4 ms·

There are topics we can reason abstractly about well, and topics we cannot. I find when people get to the edge of their abilities in a topic, we tend to fall ba

There are topics we can reason abstractly about well, and topics we cannot. I find when people get to the edge of their abilities in a topic, we tend to fall back on moralizing and personalizing it. The author's link between cognitive ability and liberality towards speech I think can be explained by how cognitive ability is the capability to think abstractly about things using properties and categories, and not explained using the implication that believing in certain rights is a proxy for smart. The speech and tolerance question is hyper-personalized because the tools for reasoning abstractly about it have a steep learning curve. Some of the most educated people I know hold objectively extreme political views because I think it's something they don't really consider in the abstract, and expressing those views is a sympathetic outlet for other personalized anxieties. Ultimately I think political discussion is something they engage in for excitement and entertainment, and so they aren't held to the same level of intellectual rigor in it as they are in their chosen fields of expertise. Extreme views become a kind of vice or indulgence because it's exciting to be outraged and engage in recreational conflict - especially when it has no bearing on their real expertise. I'd argue what we may think about freedom of speech doesn't actually matter, as public discourse is no longer about ideas, principle or reason, it's just a power struggle. One that otherwise smart people seem to participate in as intellectual tourists without much thought as to what their impact actually is because it's exciting.

6510 6y ago
I have a lot of different interests. One is to examine the type of people a topic gathers online or the type they become. (hard to tell the difference) Academics usually have platforms and channels that are highly on topic which is an efficient approach but at the same time it rules out all other discussions with the people they know and hang out with online, every day, for decades and (despite ability) keeps their thoughts undeveloped. Our greatest minds have extracted themselves like that from the topics where we badly need them. (like politics)
koheripbal 6y ago
I think this hits the nail right on the head, but I think there is more... The point at which theoretical political dogma transition from a recreational debate into a something an intelligent person might feel uncomfortably obligated to place more thought into, is when there are real personal impacts on them. Everyone can talk about universal healthcare as an intellectual concept, but it's not until they finally have the experience in a socialized hospital that they might take the time to wonder about the real merits of a single-payer system (this is a random example - don't get hung up on it). This problem is then amplified by two recent phenomena... 1. The drastic decrease in age of the average political participant. With Reddit as an example, the average age of Reddit users has dropped nearly 1 year for every year over the last ten years. Presumably, Twitter has seen the same demographic shift. This means these politically active users have less education to fall back on, and approach these subjects with more emotion. That leads to more insults and less constructive arguments, and a general intolerance of opposition. 2. International participation. There is a drastic increase in US social media platforms from non-US participants. For those people, the debates are pure recreational debates as they will never see the consequences of any systemic changes. They have no skin in the game, so the most radical options always seem more appealing. ...and of course there is also intentional foreign influence campaigns to polarize online discussions. I think the way out is to rethink how social media is structured. It's causing some very systemic issues.

6510 6y ago

I have a lot of different interests. One is to examine the type of people a topic gathers online or the type they become. (hard to tell the difference) Academics usually have platforms and channels that are highly on topic which is an efficient approach but at the same time it rules out all other discussions with the people they know and hang out with online, every day, for decades and (despite ability) keeps their thoughts undeveloped. Our greatest minds have extracted themselves like that from the topics where we badly need them. (like politics)

koheripbal 6y ago

I think this hits the nail right on the head, but I think there is more... The point at which theoretical political dogma transition from a recreational debate into a something an intelligent person might feel uncomfortably obligated to place more thought into, is when there are real personal impacts on them. Everyone can talk about universal healthcare as an intellectual concept, but it's not until they finally have the experience in a socialized hospital that they might take the time to wonder about the real merits of a single-payer system (this is a random example - don't get hung up on it). This problem is then amplified by two recent phenomena... 1. The drastic decrease in age of the average political participant. With Reddit as an example, the average age of Reddit users has dropped nearly 1 year for every year over the last ten years. Presumably, Twitter has seen the same demographic shift. This means these politically active users have less education to fall back on, and approach these subjects with more emotion. That leads to more insults and less constructive arguments, and a general intolerance of opposition. 2. International participation. There is a drastic increase in US social media platforms from non-US participants. For those people, the debates are pure recreational debates as they will never see the consequences of any systemic changes. They have no skin in the game, so the most radical options always seem more appealing. ...and of course there is also intentional foreign influence campaigns to polarize online discussions. I think the way out is to rethink how social media is structured. It's causing some very systemic issues.