4 ms·

One does not have to subject oneself to nonsense in order to keep an open mind about the world.

coldtea 8y ago
Opposing opinions are not necessarily nonsense. Not that you said that, but many imply it or assume it. It's like their worldview or nonsense. At best, they allow small diversions from their worldview. I say, we should allow huge diversions from our worldview. In fact, even if its nonsense, if its influencial we should study it and understand it (that is, we don't have to suffer any random nonsense, but if something is both nonsense and big, the real active citizen should study it at least, even if just to try to grasp why their fellow people fell for it and what consequences it might have). Of course if they start with "they fell for it because they're bad/stupid/crazy/lazy etc" that's just something to make themselves feel better, and doesn't really explain everything. First of all, this or that people can be bad/stupid/crazy/lazy: those are characteristics of the individual. Millions of people can't be said to be that, there are other forces at play when masses make decisions or adopt things, not personal pathologies. E.g. it's surely it's not because all the "stupid/crazy" people are in the fly-over states that Trump was popular there. And vice versa, it would be improbable that most of the smart/sane people are in the coasts. (You could reverse this with how MAGA supporters view Hillary supports, and it would be the same argument). Perhaps its a cultural thing that made this people vote this way and the others that. Or a historical thing. Or an economic shift that's felt in one area and not in another. People should strive to understand those things then, instead of assuming the others are into "nonsense". Of course people conveniently call their fellow people good/sane/etc when they agree with them (e.g. a vote goes how they liked) and then explain the opposite result at some later point (e.g. people voting something they don't like) as "people being bad/crazy/duped/etc"). They're not bothered to see the contradiction in calling the same masses both things at different times.
- wsy 8y ago
  I'm sorry, maybe this is arrogant, but I can't learn something from everyone who has a different worldview. There are topics like climate change where most people's stances follow stereotypes. If I encounter such a stereotype, I'm 99.9% sure I won't find anything new. In these cases, I rather spend some time with more interesting diversions from my worldview than the one I already know so well. This is not about people with another opinion being bad/stupid/crazy/lazy. Maybe they are right and I am wrong. It is about repetition, and myself focusing on stuff I don't know yet.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >I'm sorry, maybe this is arrogant, but I can't learn something from everyone who has a different worldview. There are topics like climate change where most people's stances follow stereotypes. If I encounter such a stereotype, I'm 99.9% sure I won't find anything new. You don't need (and I didn't ask) to learn "something from everyone who has a different worldview". But you (or, at least, an active citizen) needs to learn why tons of people share the same different worldview. E.g. why is there a dissent on "climate change" being real. And the circular non-answers to those questions, like "because they follow stereotypes" or "because they're dumb" are not insightful.
    - wsy 8y ago
      It is very true that one should try to find out why so many people share a different worldview. However, reading the 1000th climate change proponent or opponent won't help in this goal, "because they follow stereotypes". And I never claimed to explain the different world views with "because they follow stereotypes", I explained my own behavior with this statement. Finally, "because they're dumb" is not insightful. But "because they were lured by simplifying propaganda, and this is because they haven't learned to analyze complex situations" can be a valid explanation.
edmundsauto 8y ago
One's mind might not be as open as one thinks unless they're regularly evaluating opposing perspectives, nonsense included. It's not necessary to completely cover yourself in crap, but you should have an exposure to it once in a while.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Opposing opinions are not necessarily nonsense. Not that you said that, but many imply it or assume it. It's like their worldview or nonsense. At best, they allow small diversions from their worldview. I say, we should allow huge diversions from our worldview. In fact, even if its nonsense, if its influencial we should study it and understand it (that is, we don't have to suffer any random nonsense, but if something is both nonsense and big, the real active citizen should study it at least, even if just to try to grasp why their fellow people fell for it and what consequences it might have). Of course if they start with "they fell for it because they're bad/stupid/crazy/lazy etc" that's just something to make themselves feel better, and doesn't really explain everything. First of all, this or that people can be bad/stupid/crazy/lazy: those are characteristics of the individual. Millions of people can't be said to be that, there are other forces at play when masses make decisions or adopt things, not personal pathologies. E.g. it's surely it's not because all the "stupid/crazy" people are in the fly-over states that Trump was popular there. And vice versa, it would be improbable that most of the smart/sane people are in the coasts. (You could reverse this with how MAGA supporters view Hillary supports, and it would be the same argument). Perhaps its a cultural thing that made this people vote this way and the others that. Or a historical thing. Or an economic shift that's felt in one area and not in another. People should strive to understand those things then, instead of assuming the others are into "nonsense". Of course people conveniently call their fellow people good/sane/etc when they agree with them (e.g. a vote goes how they liked) and then explain the opposite result at some later point (e.g. people voting something they don't like) as "people being bad/crazy/duped/etc"). They're not bothered to see the contradiction in calling the same masses both things at different times.

wsy 8y ago
I'm sorry, maybe this is arrogant, but I can't learn something from everyone who has a different worldview. There are topics like climate change where most people's stances follow stereotypes. If I encounter such a stereotype, I'm 99.9% sure I won't find anything new. In these cases, I rather spend some time with more interesting diversions from my worldview than the one I already know so well. This is not about people with another opinion being bad/stupid/crazy/lazy. Maybe they are right and I am wrong. It is about repetition, and myself focusing on stuff I don't know yet.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >I'm sorry, maybe this is arrogant, but I can't learn something from everyone who has a different worldview. There are topics like climate change where most people's stances follow stereotypes. If I encounter such a stereotype, I'm 99.9% sure I won't find anything new. You don't need (and I didn't ask) to learn "something from everyone who has a different worldview". But you (or, at least, an active citizen) needs to learn why tons of people share the same different worldview. E.g. why is there a dissent on "climate change" being real. And the circular non-answers to those questions, like "because they follow stereotypes" or "because they're dumb" are not insightful.
  - wsy 8y ago
    It is very true that one should try to find out why so many people share a different worldview. However, reading the 1000th climate change proponent or opponent won't help in this goal, "because they follow stereotypes". And I never claimed to explain the different world views with "because they follow stereotypes", I explained my own behavior with this statement. Finally, "because they're dumb" is not insightful. But "because they were lured by simplifying propaganda, and this is because they haven't learned to analyze complex situations" can be a valid explanation.

edmundsauto 8y ago

One's mind might not be as open as one thinks unless they're regularly evaluating opposing perspectives, nonsense included. It's not necessary to completely cover yourself in crap, but you should have an exposure to it once in a while.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]