4 ms·

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 th

by 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.
- stcredzero 11y ago
  It only adds to the discussion to show that what seems on the surface like a nice idea is actually intrinsically illogical. It's clearly not intrinsically illogical. Societies of scientists demonstrate that it's possible to harness human instincts against human biases. In many societies of scientists, the perception that one is ready to accept they are wrong when collating new data trumps the natural ego driven desire to be recognized as "right." While it is clearly far from perfect, it is undoubtedly effective. Likewise, there have been examples of societies and organizations that demonstrated effective self-awareness of out-grouping psychology. (Two were headed by Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi.)

by jasim 11y ago

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.

stcredzero 11y ago
It only adds to the discussion to show that what seems on the surface like a nice idea is actually intrinsically illogical. It's clearly not intrinsically illogical. Societies of scientists demonstrate that it's possible to harness human instincts against human biases. In many societies of scientists, the perception that one is ready to accept they are wrong when collating new data trumps the natural ego driven desire to be recognized as "right." While it is clearly far from perfect, it is undoubtedly effective. Likewise, there have been examples of societies and organizations that demonstrated effective self-awareness of out-grouping psychology. (Two were headed by Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi.)