4 ms·

The big challenge: How to get 2 opposing, self-righteous groups to a place they can talk and learn the fallacies each holds of the other.

krageon 5y ago
Drop them all into the desert and wait for them to walk back to civilisation. Shared hardship forms good bonds.
automatic6131 5y ago
That's too hard. Let's just build an app where they can yell to each other about how bad the other group is. Billion dollar idea.
- pjerem 5y ago
  Check Twitter
giraffe_lady 5y ago
I'm not sure that's the right question. It assumes both parties only hold the views they do out of ignorance or "fallacies" whatever that means here. That's not necessarily the case at all, often groups oppose each other out of a clear-eyed understanding of the incompatibility of their values. More understanding won't resolve that conflict.
- sonicanatidae 5y ago
  This is the best and most accurate comment here. Sometimes, idiots are actually idiots.
- ajmurmann 5y ago
  The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt makes this nicely clear. He claims that liberals mostly value fairness and harm avoidance. More conservatives in addition also value authority, ingroup and purity. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind). To me this rings intuitively true and strongly validates your point. To me ingroup, authority and purity are at best suspect if not actively negative, so there seem to be natural limits to how much over can get on the same page without deep, small group discussion of every topic. Edit: typo "find" -> "rings"
  - ff317 5y ago
    The labels applied to liberals here are ones with positive connotations, and the labels applied to conservatives have negative ones. One could choose other labels that make for a different obvious outcome. Most political debates are more about straw-person demonization of the other side rather than understanding each others' underlying rationales, issues, or values. Understanding might not always lead to some great compromise, but it would still be helpful if the debate were elevated to the real issues instead of meaningless attack soundbites. Almost everyone in the media on both sides of any debate does understand the real issues, but chooses to pump ratings with soundbite attacks instead, to all of our detriment. And to put some balance on your critique of conservatism: Small-c conservatism has a positive purpose in the government of a nation - it's the impulse to not change things; to value stability. Whatever we're doing now, however stupid it may seem on the surface, is what got us this far. There's no guarantee the latest radical new idea which sounds great on its surface won't cause an unforeseen long-term fallout that wrecks society. The world isn't a science lab or a startup: the lives and happiness of millions are at stake with every decision. There's a liberal impulse to fix everything that looks wrong with bold new ideas, and a balancing conservative impulse to avoid making sweeping changes to the machinery of society without a lot of time and care. The extremes of both impulses, unchecked, are not healthy. A government which is extremely conservative never rights the wrongs of the past or improves the lives of its citizens, or even reacts to obvious changes in the natural world or other competing societies. It's locked in stasis, and thus is doomed to decline. On the other end of things, a great example of the potential horror of government being too liberally-bold with new ideas would be China's Great Leap Forward, which I would humbly summarize as an attempt to swiftly enact radical changes to a society, which sadly and unintentionally caused a famine which killed millions.
    - edmcnulty101 5y ago
      > The labels applied to liberals here are ones with positive connotations, and the labels applied to conservatives have negative ones. One could choose other labels that make for a different obvious outcome. I thought the exact same thing. I don't think people even realize when they're being rightous.
bena 5y ago
That's not the big challenge. The big challenge is to get people to stop worrying about others' fallacies and start worrying about their own. People need to learn introspection first and foremost. It's always "how are they wrong" and never "how am I wrong".
throwaway2331 5y ago
For what purpose? Their issues stem from emotional disturbance, not some high-minded difference in ideals. Self-righteousness that seeks to subjugate others is a disease. Only someone with deep emotional problems would choose to vehemently proselytize some notion vs. simply going for a picnic and enjoying the sun.
newaccount2021 5y ago
javajosh 5y ago
We humans only differ meaningfully on our inputs, so you and I could have ended up there, too.
edmcnulty101 5y ago
And also lower their egos enough so they can learn truths from the other!

krageon 5y ago

Drop them all into the desert and wait for them to walk back to civilisation. Shared hardship forms good bonds.

automatic6131 5y ago

That's too hard. Let's just build an app where they can yell to each other about how bad the other group is. Billion dollar idea.

pjerem 5y ago
Check Twitter

giraffe_lady 5y ago

I'm not sure that's the right question. It assumes both parties only hold the views they do out of ignorance or "fallacies" whatever that means here. That's not necessarily the case at all, often groups oppose each other out of a clear-eyed understanding of the incompatibility of their values. More understanding won't resolve that conflict.

sonicanatidae 5y ago
This is the best and most accurate comment here. Sometimes, idiots are actually idiots.
ajmurmann 5y ago
The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt makes this nicely clear. He claims that liberals mostly value fairness and harm avoidance. More conservatives in addition also value authority, ingroup and purity. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind). To me this rings intuitively true and strongly validates your point. To me ingroup, authority and purity are at best suspect if not actively negative, so there seem to be natural limits to how much over can get on the same page without deep, small group discussion of every topic. Edit: typo "find" -> "rings"
- ff317 5y ago
  The labels applied to liberals here are ones with positive connotations, and the labels applied to conservatives have negative ones. One could choose other labels that make for a different obvious outcome. Most political debates are more about straw-person demonization of the other side rather than understanding each others' underlying rationales, issues, or values. Understanding might not always lead to some great compromise, but it would still be helpful if the debate were elevated to the real issues instead of meaningless attack soundbites. Almost everyone in the media on both sides of any debate does understand the real issues, but chooses to pump ratings with soundbite attacks instead, to all of our detriment. And to put some balance on your critique of conservatism: Small-c conservatism has a positive purpose in the government of a nation - it's the impulse to not change things; to value stability. Whatever we're doing now, however stupid it may seem on the surface, is what got us this far. There's no guarantee the latest radical new idea which sounds great on its surface won't cause an unforeseen long-term fallout that wrecks society. The world isn't a science lab or a startup: the lives and happiness of millions are at stake with every decision. There's a liberal impulse to fix everything that looks wrong with bold new ideas, and a balancing conservative impulse to avoid making sweeping changes to the machinery of society without a lot of time and care. The extremes of both impulses, unchecked, are not healthy. A government which is extremely conservative never rights the wrongs of the past or improves the lives of its citizens, or even reacts to obvious changes in the natural world or other competing societies. It's locked in stasis, and thus is doomed to decline. On the other end of things, a great example of the potential horror of government being too liberally-bold with new ideas would be China's Great Leap Forward, which I would humbly summarize as an attempt to swiftly enact radical changes to a society, which sadly and unintentionally caused a famine which killed millions.
  - edmcnulty101 5y ago
    > The labels applied to liberals here are ones with positive connotations, and the labels applied to conservatives have negative ones. One could choose other labels that make for a different obvious outcome. I thought the exact same thing. I don't think people even realize when they're being rightous.

bena 5y ago

That's not the big challenge. The big challenge is to get people to stop worrying about others' fallacies and start worrying about their own. People need to learn introspection first and foremost. It's always "how are they wrong" and never "how am I wrong".

throwaway2331 5y ago

For what purpose? Their issues stem from emotional disturbance, not some high-minded difference in ideals. Self-righteousness that seeks to subjugate others is a disease. Only someone with deep emotional problems would choose to vehemently proselytize some notion vs. simply going for a picnic and enjoying the sun.

newaccount2021 5y ago

javajosh 5y ago

We humans only differ meaningfully on our inputs, so you and I could have ended up there, too.

edmcnulty101 5y ago

And also lower their egos enough so they can learn truths from the other!