14 ms·

There's a subtype he doesn't mention but I think deserves notice and is especially pertinent to today's environment. That is, the conventionally-minded who is c

by sinker 6y ago

There's a subtype he doesn't mention but I think deserves notice and is especially pertinent to today's environment. That is, the conventionally-minded who is convinced they are die-hard independently-minded. People like this come across by chance doctrine which appeal to a special part of themself, be it religious, political, or social doctrine. They hardily embrace the newfound doctrine and denounce others as having fundamentally the wrong framework of thinking. They come across like-minded people and make blanket statements against their detractors and constantly reformulate the perception of their ideology to be in the right. In one sense, they believe themselves to be highly individualistic because they go against what they perceive to be the overall grain of society. This lends them conviction. But in reality, their beliefs are not actually contrarian or minority beliefs, and these people would never had nurtured these beliefs or had the courage to actually publicly express them without the implicit support of some large chunk of society. I believe this to be the reality today. So many people are deluded in thinking they are the small, under-represented, minority, oppressed group when they actually function as the oppressors to people who are sincerely independently-minded. And when one who is independently-minded sees another who is deluded they are independently-minded, but in reality is aggressively-conventional, we cannot help but notice the hypocrisy.

eindiran 6y ago
I think the example of the students of the Princeton professor is very similar to this subtype: > I sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition. Guess what? They all would have been abolitionists! They all would have bravely spoken out against slavery, and worked tirelessly against it. Most people, myself included, like to believe that they are independently-minded. Given that most people aren't independently-minded, most people are wrong.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
robzhu 6y ago
Can you provide an example?
- sinker 6y ago
  Yes. Both staunch Republicans and Democrats portray themselves as always being on the back foot, being attacked, and on the verge of losing control from the other party due to some contentious and highly important issue. Each side portrays themself as their views originating from reason (independence of thinking) and the other side as excreted out of ideology (convention).
  - qPM9l3XJrF 6y ago
    I've seen some people on the left, at least, who are pretty explicit about their denunciation of reason. These types will say things like: * "rational argument doesn't change minds, only mockery does" (one wonders how they think that they came to believe what they believe!) * "don't argue with racists" * "the Democrat Party is too nice and reasonable. We need to fight dirty like the Republicans. Our focus on truth hasn't gotten us anywhere."
    - sinker 6y ago
      I've heard this sentiment expressed. The limits of rationality, reason, and scientific process is a whole topic worth exploring even if just for the philosophic value, but right now, discourse, within the framework of rationality and reason is the best tool society has to solve its problems. There's nothing else. Violence clearly isn't the tool. Nor is emotional reflex. Nor is anecdotal thinking. Nothing else scales and has the capability to tackle the sophistication of society-wide problems.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
uniqueid 6y ago
I don't share many of the views in Paul's essay, but there was one point he made with which I emphatically agree: like Paul, I too believe anyone who disagrees with me is just too small-minded to understand my argument.
- sharker8 6y ago
  They may just have a different system of axiomatic beliefs and are stuck in their own inconsistent state (per godels incompleteness theorem). I actually think most 'disagreements' fall into this fundamental 'human condition' so to speak.
  - DC-3 6y ago
    Invoking Godel to assert that people have inconsistencies in their personal beliefs is like using a DNA test to determine whether an animal is an elephant or not - technically correct, but absurd overkill for the task at hand.
BoiledCabbage 6y ago
> There is a subtype that is especially pertinent... the conventionally-minded who is convinced they are die-hard independently-minded. > I believe this to be the reality today. So many people are deluded in thinking they are the small, under-represented, minority, oppressed group when they actually function as the oppressors to people who are sincerely independently-minded. This right here is the fundamental undercurrent of what's happening is society. One of the topics that PG mentions is heresy. The topic of discussing things that a group feels shouldn't be discussed. I wish he went into more detail about it, because if you do it flushes out some interesting ideas. Heresy exists in two important directions. Heresy against people in power, and heresy against people without power. Upwards heresy, and downwards heresy. Upwards heresy usually is quashed, ignored or mocked. People without power performing heresy are "dealt with" by those with power. Either they are made to pay an immediate cost, or their view/opinion is not allowed to make it into the collective mainstream conversation. It gets labeled as wrong, inappropriate or simply dismissed. Most of the time you don't even hear about it because those without power have little recourse to elevate the visibility of the retaliatory actions. People with power define what heresy is - and it's defined to be the things they object to. Downward heresy (people in power performing it) is usually entirely invisible. The people without power who are the "targets" of it have no relative power to respond to it. They don't have enough sway in the system to object to it, to call it out. If they did, they would face large repercussions by those in power that committed it. Because people with power usually can dictate what is acceptable discourse, downward heresy is usually deemed acceptable. As well, they use the term heresy to effect more power. To limit what groups can and can't do. Imagine the church using the term heresy to limit what followers can do to avoid competition religions, or to justify wars by accusing other groups of heresy. Where things become interesting is where people without relative power gain a bit to the point they are able to call a subset of things committed by those in power as heresy. They can call out downard heresy. Here is where things blow up. The group accustomed to defining what is acceptable and not, no longer fully controls that, but they still have enough power, or influence to raise a storm when it happens. They will immediately turn to using any any all methods they have to shout how unfair it is that they can't think these thoughts, or utter these phrases. While they make thing this, of course this isn't truly the case. They enforce heresy rules all the time, but noone questions it when they do it - it just accepted as a normal part of society. The problem is that a group they deem without power, or with lesser power is holding influence over them. And that is what they can't stand. This is the group in power claiming to be oppressed. This is the majority claiming to not be. This is what causes friction in society, as it is a group with power revolting at the idea that a group with less power can affect them. A Christian in the US is not under-represented (compared to non-Christians). And yet I hear so much of this claim recently. A man in this country, is not oppressed (in comparison to women). A heterosexual isn't oppressed. I'm a member of multiple groups above, and yet know this to be true. Those groups (and others) can still face extreme difficulties. And live lives waaaay worse than members of other groups - but the idea that they are a under-represented oppressed group is flat out wrong. The friction you hear is that these are groups with power, don't really don't like the fact that members of other groups in these same dimensions have some amount of power to now call out things that aren't ok. In general these dominant power groups have never had anyone other group have any influence over what they can and can't do, while they have help enormous amounts of power over what the other groups in these dimensions are able to do and the consequences they are subject to. As the saying goes, if you're always used to being over someone, being equal feels unfair. The most notable part, is that the only type of heresy that PG writes about is the third of these. The least interesting of them all.
bendbro 6y ago
I think your argument makes sense. It fits well with my experiences with "MAGAers" and "SJWs". I also think this style of politics is here to stay, as it is the dominate strategy. America has a fracturing hegemony: there is no longer a single universally shared set of basic beliefs. Because we no longer share the same basic beliefs, disagreements are now less likely to be due to logical validity and more likely due to unshared premises. This means the way of politics I think we'd all prefer, of arguing logically from shared core beliefs, will be less useful, making the alternative, arguing emotionally about premises, more effective. I think people "come[ing] across by chance doctrine which appeal to a special part of themself, be it religious, political, or social doctrine" is this effect in action. Though, some criticisms of what you said: 1. It can depend on surroundings. A leftoid will rightly feel like an independent mind in a conservative area and a rightoid will rightly feel like an independent mind in a liberal area. 2. Your logic can misidentify skeptics as traditionalists. It is easy to misconstrue a progressively minded skeptic as a conservative because they criticize most currently popular progressive issues. On a personal note: as a progressively minded skeptic, in my experiences with society, coworkers, friends, significant others, and family, I feel I have increasingly been lumped in as a "deplorable conservative." I have felt this cultural shift coming for many years now, when "SJWs" (I know this hits a sour note with many liberals, but I don't know how else to succinctly categorize these people) first started cropping up in the spaces I frequented: 0. The removal of Christmas celebration from my elementary school 1. Atheism+ 2. My school's official hackathon group (was taken over by left leaning people who said you cannot form teams based on peoples' programming ability) 3. My school's official programming FB group banning "spicy" posts (an example being one where people were arguing failing fizzbuzz is an acceptable way to decide someone is not a programmer) 4. My school via the coed programming fraternity- it was a place full of people involved in 2 and 3 5. The wider programming community (donglegate, stallman's cancellation, linus and sarah sharp controversy, github and meritocracy, redis CoC controversy, etc) 6. Gamergate (specifically attempts to politically pressure games to alter their stories and design to suit audiences that aren't the typical customer). 7. Politics that are safely expressable at work without having a meet 'n greet with HR. Very, very far left ideas are routinely plastered at work, and political "courageous conversations" meetings expect exclusively uncourageous mainstream ideas. 8. Politics that are safely expressable with acquaintances, friends, and family without risk of being excommunicated. 9. For brevity, I exclude many others. Thankfully, the latest batch of ideas (abolish police, abolish suburbs, abolish capital gains) have such a large impact that it has finally given me a hill worth dying on, and I feel free to non-anonymously express, with all the snark of a twitter checkmark, that these ideas blow ass. If that skepticism makes me an oppressor, then I embrace being one. I suppose I do deserve some credit for not being silent, since that would be violence.
geodel 6y ago
> That is, the conventionally-minded who is convinced they are die-hard independently-minded. I do not see as sub-type. Aggressively-conventionally minded most assuredly think of them as independent minded. Other than that I agree with you. These type of people make statement equivalent of 'Earth revolve around the sun' in 21st century. And then their circle-jerk jumps in, claiming what a 'brave' and 'stunning' position they have taken.

by sinker 6y ago

eindiran 6y ago

I think the example of the students of the Princeton professor is very similar to this subtype: > I sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition. Guess what? They all would have been abolitionists! They all would have bravely spoken out against slavery, and worked tirelessly against it. Most people, myself included, like to believe that they are independently-minded. Given that most people aren't independently-minded, most people are wrong.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

robzhu 6y ago

Can you provide an example?

sinker 6y ago
Yes. Both staunch Republicans and Democrats portray themselves as always being on the back foot, being attacked, and on the verge of losing control from the other party due to some contentious and highly important issue. Each side portrays themself as their views originating from reason (independence of thinking) and the other side as excreted out of ideology (convention).
- qPM9l3XJrF 6y ago
  I've seen some people on the left, at least, who are pretty explicit about their denunciation of reason. These types will say things like: * "rational argument doesn't change minds, only mockery does" (one wonders how they think that they came to believe what they believe!) * "don't argue with racists" * "the Democrat Party is too nice and reasonable. We need to fight dirty like the Republicans. Our focus on truth hasn't gotten us anywhere."
  - sinker 6y ago
    I've heard this sentiment expressed. The limits of rationality, reason, and scientific process is a whole topic worth exploring even if just for the philosophic value, but right now, discourse, within the framework of rationality and reason is the best tool society has to solve its problems. There's nothing else. Violence clearly isn't the tool. Nor is emotional reflex. Nor is anecdotal thinking. Nothing else scales and has the capability to tackle the sophistication of society-wide problems.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

uniqueid 6y ago

I don't share many of the views in Paul's essay, but there was one point he made with which I emphatically agree: like Paul, I too believe anyone who disagrees with me is just too small-minded to understand my argument.

sharker8 6y ago
They may just have a different system of axiomatic beliefs and are stuck in their own inconsistent state (per godels incompleteness theorem). I actually think most 'disagreements' fall into this fundamental 'human condition' so to speak.
- DC-3 6y ago
  Invoking Godel to assert that people have inconsistencies in their personal beliefs is like using a DNA test to determine whether an animal is an elephant or not - technically correct, but absurd overkill for the task at hand.

BoiledCabbage 6y ago

> There is a subtype that is especially pertinent... the conventionally-minded who is convinced they are die-hard independently-minded. > I believe this to be the reality today. So many people are deluded in thinking they are the small, under-represented, minority, oppressed group when they actually function as the oppressors to people who are sincerely independently-minded. This right here is the fundamental undercurrent of what's happening is society. One of the topics that PG mentions is heresy. The topic of discussing things that a group feels shouldn't be discussed. I wish he went into more detail about it, because if you do it flushes out some interesting ideas. Heresy exists in two important directions. Heresy against people in power, and heresy against people without power. Upwards heresy, and downwards heresy. Upwards heresy usually is quashed, ignored or mocked. People without power performing heresy are "dealt with" by those with power. Either they are made to pay an immediate cost, or their view/opinion is not allowed to make it into the collective mainstream conversation. It gets labeled as wrong, inappropriate or simply dismissed. Most of the time you don't even hear about it because those without power have little recourse to elevate the visibility of the retaliatory actions. People with power define what heresy is - and it's defined to be the things they object to. Downward heresy (people in power performing it) is usually entirely invisible. The people without power who are the "targets" of it have no relative power to respond to it. They don't have enough sway in the system to object to it, to call it out. If they did, they would face large repercussions by those in power that committed it. Because people with power usually can dictate what is acceptable discourse, downward heresy is usually deemed acceptable. As well, they use the term heresy to effect more power. To limit what groups can and can't do. Imagine the church using the term heresy to limit what followers can do to avoid competition religions, or to justify wars by accusing other groups of heresy. Where things become interesting is where people without relative power gain a bit to the point they are able to call a subset of things committed by those in power as heresy. They can call out downard heresy. Here is where things blow up. The group accustomed to defining what is acceptable and not, no longer fully controls that, but they still have enough power, or influence to raise a storm when it happens. They will immediately turn to using any any all methods they have to shout how unfair it is that they can't think these thoughts, or utter these phrases. While they make thing this, of course this isn't truly the case. They enforce heresy rules all the time, but noone questions it when they do it - it just accepted as a normal part of society. The problem is that a group they deem without power, or with lesser power is holding influence over them. And that is what they can't stand. This is the group in power claiming to be oppressed. This is the majority claiming to not be. This is what causes friction in society, as it is a group with power revolting at the idea that a group with less power can affect them. A Christian in the US is not under-represented (compared to non-Christians). And yet I hear so much of this claim recently. A man in this country, is not oppressed (in comparison to women). A heterosexual isn't oppressed. I'm a member of multiple groups above, and yet know this to be true. Those groups (and others) can still face extreme difficulties. And live lives waaaay worse than members of other groups - but the idea that they are a under-represented oppressed group is flat out wrong. The friction you hear is that these are groups with power, don't really don't like the fact that members of other groups in these same dimensions have some amount of power to now call out things that aren't ok. In general these dominant power groups have never had anyone other group have any influence over what they can and can't do, while they have help enormous amounts of power over what the other groups in these dimensions are able to do and the consequences they are subject to. As the saying goes, if you're always used to being over someone, being equal feels unfair. The most notable part, is that the only type of heresy that PG writes about is the third of these. The least interesting of them all.

bendbro 6y ago

I think your argument makes sense. It fits well with my experiences with "MAGAers" and "SJWs". I also think this style of politics is here to stay, as it is the dominate strategy. America has a fracturing hegemony: there is no longer a single universally shared set of basic beliefs. Because we no longer share the same basic beliefs, disagreements are now less likely to be due to logical validity and more likely due to unshared premises. This means the way of politics I think we'd all prefer, of arguing logically from shared core beliefs, will be less useful, making the alternative, arguing emotionally about premises, more effective. I think people "come[ing] across by chance doctrine which appeal to a special part of themself, be it religious, political, or social doctrine" is this effect in action. Though, some criticisms of what you said: 1. It can depend on surroundings. A leftoid will rightly feel like an independent mind in a conservative area and a rightoid will rightly feel like an independent mind in a liberal area. 2. Your logic can misidentify skeptics as traditionalists. It is easy to misconstrue a progressively minded skeptic as a conservative because they criticize most currently popular progressive issues. On a personal note: as a progressively minded skeptic, in my experiences with society, coworkers, friends, significant others, and family, I feel I have increasingly been lumped in as a "deplorable conservative." I have felt this cultural shift coming for many years now, when "SJWs" (I know this hits a sour note with many liberals, but I don't know how else to succinctly categorize these people) first started cropping up in the spaces I frequented: 0. The removal of Christmas celebration from my elementary school 1. Atheism+ 2. My school's official hackathon group (was taken over by left leaning people who said you cannot form teams based on peoples' programming ability) 3. My school's official programming FB group banning "spicy" posts (an example being one where people were arguing failing fizzbuzz is an acceptable way to decide someone is not a programmer) 4. My school via the coed programming fraternity- it was a place full of people involved in 2 and 3 5. The wider programming community (donglegate, stallman's cancellation, linus and sarah sharp controversy, github and meritocracy, redis CoC controversy, etc) 6. Gamergate (specifically attempts to politically pressure games to alter their stories and design to suit audiences that aren't the typical customer). 7. Politics that are safely expressable at work without having a meet 'n greet with HR. Very, very far left ideas are routinely plastered at work, and political "courageous conversations" meetings expect exclusively uncourageous mainstream ideas. 8. Politics that are safely expressable with acquaintances, friends, and family without risk of being excommunicated. 9. For brevity, I exclude many others. Thankfully, the latest batch of ideas (abolish police, abolish suburbs, abolish capital gains) have such a large impact that it has finally given me a hill worth dying on, and I feel free to non-anonymously express, with all the snark of a twitter checkmark, that these ideas blow ass. If that skepticism makes me an oppressor, then I embrace being one. I suppose I do deserve some credit for not being silent, since that would be violence.

geodel 6y ago

> That is, the conventionally-minded who is convinced they are die-hard independently-minded. I do not see as sub-type. Aggressively-conventionally minded most assuredly think of them as independent minded. Other than that I agree with you. These type of people make statement equivalent of 'Earth revolve around the sun' in 21st century. And then their circle-jerk jumps in, claiming what a 'brave' and 'stunning' position they have taken.