3 ms·
> All this is to say that rational questions and arguments miss the point entirely. These are not rational beliefs, nor even really beliefs. They are more like
by burlesona 6y ago
> All this is to say that rational questions and arguments miss the point entirely. These are not rational beliefs, nor even really beliefs. They are more like identities, firmly established and fiercely defended. Their existence is not a happy one, either. It seemed to me that they were commonly the product of deep personal and social tragedy.
This seems to me to be the chief problem of social media. We live in a post-truth world that is more intensely tribal than ever before. Reason, and the ability to form consensus, seem to be dying or dead already. That worries me rather a lot, as it is the foundation of democratic society, and without it I’m not sure how long democratic society can continue.
In the authors description of the flat earth ers he says:
> ...you operate from a position where your worldview is driven by your identity, not from what can be scientifically or objectively observed, or what the experts tell you.
We can sit here and scoff at the tiny minority of fringe conspiracy theorists out there, but my observation is that people have taken this same approach to mainstream politics, deciding on an identity that aligns them to one side or the other, and then losing all ability to see that it is possible for their side to get something wrong, or the other side to get something right.
- shadowgovt 6y agoThey can be internally-consistent beliefs, which is what makes them tricky (both for the believer and the rational contradictorian). But internally-consistent isn't quite the same as rational. Where they deviate from rational is either failure to align to observational reality or an Occam's Razor argument (but be aware that Occam's Razor doesn't apply for a true believer; if something is true, it doesn't matter if it's complicated! ;) ).