5 ms·
There is a process that goes like this: 1. You imagine, create or otherwise accept some explanation for things. 2. You start building identity facets on the m
by vorpalhex 5y ago
There is a process that goes like this:
1. You imagine, create or otherwise accept some explanation for things.
2. You start building identity facets on the myth from (1).
3. Based on your identity concepts, you start orienting yourself in social groups and to other people. You're a Bleen so you oppose Nerps. You're pro-Xlarg and you oppose the anti-Xlargs.
4. Someone refutes your myth from (1)
Now that person isn't just attacking some boring bit of data but they are attacking your core identity, both how you define yourself in isolation and how you define yourself in relation to others. If your Bleen identity is a sham, then you can't even be sure if other Bleens are your friends!
Thus most arguments have little to do with truth finding and much more to do with staking out identity statements.
We like these kinds of prebuilt identities (I support Xlarg, therefore I am a Bleen) because it removes danger. It's a resistance to feeling like an imposter. We attack others who may have doubts about this whole identity ("What if we've been wrong this whole time about Xlarg?") because to accept the doubters would undermine our own identity construct.
This also makes a given identity more exclusive over time. We make ourselves extremists because we want to be the most pure of the Bleens so nobody can doubt us. We attack other "imposters".
It's specifically those identity facet making points that become scary disagreement zones. No facts or logic will help you win.
- guerrilla 5y ago> 4. Someone refutes your myth from (1) I wouldn't say flat earthers refute any myth, yet they disagree with people and it enrages some of those people. You really think people have an identity of being a round earther?
- yifanl 5y agoI'm not a round earther, but I'm also not-a-flat-earther, because there's a lot of baggage that comes with being identified as a flat earther, and I would make an effort to avoid that label. Sometimes, that effort's enough to be it's own identity.
- vorpalhex 5y agoDo you actually get upset at flat earthers? I know a lot of people who make fun of them, but nobody gets angry. If you don't have a great concept on why we know the earth is round and you defer to things like "well every science book I have read says the earth is round!", then I could see a clever flat earther really getting beneath your skin. You can see how that faith based belief can be disrupted - it is a mythical belief even if it has accidentally aligned with reality.
- guerrilla 5y ago> Do you actually get upset at flat earthers? People do. > faith based belief I think you're confusing faith and trust.
- vorpalhex 5y agoMost people who read science books (eg your average student) are not looking up the authors and calculating how often they make corrections, etc. It is faith. A good rule for whether something is trust or faith is whether you can make estimates on how wrong they are. Faith demands obedience, trust expects mistakes.
- guerrilla 5y agoThey're trusting the authors of the science books who are presumably experts, the same way we trust experts for everything we're not experts in. The books also tend to include at least a little bit of reasoning and evidence as well, proof if it's a math book.
- vorpalhex 5y agoIf your "trust" is because they wrote a book that says "Science" on the cover and that they have "phd" by their name, you are engaged in faith. You are holding a bible. If you are weighing them against sources, if you are looking for mistakes, if you are evaluating that information against a wider context and you can accept there are absolutely going to be mistakes - now we are in a realm of trust. As a simple question: How do you know that expert isn't lying to you? How do you know they aren't wrong? Is the fact in question even (currently) determinable? There are parts of science that the current correct answer to is "We don't know". We have a lot more unknowns than knowns. Science is a process, not a result.