4 ms·

I don’t think it’s unreasonably to think the public is broadly dumb. Just take a look at people’s political opinions, for both sides. Like, ignore whatever you

I don’t think it’s unreasonably to think the public is broadly dumb. Just take a look at people’s political opinions, for both sides. Like, ignore whatever you think about who should be in power, and observe just the reasoning that people provide. For both sides, a non trivial proportion are driven by complete nonsense. For the majority, emotion and group identity norms trump reason. Hence people being exceptionally easy to manipulate at a large scale.

claudiawerner 7y ago
Don't you think the opposition between 'reason' and 'emotion' is itself of ideological character not driven by much sense? Isn't group identity important in forming solidarity in a system under which collective action on many important issues (labour, ecology, etc.) is frustrated? Not everyone subscribes to Kantian/Socratic rationalism.
- b_tterc_p 7y ago
  I wouldn’t phrase it as oppositional. I would phrase it as compositional. When you make decisions you’re supposed to consider your emotions and your reason. If you don’t do the latter, you’re not “favoring” emotion. You’re just not thinking critically. Thinking more helps make your emotions more useful, because you can understand why you have them. Similarly, group identity without reason leads to particularly dumb beliefs. E.g. how some of the wealthiest people in the nation can walk into a rural community of farmers and blue collar workers and announce “I’m one of you!” to rousing applause.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    The point here is that even this 'pure' critical thinking isn't somehow existing in a realm of our intellectual away from our emotionality; not only does emotionality dictate its course, but (as feminist scholars have pointed out since the 80s), the course of emotionality is dictated by rationality - we often become emotionally invested in theories which we really do believe quite 'rationally'. At its most crude level, I'd frame it as a bi-directional movement each influences the other and it makes no sense to talk about one without the other, though that seems closer to the point you were making than when I made my first comment.

claudiawerner 7y ago

Don't you think the opposition between 'reason' and 'emotion' is itself of ideological character not driven by much sense? Isn't group identity important in forming solidarity in a system under which collective action on many important issues (labour, ecology, etc.) is frustrated? Not everyone subscribes to Kantian/Socratic rationalism.

b_tterc_p 7y ago
I wouldn’t phrase it as oppositional. I would phrase it as compositional. When you make decisions you’re supposed to consider your emotions and your reason. If you don’t do the latter, you’re not “favoring” emotion. You’re just not thinking critically. Thinking more helps make your emotions more useful, because you can understand why you have them. Similarly, group identity without reason leads to particularly dumb beliefs. E.g. how some of the wealthiest people in the nation can walk into a rural community of farmers and blue collar workers and announce “I’m one of you!” to rousing applause.
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  The point here is that even this 'pure' critical thinking isn't somehow existing in a realm of our intellectual away from our emotionality; not only does emotionality dictate its course, but (as feminist scholars have pointed out since the 80s), the course of emotionality is dictated by rationality - we often become emotionally invested in theories which we really do believe quite 'rationally'. At its most crude level, I'd frame it as a bi-directional movement each influences the other and it makes no sense to talk about one without the other, though that seems closer to the point you were making than when I made my first comment.