6 ms·

The difference is that with the spinning dancer optical illusion, there's never a "wrong" way to view it. This isn't always the case with politics, or any kind

by namuol 6y ago

The difference is that with the spinning dancer optical illusion, there's never a "wrong" way to view it. This isn't always the case with politics, or any kind of view for that matter. It's important to empathize with people you disagree with, but it's just as important that we start with a foundation of agreed upon facts. In other words, reality isn't a point of view.

roenxi 6y ago
Apologies in advance if this sounds snappy, this hits an issue I feel strongly about. My local supermarket has precisely no empathy for me and the only thing I expect to agree on with the local store manager is price. Yet it is by far the most effective conduit for getting me cheap food. Effective systems simply are not very good at empathy and agreement on non-core issues is unimportant. Empathy in particular recommended at a personal level but not especially useful in politics. The critical tool is the ability to comprehend, negotiate, compromise and articulate why things are necessary. Having "empathy" for "the left"/"the right" isn't possible. The groups are too large and diverse. Ditto for major components of the left or right like "the black vote", "the evangelicals", "people in cities", "people from Detroit", "the wealthy", etc, etc. Entities that you can have empathy for or agree on facts with are too small to be politically important like individuals or families. Politics is done by large groups who's beliefs are too nebulous to align.
mantas 6y ago
Wasn't that OP's key point? Vast majority (if not all) political messages are both true and false, depending on context and personal bias.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
dimgl 6y ago
I completely disagree. I think reality IS a point of view. You are suggesting that there is only one way to think about reality. And that is complete lunacy.
- leptons 6y ago
  "Alternative facts" are not facts, they are lies people tell themselves to justify a point of view. It's not truth, it's not sanity. Someone can't just substitute a lie for the truth because it feels better. I mean, they can, but they aren't living in reality - and that's actually complete lunacy.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - brigandish 6y ago
    Are you a glass half empty or a glass half full kind of person? So, it's quite possible to have 2 truths - factually accurate - arise from the same physical reality because the observers are different. It's also possible that people substitute falsities in exchange for truth based on bad intent or erroneous reasoning (and maybe there are other reasons but these would seem to be the most prevalent of the bad sort). Since all these are possibilities, would you agree that it's best to apply some charity[1] to those you disagree with before deciding that they are not only wrong, but malign and should be tarred as lunatic? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
    - tnli 6y ago
      Whether the glass is half full or half empty is not a fact, it's an opinion. The glass being, say, 45.67% from full capacity is a fact. The glass being emptied right now at 55 millilitres per second or being filled at 45 millilitres per second is a fact. It might be a fact that two people can have greatly different kinds of opinions from the same facts, but they both still deserve to know the facts. Whether you consider the glass to be half full or half empty is not a fact. It's an opinion.
      - brigandish 6y ago
        > The glass being, say, 45.67% from full capacity is a fact. The glass is at 50% capacity. Was it more convenient for you to change the fact of the statement? You’ve simply substituted one kind of measure for another without providing a distinction between them. The key point is that a fact has a different effect on different observers that can be discerned from the way the express it. The state of affairs being described is not a belief or an opinion or will magically find less millimetres (as in your comment) by being stated differently.
probably_wrong 6y ago
> it's just as important that we start with a foundation of agreed upon facts. In other words, reality isn't a point of view. I don't think these two things are as strongly related as you suggest. Two reasonable people can look at the same problem with the same facts, make reasonable guesses on what the best course is, and yet reach two completely different, reasonable approaches to the problem. Otherwise, we would have already decided which programming language is the best one. Some situations are more clear cut than others, and I agree that we need to separate facts from opinion better. But for situations as complex as the present and future of a country there might very well not be a "right" way. "Reality" is not a point of view, but we only experience it through the lens of our personal experiences. No one experiences "true" reality.
peterwoerner 6y ago
Have you ever dug into Bayesian reasoning? See E.T. Jayne's probability theory chapter 5 for an explanation on this. The more facts we get, the more likely our views diverge and become more strongly held.
- namuol 6y ago
  Yeah, I don't disagree. The more facts we have to choose from, the more susceptible to bias, because we will have a wider variety to cherry-pick from. But for those who are genuinely interested in the truth and vigorously fighting biases, more facts can only help construct a "more complete" truth.
fastball 6y ago
An ironic stance, given that it is the left in the US that are pushing ideas like Critical Theory, which is based on post-modernism, which in turn maintains that reality ("knowledge claims") is effectively a point of view ("socially conditioned"). Various factions within the US left have been trying to convince everyone for decades that subjective truth is more important than objective facts; that "lived experience" is what really matters. Then those same people pull a surprised Pikachu face when Orange Man comes swinging out of right field with the same argument, just in the opposite direction with "fake news" etc.

by namuol 6y ago

roenxi 6y ago

Apologies in advance if this sounds snappy, this hits an issue I feel strongly about. My local supermarket has precisely no empathy for me and the only thing I expect to agree on with the local store manager is price. Yet it is by far the most effective conduit for getting me cheap food. Effective systems simply are not very good at empathy and agreement on non-core issues is unimportant. Empathy in particular recommended at a personal level but not especially useful in politics. The critical tool is the ability to comprehend, negotiate, compromise and articulate why things are necessary. Having "empathy" for "the left"/"the right" isn't possible. The groups are too large and diverse. Ditto for major components of the left or right like "the black vote", "the evangelicals", "people in cities", "people from Detroit", "the wealthy", etc, etc. Entities that you can have empathy for or agree on facts with are too small to be politically important like individuals or families. Politics is done by large groups who's beliefs are too nebulous to align.

mantas 6y ago

Wasn't that OP's key point? Vast majority (if not all) political messages are both true and false, depending on context and personal bias.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

dimgl 6y ago

I completely disagree. I think reality IS a point of view. You are suggesting that there is only one way to think about reality. And that is complete lunacy.

leptons 6y ago
"Alternative facts" are not facts, they are lies people tell themselves to justify a point of view. It's not truth, it's not sanity. Someone can't just substitute a lie for the truth because it feels better. I mean, they can, but they aren't living in reality - and that's actually complete lunacy.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- brigandish 6y ago
  Are you a glass half empty or a glass half full kind of person? So, it's quite possible to have 2 truths - factually accurate - arise from the same physical reality because the observers are different. It's also possible that people substitute falsities in exchange for truth based on bad intent or erroneous reasoning (and maybe there are other reasons but these would seem to be the most prevalent of the bad sort). Since all these are possibilities, would you agree that it's best to apply some charity[1] to those you disagree with before deciding that they are not only wrong, but malign and should be tarred as lunatic? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
  - tnli 6y ago
    Whether the glass is half full or half empty is not a fact, it's an opinion. The glass being, say, 45.67% from full capacity is a fact. The glass being emptied right now at 55 millilitres per second or being filled at 45 millilitres per second is a fact. It might be a fact that two people can have greatly different kinds of opinions from the same facts, but they both still deserve to know the facts. Whether you consider the glass to be half full or half empty is not a fact. It's an opinion.
    - brigandish 6y ago
      > The glass being, say, 45.67% from full capacity is a fact. The glass is at 50% capacity. Was it more convenient for you to change the fact of the statement? You’ve simply substituted one kind of measure for another without providing a distinction between them. The key point is that a fact has a different effect on different observers that can be discerned from the way the express it. The state of affairs being described is not a belief or an opinion or will magically find less millimetres (as in your comment) by being stated differently.

probably_wrong 6y ago

> it's just as important that we start with a foundation of agreed upon facts. In other words, reality isn't a point of view. I don't think these two things are as strongly related as you suggest. Two reasonable people can look at the same problem with the same facts, make reasonable guesses on what the best course is, and yet reach two completely different, reasonable approaches to the problem. Otherwise, we would have already decided which programming language is the best one. Some situations are more clear cut than others, and I agree that we need to separate facts from opinion better. But for situations as complex as the present and future of a country there might very well not be a "right" way. "Reality" is not a point of view, but we only experience it through the lens of our personal experiences. No one experiences "true" reality.

peterwoerner 6y ago

Have you ever dug into Bayesian reasoning? See E.T. Jayne's probability theory chapter 5 for an explanation on this. The more facts we get, the more likely our views diverge and become more strongly held.

namuol 6y ago
Yeah, I don't disagree. The more facts we have to choose from, the more susceptible to bias, because we will have a wider variety to cherry-pick from. But for those who are genuinely interested in the truth and vigorously fighting biases, more facts can only help construct a "more complete" truth.

fastball 6y ago

An ironic stance, given that it is the left in the US that are pushing ideas like Critical Theory, which is based on post-modernism, which in turn maintains that reality ("knowledge claims") is effectively a point of view ("socially conditioned"). Various factions within the US left have been trying to convince everyone for decades that subjective truth is more important than objective facts; that "lived experience" is what really matters. Then those same people pull a surprised Pikachu face when Orange Man comes swinging out of right field with the same argument, just in the opposite direction with "fake news" etc.