4 ms·

The problem is that we're meant to believe everyone's opinions are equally valid. Empirically, it seems to me, some people are just manifestly stupid and/or inc

by estefan 10y ago

The problem is that we're meant to believe everyone's opinions are equally valid. Empirically, it seems to me, some people are just manifestly stupid and/or incompetent.

manyxcxi 10y ago
> some people are just manifestly stupid and/or incompetent Some are. Even more are just plain incorrect for all the many reasons human beings are incorrect. At least in the states, we've spent the last 30 years making people believe that simply because you feel it is so, it must be. That's got to be a huge factor in the degradation of discourse in the same time period- if instead of coming from the classical position of some attempted mutual understanding, people are essentially following their own religion of self. If what I feel is always correct, then you disagreeing with me means that you are wrong. Thus, I can't listen to you anymore or even attempt to see where you're coming from. This leads to the same types of responses you see when you are saying things that might make someone doubt their religion. You get the hyperbolic, emotional, even physical responses that go nowhere. Now look at the outbreak of safe spaces, refusing to let people speak that have a non-popular opinion, etc.
- estefan 10y ago
  You put it so much more eloquently than I did. Yes, this is exactly what I mean.
  - manyxcxi 10y ago
    I recently stumbled on a podcast I found very interesting that relates: The Art of Manliness #189: The Classical Education You Never Had [0] They had an author (Susan Bauer) on discussing topics from her book The Well-Educated Mind: A Guide to the Classical Education You Never Had [1], where they discussed the differences between a classical education and today's modern education (in America). One of the salient points was where she described today's method of reading literature and stopping every few pages/chapters and discussing what you think/feel about it and your interpretation. She made the argument that these students are being taught to come to conclusions and judge things before getting the full picture, and human nature being what it is, we stick with that judgement even as we learn more. She went on to say that instead of this, a more classical approach would be to read the whole book first, then go back through and discuss those interesting sections and come to conclusions with the whole picture. I haven't read the book yet, but it's on my list now- the entire episode was very interesting and thoughtful and I'm going to check out more of their podcasts as well. [0] http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/04/04/podcast-189-the-classical-education-you-never-had/ http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/04/04/podcast-189-the-cla... [1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/039308096X http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/039308096X
    - dxbydt 10y ago
      Thank you so much for posting this!
    - tamana 10y ago
      > stopping every few pages/chapters and discussing what you think/feel about it and your interpretation. > students are being taught to come to conclusions and judge things before getting the full picture > I haven't read the book yet [, but I am happy to discuss my impression of it] Beautiful satire!
      - manyxcxi 10y ago
        Not intended, but the first two quotes are directly from the author of the book in the podcast I was referring, not my impression of the book she wrote on the subject. Because of her discussion, I'm now interested in reading in the book.
- mistermann 10y ago
  If you watch old political interviews and things like that you can really see how far the state of political discourse has fallen, there used to be genuine public discussion, now politics (at least as shown on TV) largely consists of sound bites and catch phrases.
  - manyxcxi 10y ago
    It makes you wonder if the sound bite cycle and instant feedback loop with the general public encourages this behavior, even more so than politicians just being more dumb. You'd think that with the educational institutions most of these people come from, they would be capable of significantly more thoughtful and in depth discussions than we see from them. I mean, Ted Cruz in college, by all accounts was a stand out on the debate team at university. I'm no fan of his, but certainly he's proven capable of the type of discussion we (at least, I) would like to see from these people. But if you engage in a classical debate and the masses get bored a la Idiocracy, or you can't engage your opponent because they are just lobbing verbal grenades and non sequiturs, there's nothing you can do. You'll either be the boring person no one listens to, the angry person that seems to be talking down to everyone else, or you just engage at the lowest comment denominator and throw out your own grenades. Add to that social media blowing up when you say some rhetorical BS (good or bad), which then gets the news channels to talk about the social media, which then feeds back into the social media, you can see why there's no incentive to rise above it all. Being the 'better' person in this case means you get ignored, which means they aren't going to vote for you.
rwj 10y ago
People have confused a right to express their opinion with a right to their opinion. The first is a foundation for discussion and improvement, the second is a recipe for stupidity.
sgift 10y ago
I don't think we're really meant to believe that, it's just we haven't found a way to decide (on a big scale) who we should listen too and who not. Only intelligent people? Only moral people? Only people with money? Only .. I think you get it. Next you have the problem with "trust those with education" - sounds great, but .. what about those who have education but are paid for a specific point of view? Maybe without us knowing it. It's the classic "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"-thing. People get told to listen to <some group> - great! People get mislead by <some group> - shitty. People get to to listen to <some (other) group> - no way. Last time you told me to listen to someone he lied to me! That's the reason we ended with "one person, one vote" in the first place (and governing is nothing else but constant exchange of opinions). A system where automagically the "best, brightest, morally fittest, etc." would lead would be vastly superior. Unfornately, outside of fairy tales, we have no idea how to do that and instead try to limit the damage one bad apple can do.

by estefan 10y ago

The problem is that we're meant to believe everyone's opinions are equally valid. Empirically, it seems to me, some people are just manifestly stupid and/or incompetent.

manyxcxi 10y ago

> some people are just manifestly stupid and/or incompetent Some are. Even more are just plain incorrect for all the many reasons human beings are incorrect. At least in the states, we've spent the last 30 years making people believe that simply because you feel it is so, it must be. That's got to be a huge factor in the degradation of discourse in the same time period- if instead of coming from the classical position of some attempted mutual understanding, people are essentially following their own religion of self. If what I feel is always correct, then you disagreeing with me means that you are wrong. Thus, I can't listen to you anymore or even attempt to see where you're coming from. This leads to the same types of responses you see when you are saying things that might make someone doubt their religion. You get the hyperbolic, emotional, even physical responses that go nowhere. Now look at the outbreak of safe spaces, refusing to let people speak that have a non-popular opinion, etc.

estefan 10y ago
You put it so much more eloquently than I did. Yes, this is exactly what I mean.
- manyxcxi 10y ago
  I recently stumbled on a podcast I found very interesting that relates: The Art of Manliness #189: The Classical Education You Never Had [0] They had an author (Susan Bauer) on discussing topics from her book The Well-Educated Mind: A Guide to the Classical Education You Never Had [1], where they discussed the differences between a classical education and today's modern education (in America). One of the salient points was where she described today's method of reading literature and stopping every few pages/chapters and discussing what you think/feel about it and your interpretation. She made the argument that these students are being taught to come to conclusions and judge things before getting the full picture, and human nature being what it is, we stick with that judgement even as we learn more. She went on to say that instead of this, a more classical approach would be to read the whole book first, then go back through and discuss those interesting sections and come to conclusions with the whole picture. I haven't read the book yet, but it's on my list now- the entire episode was very interesting and thoughtful and I'm going to check out more of their podcasts as well. [0] http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/04/04/podcast-189-the-classical-education-you-never-had/ http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/04/04/podcast-189-the-cla... [1] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/039308096X http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/039308096X
  - dxbydt 10y ago
    Thank you so much for posting this!
  - tamana 10y ago
    > stopping every few pages/chapters and discussing what you think/feel about it and your interpretation. > students are being taught to come to conclusions and judge things before getting the full picture > I haven't read the book yet [, but I am happy to discuss my impression of it] Beautiful satire!
    - manyxcxi 10y ago
      Not intended, but the first two quotes are directly from the author of the book in the podcast I was referring, not my impression of the book she wrote on the subject. Because of her discussion, I'm now interested in reading in the book.
mistermann 10y ago
If you watch old political interviews and things like that you can really see how far the state of political discourse has fallen, there used to be genuine public discussion, now politics (at least as shown on TV) largely consists of sound bites and catch phrases.
- manyxcxi 10y ago
  It makes you wonder if the sound bite cycle and instant feedback loop with the general public encourages this behavior, even more so than politicians just being more dumb. You'd think that with the educational institutions most of these people come from, they would be capable of significantly more thoughtful and in depth discussions than we see from them. I mean, Ted Cruz in college, by all accounts was a stand out on the debate team at university. I'm no fan of his, but certainly he's proven capable of the type of discussion we (at least, I) would like to see from these people. But if you engage in a classical debate and the masses get bored a la Idiocracy, or you can't engage your opponent because they are just lobbing verbal grenades and non sequiturs, there's nothing you can do. You'll either be the boring person no one listens to, the angry person that seems to be talking down to everyone else, or you just engage at the lowest comment denominator and throw out your own grenades. Add to that social media blowing up when you say some rhetorical BS (good or bad), which then gets the news channels to talk about the social media, which then feeds back into the social media, you can see why there's no incentive to rise above it all. Being the 'better' person in this case means you get ignored, which means they aren't going to vote for you.

rwj 10y ago

People have confused a right to express their opinion with a right to their opinion. The first is a foundation for discussion and improvement, the second is a recipe for stupidity.

sgift 10y ago

I don't think we're really meant to believe that, it's just we haven't found a way to decide (on a big scale) who we should listen too and who not. Only intelligent people? Only moral people? Only people with money? Only .. I think you get it. Next you have the problem with "trust those with education" - sounds great, but .. what about those who have education but are paid for a specific point of view? Maybe without us knowing it. It's the classic "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"-thing. People get told to listen to <some group> - great! People get mislead by <some group> - shitty. People get to to listen to <some (other) group> - no way. Last time you told me to listen to someone he lied to me! That's the reason we ended with "one person, one vote" in the first place (and governing is nothing else but constant exchange of opinions). A system where automagically the "best, brightest, morally fittest, etc." would lead would be vastly superior. Unfornately, outside of fairy tales, we have no idea how to do that and instead try to limit the damage one bad apple can do.