4 ms·

> I don't see why dispassionate discourse is inherently better. Amusingly, if we were to have a "passionnate" discussion about the topic of "passionnate" discu

> I don't see why dispassionate discourse is inherently better. Amusingly, if we were to have a "passionnate" discussion about the topic of "passionnate" discussion, this sentence would be the starting point of a chain reaction in both our amygdalas that would end up with my insulting your family, pets, favorite sport teams and core values for not agreeing 100% with me. (Or, so would say some unreliable and pop-sciency blog writer that I should definitely not bring into a serious discussion.) ;) That being said, I'm not sure "dispassionate" is the best word to describe what I mean. I initially went with "civil", but a discussion can be "civil" between people who hate each others - as long as there is a cop in the place to keeps the knifes out. I mean "the kind of discussion where people agree that emotions have to be managed, if not toned down, in order to avoid tribalism". I know the task is hard, if possible at all (at least that's why pop-neuroscience indicates [1]); I value the effort. If anything, "passionnate debate" might not be good for our hearts ;) [2] So let's add plenty of smileys to the plenty of threads that don't need too much seriousness, shall we ? [1] https://theconversation.com/from-the-penalty-box-to-the-ballot-box-our-brains-are-wired-for-tribalism-117089 https://theconversation.com/from-the-penalty-box-to-the-ball... [2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/09/020926070006.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/09/020926070006.h...

whimsicalism 5y ago
I can see the benefit. My worry is the selection effect that can potentially occur when focusing on dispassionate discourse. Namely, people who are close to an issue, people who are most affected, and people who do not have much stability in life (ie. a lost paycheck or whatever can mean a big deal) seem to me to be the most likely to have trouble engaging in dispassionate discourse around a subject that affects their livelihood. At least, I imagine I would. But those are exactly the sort of people it is critical to engage with when deciding things around these issues. I want to have "civil" discourse, but I don't want it if it means weighting the discourse heavily towards people who are removed from the actual issue or have relatively low stakes.

whimsicalism 5y ago

I can see the benefit. My worry is the selection effect that can potentially occur when focusing on dispassionate discourse. Namely, people who are close to an issue, people who are most affected, and people who do not have much stability in life (ie. a lost paycheck or whatever can mean a big deal) seem to me to be the most likely to have trouble engaging in dispassionate discourse around a subject that affects their livelihood. At least, I imagine I would. But those are exactly the sort of people it is critical to engage with when deciding things around these issues. I want to have "civil" discourse, but I don't want it if it means weighting the discourse heavily towards people who are removed from the actual issue or have relatively low stakes.