be the case, either. 'Even if the proposal had not been explicitly limited to "21st century intellectuals," this explicitly calls for the differentiation of people into "those who are aware of their in-group bias" and "those who are not aware of their in-group bias."' This is your claim. Even if it was accepted (which I will do for the sake of argument), you did not make an argument on how this logically invalidates the original proposition, which merely calls for awareness and doesn't claim that in-grouping itself is to be avoided, or that it is avoidable at all. Your proposed in-group that mandates awareness of (various) in-group biases would also call for awareness about its own biases. This is not paradoxical, at all. 'I believe this explanation of how my reprhasing correctly restates the original proposition adequately addresses the "straw man" point, as well.' It does not. In your "straw man", you misrepresent your opponents view in quite strong terms, accusing them of "condemning" those who do not belong to an in-group that you (not your opponent) defined. This accusation holds no ground whatsoever.

jasim 11y ago

This kind of reasoning has a certain universal appeal at first blush. Something deep about calling out the hypocrisy of those who profess to disdain the very thing they are co-opting. But it is a vacuous and illogical argument and subtracts meaning from the discussion at hand. The leap of assumption made here is long and unfortunately negative. We need to make value judgements to make sense out of reality. That is an irreducible aspect of thought. But the original post was about asking people to be more aware of their own biases, and not about condemning people in the vein of in-groupers and out-groupers with fascist tendencies.

pjlegato 11y ago
It is neither vacuous nor illogical to point out the inherent internal contradiction in someone's proposal for how society ought to act. It only adds to the discussion to show that what seems on the surface like a nice idea is actually intrinsically illogical. That one dislikes the ramifications of the proposition being illogical is beside the point. What seems appealing at first blush is the superficial "just be nice to everyone" aspect of the proposal. That sounds nice at first glance, and that's why people ignore its inherent paradox to accept and promote it. But not only is it intrinsically illogical, it's not desirable. Should we not define and maintain social out-groups for, say, neo-Nazis or child molesters or (insert your favorite bad guy figure here)? In-groups and out-groups are not intrinsically good or bad. How they are used can be. Encouraging people to get rid of them is not only impossible (as it embodies a paradox), but also undesirable in the soft sense that ignores rational analysis which you are calling for. All human societies have always and always will have in-groups and out-groups, and that's not inherently a bad thing. Being aware of them (the weakest possible formulation of the OP's point) changes little except making a certain group of "21st century intellectuals" grow pompous and self-righteous, and weakening what little respect there is in society for reason and logic by advancing a paradoxical proposition as though it were a virtue. It certainly won't do anything to prevent the emergence of a future group like the Nazi Party. If anything, it makes it more likely by allowing the elite group of self-aware intellectuals to feel certain of their own moral superiority, and thus authority, over the supposed unrefined dullards who are less aware of their biases.
- 11y ago

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

What would you propose to do instead?

pjlegato 11y ago
What would I propose to do about what?