4 ms·

There are elitist traps in here, somewhere. First, that a lot of people are too uneducated, stupid or uninformed to be responsible for the moral viewpoints. He

There are elitist traps in here, somewhere. First, that a lot of people are too uneducated, stupid or uninformed to be responsible for the moral viewpoints. Hence why all blame should be foisted onto the "villainous leaders who manipulated." Second, that your (our) moral viewpoint is the advanced... and the contrary presumably degenerate or primitive. That kind of empathy isn't well received. It's condescension. At its worst, it's dehumanising... no moral agency. Also, take note that they think the same things about you. The reason why you hold your foolish moral viewpoints is because you have been mislead, lied to and manipulated by media, university and Hollywood elites. Idk if shame is useful, or legitimate as a way of mediating all this. But... I'm quite confident that condescension isn't a helpful posture. Better to start by recognising the actual opposition of viewpoints. Argue in earnest. Etc. Ie: I'm not mad at you. You're not smart enough to know right from wrong. I'm mad at the people who spoon-fed you your stupid opinions. It's not actually an empathetic posture, imo.

BenoitEssiambre 5y ago
This is what makes it difficult to discuss this. It's hard to do without rudely insulting people. How do you find words that are not too condescending. There is a long history of using "the people" to mean non intellectuals including it being enshrined in the US constitution. But that often does not make it clear enough for everyone to understand that we're talking about a vulnerability. Populism gets turned into a dirty word. How often have I stood into a room full of university graduates deriding populism equating it to demagogy. This is a form of punching down. But when done with a perspective of helping with the "handicap", people are more receptive than you would expect. I've made this argument on twitter once and maybe it was because of the criticism of the "elitist" down punchers but found myself for the first time gaining maga followers, the very people who's intelligence I insulted. Kid Rock's ode to MAGAism includes lyrics like:"NO I’VE NEVER BEEN THE SMARTEST (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agvibm7Wqy4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agvibm7Wqy4) These people know they have a handicap when it comes to academic intellect and are looking for others who will respect the struggle that comes with that. People don't vote for Trump because they think he is smart, but because he respects the lack of academic smarts, because he is for them a refreshing example of success and respect without smarts in a world where it's increasingly difficult to achieve and people will cancel you if you are unable to reason at that academic level of morality.
- dalbasal 5y ago
  Idk, honestly. Maybe there's no way to answer all of these concurrently. I definitely here your point on non-intellectual populism. There's no requirement for everyone to be an intellectual and a worldview that does require this is also elitist. Otoh, I don't see many people reacting well to the moral handicap frame either. Personally, the route I usually go down is to (1) acknowledge that we disagree and (2) show that I can articulate their view respectfully. This is also a basis to move from. I don't think it's the structure or or content of the argument that matters... it's softer aspects like signaling respect, friendship and such. I don't think this is about making a perfect argument though. I think it takes a complex, multi-year "conversation." Imo, there's a lot to be learned from feminism. Pissing people off, being the object of hatred and derision was always going to be on a feminist menu. There was never going to be a way forward for feminism that didn't deeply offend and insult a lot of people. It doesn't end there though. The conversation goes on. Sometimes the femenists walked away from some of their arguments. Often, society conceded feminist viewpoints after years of deriding them. They didn't expect it to be respectful and pleasant at all times. Maybe you have to go through phases of tension to eventually come back together later.
- quantumwannabe 5y ago
  You are still being incredibly condescending. The people you mock don’t view themselves as “academically handicapped” and they voted for Trump because they thought he was smart, not because he was rich. At some point the “academic smarts” have to demonstrate success, otherwise people will rightfully discard them. Decades of constant failure from supposedly elite people in every possible field have lead to a reaction where people just don’t trust them no matter what they claim. Name your issue, and I guarantee someone with very good credentials who was very confident in their advocacy is responsible for its current state. The problem isn’t that the “proles” are stupid, but rather that the educated aren’t nearly as smart as they think they are. Nearly every person I know who has poor critical thinking skills and accepts the first thing they hear without question is college educated, and there are many conspiracy theories commonly believed by educated people.
  - CodeShmode 5y ago
Tainnor 5y ago
This sentiment is often voiced on HN and I don't understand it. Somehow the statement "other people have a different opinion from yours" is used as an argument for why some person's opinion can't be right (or more right, or something). That's not only demonstrably false in lots of cases, it also doesn't advance discourse because now we're talking about potentially fictitious people with potentially fictitious beliefs that we just try to infer, instead of constructively arguing concrete points of view. I claim that it's perfectly legitimate to think that certain other people are ill-equipped to make certain decisions. I believe in democracy because it is the least bad alternative, not because I somehow believe in the miraculously truthful insights of the general public. More concretely, there's opinions that I disagree with but I respect that they are valid positions to be held, and there are opinions that I believe to be held out of ignorance. I don't know why I shouldn't be able to think that, and if other people want to believe that I'm ignorant, well they're free to do so and that doesn't affect my judgement generally (unless it comes from someone whose opinion I respect, of course). That's of course different from the question of whether you should let people know that you think they're ill-informed. I agree that stating that overtly will probably not win you any sympathy.
- krageon 5y ago
  > This sentiment is often voiced on HN and I don't understand it Note that the sentiment is "condescension is not empathy", and empathy is what you need to approach this problem. > I claim that it's perfectly legitimate to think that certain other people are ill-equipped to make certain decisions. You then condescend. You are superior, the "general public" is too dumb ("ill-equipped") to "make certain decisions". > That's of course different from the question of whether you should let people know that you think they're ill-informed How would you know? You simply feel they are ill-informed, but it doesn't mean that they are. By assuming (implicitly) that you must be correct, you deny them the agency of figuring things out for themselves: Clearly they cannot have done so, they are simply too wrong.
  - Tainnor 5y ago
    > Note that the sentiment is "condescension is not empathy", and empathy is what you need to approach this problem. I consider that an unproven assertion. A certain amount of empathy is certainly necessary to have a functioning society. But it doesn't seem to be the case that everyone has to be empathetic with everyone, and I don't think humanity has ever been at that or ever will be at that stage. But even beyond that, "empathy" doesn't mean that you think everyone's opinion is equally right. Sometimes, empathy involves giving people hard truths that they may find hard to accept, but will be better for them long term. > You then condescend. You are superior, the "general public" is too dumb ("ill-equipped") to "make certain decisions". It's only condescending if you consider people's inherent worth to be tied to their intelligence or judgement. But that's something I disagree with: people who are right more often than others aren't morally superior, or inherently more worthy, or anything. They're simply right more often and it's therefore rational to listen to them more often. Also note that I didn't say "dumb", that's your interpretation. Smart people have biases too, and being well- or ill-informed about a topic is not necessarily correlated to intelligence. The general public is ill-equipped to decide whether P=NP or the Riemann hypothesis are true. That seems hardly controversial (and yet math departments continue to receive "proofs" of these statements from complete amateurs that usually don't even understand the problem correctly). > How would you know? You simply feel they are ill-informed, but it doesn't mean that they are. You never know anything, except for the fact that you exist. But that's not a reasonable state of being. At some point you have to start trusting your own judgement, especially when you know that you've done the research. That there are other people who disagree with your judgement doesn't fundamentally change that. > By assuming (implicitly) that you must be correct, you deny them the agency of figuring things out for themselves: Clearly they cannot have done so, they are simply too wrong. No, you're misunderstanding me. I don't claim that I'm a priori correct and that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong (if anything, I would consider my opinions to be more or less strong priors). That would indeed be ludicrous. But I do examine the arguments of other people, and in some cases have to come to the conclusion that they're a) factually wrong, or b) their argument doesn't make logical sense.

BenoitEssiambre 5y ago

This is what makes it difficult to discuss this. It's hard to do without rudely insulting people. How do you find words that are not too condescending. There is a long history of using "the people" to mean non intellectuals including it being enshrined in the US constitution. But that often does not make it clear enough for everyone to understand that we're talking about a vulnerability. Populism gets turned into a dirty word. How often have I stood into a room full of university graduates deriding populism equating it to demagogy. This is a form of punching down. But when done with a perspective of helping with the "handicap", people are more receptive than you would expect. I've made this argument on twitter once and maybe it was because of the criticism of the "elitist" down punchers but found myself for the first time gaining maga followers, the very people who's intelligence I insulted. Kid Rock's ode to MAGAism includes lyrics like:"NO I’VE NEVER BEEN THE SMARTEST (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agvibm7Wqy4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agvibm7Wqy4) These people know they have a handicap when it comes to academic intellect and are looking for others who will respect the struggle that comes with that. People don't vote for Trump because they think he is smart, but because he respects the lack of academic smarts, because he is for them a refreshing example of success and respect without smarts in a world where it's increasingly difficult to achieve and people will cancel you if you are unable to reason at that academic level of morality.

dalbasal 5y ago
Idk, honestly. Maybe there's no way to answer all of these concurrently. I definitely here your point on non-intellectual populism. There's no requirement for everyone to be an intellectual and a worldview that does require this is also elitist. Otoh, I don't see many people reacting well to the moral handicap frame either. Personally, the route I usually go down is to (1) acknowledge that we disagree and (2) show that I can articulate their view respectfully. This is also a basis to move from. I don't think it's the structure or or content of the argument that matters... it's softer aspects like signaling respect, friendship and such. I don't think this is about making a perfect argument though. I think it takes a complex, multi-year "conversation." Imo, there's a lot to be learned from feminism. Pissing people off, being the object of hatred and derision was always going to be on a feminist menu. There was never going to be a way forward for feminism that didn't deeply offend and insult a lot of people. It doesn't end there though. The conversation goes on. Sometimes the femenists walked away from some of their arguments. Often, society conceded feminist viewpoints after years of deriding them. They didn't expect it to be respectful and pleasant at all times. Maybe you have to go through phases of tension to eventually come back together later.
quantumwannabe 5y ago
You are still being incredibly condescending. The people you mock don’t view themselves as “academically handicapped” and they voted for Trump because they thought he was smart, not because he was rich. At some point the “academic smarts” have to demonstrate success, otherwise people will rightfully discard them. Decades of constant failure from supposedly elite people in every possible field have lead to a reaction where people just don’t trust them no matter what they claim. Name your issue, and I guarantee someone with very good credentials who was very confident in their advocacy is responsible for its current state. The problem isn’t that the “proles” are stupid, but rather that the educated aren’t nearly as smart as they think they are. Nearly every person I know who has poor critical thinking skills and accepts the first thing they hear without question is college educated, and there are many conspiracy theories commonly believed by educated people.
- CodeShmode 5y ago

Tainnor 5y ago

This sentiment is often voiced on HN and I don't understand it. Somehow the statement "other people have a different opinion from yours" is used as an argument for why some person's opinion can't be right (or more right, or something). That's not only demonstrably false in lots of cases, it also doesn't advance discourse because now we're talking about potentially fictitious people with potentially fictitious beliefs that we just try to infer, instead of constructively arguing concrete points of view. I claim that it's perfectly legitimate to think that certain other people are ill-equipped to make certain decisions. I believe in democracy because it is the least bad alternative, not because I somehow believe in the miraculously truthful insights of the general public. More concretely, there's opinions that I disagree with but I respect that they are valid positions to be held, and there are opinions that I believe to be held out of ignorance. I don't know why I shouldn't be able to think that, and if other people want to believe that I'm ignorant, well they're free to do so and that doesn't affect my judgement generally (unless it comes from someone whose opinion I respect, of course). That's of course different from the question of whether you should let people know that you think they're ill-informed. I agree that stating that overtly will probably not win you any sympathy.

krageon 5y ago
> This sentiment is often voiced on HN and I don't understand it Note that the sentiment is "condescension is not empathy", and empathy is what you need to approach this problem. > I claim that it's perfectly legitimate to think that certain other people are ill-equipped to make certain decisions. You then condescend. You are superior, the "general public" is too dumb ("ill-equipped") to "make certain decisions". > That's of course different from the question of whether you should let people know that you think they're ill-informed How would you know? You simply feel they are ill-informed, but it doesn't mean that they are. By assuming (implicitly) that you must be correct, you deny them the agency of figuring things out for themselves: Clearly they cannot have done so, they are simply too wrong.
- Tainnor 5y ago
  > Note that the sentiment is "condescension is not empathy", and empathy is what you need to approach this problem. I consider that an unproven assertion. A certain amount of empathy is certainly necessary to have a functioning society. But it doesn't seem to be the case that everyone has to be empathetic with everyone, and I don't think humanity has ever been at that or ever will be at that stage. But even beyond that, "empathy" doesn't mean that you think everyone's opinion is equally right. Sometimes, empathy involves giving people hard truths that they may find hard to accept, but will be better for them long term. > You then condescend. You are superior, the "general public" is too dumb ("ill-equipped") to "make certain decisions". It's only condescending if you consider people's inherent worth to be tied to their intelligence or judgement. But that's something I disagree with: people who are right more often than others aren't morally superior, or inherently more worthy, or anything. They're simply right more often and it's therefore rational to listen to them more often. Also note that I didn't say "dumb", that's your interpretation. Smart people have biases too, and being well- or ill-informed about a topic is not necessarily correlated to intelligence. The general public is ill-equipped to decide whether P=NP or the Riemann hypothesis are true. That seems hardly controversial (and yet math departments continue to receive "proofs" of these statements from complete amateurs that usually don't even understand the problem correctly). > How would you know? You simply feel they are ill-informed, but it doesn't mean that they are. You never know anything, except for the fact that you exist. But that's not a reasonable state of being. At some point you have to start trusting your own judgement, especially when you know that you've done the research. That there are other people who disagree with your judgement doesn't fundamentally change that. > By assuming (implicitly) that you must be correct, you deny them the agency of figuring things out for themselves: Clearly they cannot have done so, they are simply too wrong. No, you're misunderstanding me. I don't claim that I'm a priori correct and that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong (if anything, I would consider my opinions to be more or less strong priors). That would indeed be ludicrous. But I do examine the arguments of other people, and in some cases have to come to the conclusion that they're a) factually wrong, or b) their argument doesn't make logical sense.