7 ms·

I try to fully rationalize the opposing viewpoints. To the point that I cannot disdain anyone for taking those viewpoints because I completely understand why th

I try to fully rationalize the opposing viewpoints. To the point that I cannot disdain anyone for taking those viewpoints because I completely understand why they would think that way, and can see my own self from their POV. It does not at all prevent me from having bias, but it at least, with effort, on a case by case basis, lets me adopt someone else's bias. After all, there is no unbiased person so what's the point?

csours 4y ago
> I try to fully rationalize the opposing viewpoints. Edit: "Both Sides"-ing an issue can be dangerous. Many times, there is actual harm on one side, and mere discomfort on the other. You may not be describing "both sides"-ing; but this could be read that way. I would say it as "identify the deeply held beliefs that got this person to their viewpoint" Previous statement: This can be dangerous, depending on how it is done. I would say it as "identify the deeply held beliefs that got this person to their viewpoint"
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  I don't think being able to hold opposing viewpoints in my head is ever dangerous. Understanding the chain of logic that leads from, for example, some religious fundamentalism to misogyny does not imply I'm going to keep my girls out of school, it just means I get why they have that fucked up opinion: they grew up around it, it feels natural to them, their elders support it with scripture so it becomes sacred, etc etc. It just helps understand how deep it goes, and therefore how challenging it might be to persuade someone out of it. It doesn't change my own beliefs on the matter.
- lumb63 4y ago
  To the contrary, I think your approach leads to, rather than understanding, identifying. In my opinion, it can be a little degrading to have one’s system of beliefs broken down to “this person believes X therefore Y”; there is probably a lot more going on in some people’s minds. The best approach is probably somewhere in the middle. I can think of instances in people i know where they have deeply held beliefs that they don’t challenge that lead them to all sorts of conclusions. But I also know people who have deliberated on topics in depth to reach the conclusions they have. That is not to say that they are without bias, but their viewpoints are consequences of more than just deeply held beliefs.
  - jvanderbot 4y ago
    Right. My method for discriminating between core values and rational deliberation is to walk myself through their decision tree. Usually I come up with questions to ask that make people uncomfortable and the Convo ends.
    - lumb63 4y ago
      Do you have any concrete examples of this? I’m curious.
kilgnad 4y ago
How far can you take it? Can you talk about implementing eugenics? Because scientifically it's not a completely invalid idea. Preventing people with genetic defects and recessive carriers of genetic defects from reproducing whether through execution or restriction does definitively eliminate the defect if such policies were implemented well. The short period of suffering during the culling has the reward of completely eliminating the targeted genetic diseases. I find that it is rare to find someone who is able to think rationally about the topic above. A lot of people have to rearrange the logic of potential solutions such that it fits within a moral framework. They cannot disentangle the logic and keep their analysis completely separate from their own ethics. Executing someone with a genetic defects is logically speaking the most definitive way to stop that genetic defect from spreading. Restriction costs resources and has the potential for failure. You see what I'm saying? Being completely unbiased is a form of psychopathy. But it does let you see truths others are unable to see. Eugenics targeted at actual known genetic defects in both sufferers and recessive carriers does logically lead to a better outcome then the moral path. If you just let natural selection play out the defect could just stick around causing suffering across many many generations of people. But this is the extreme example. The extreme example triggers moral reactions which in turn becomes a mirror to your biases. A more realistic example is: "do I eliminate the jobs of everyone whose livelihood depends on success in the oil industry to stave off the impending catastrophe of global warming?"
- Koshkin 4y ago
  > Being completely unbiased is a form of psychopathy. Nice. On the other hand, we must remember that biases can be, and are, exploited: “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”
- bena 4y ago
  Yeah, I like to remind people we do eugenics all the time. With plants and animals. We don't call it that because we often feel that humans are a different class of life and we need special words to describe things we do to ourselves. But breeding a dachshund is eugenics. You are selecting for desired traits and not allowing undesirable dogs to breed. Like, it technically works. We don't do it because it also means violating people's privacy and autonomy. And that's just wrong. The mechanisms are inhumane.
Koshkin 4y ago
> rationalize the opposing viewpoints Putting oneself in the other’s place is the least one can do. But in politics, for example, all you will find is that there’s no right or wrong but rather opposing interests (of which there may be more then two). Then all you can do is start to appeal to the irrational - faith (religion), hope (expectations), love (e.g. patriotism), etc.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  Thats kind of the point. It takes the wind out of my sails when I realize there isn't any sense of "right" or "wrong" that can be agreed upon. Instead, you have to talk about values, and why one approach favors one value over the other. At that point, you're not talking to a heretic, but a human being with a different value system, which is often not far from yours.

csours 4y ago

> I try to fully rationalize the opposing viewpoints. Edit: "Both Sides"-ing an issue can be dangerous. Many times, there is actual harm on one side, and mere discomfort on the other. You may not be describing "both sides"-ing; but this could be read that way. I would say it as "identify the deeply held beliefs that got this person to their viewpoint" Previous statement: This can be dangerous, depending on how it is done. I would say it as "identify the deeply held beliefs that got this person to their viewpoint"

jvanderbot 4y ago
I don't think being able to hold opposing viewpoints in my head is ever dangerous. Understanding the chain of logic that leads from, for example, some religious fundamentalism to misogyny does not imply I'm going to keep my girls out of school, it just means I get why they have that fucked up opinion: they grew up around it, it feels natural to them, their elders support it with scripture so it becomes sacred, etc etc. It just helps understand how deep it goes, and therefore how challenging it might be to persuade someone out of it. It doesn't change my own beliefs on the matter.
lumb63 4y ago
To the contrary, I think your approach leads to, rather than understanding, identifying. In my opinion, it can be a little degrading to have one’s system of beliefs broken down to “this person believes X therefore Y”; there is probably a lot more going on in some people’s minds. The best approach is probably somewhere in the middle. I can think of instances in people i know where they have deeply held beliefs that they don’t challenge that lead them to all sorts of conclusions. But I also know people who have deliberated on topics in depth to reach the conclusions they have. That is not to say that they are without bias, but their viewpoints are consequences of more than just deeply held beliefs.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  Right. My method for discriminating between core values and rational deliberation is to walk myself through their decision tree. Usually I come up with questions to ask that make people uncomfortable and the Convo ends.
  - lumb63 4y ago
    Do you have any concrete examples of this? I’m curious.

kilgnad 4y ago

How far can you take it? Can you talk about implementing eugenics? Because scientifically it's not a completely invalid idea. Preventing people with genetic defects and recessive carriers of genetic defects from reproducing whether through execution or restriction does definitively eliminate the defect if such policies were implemented well. The short period of suffering during the culling has the reward of completely eliminating the targeted genetic diseases. I find that it is rare to find someone who is able to think rationally about the topic above. A lot of people have to rearrange the logic of potential solutions such that it fits within a moral framework. They cannot disentangle the logic and keep their analysis completely separate from their own ethics. Executing someone with a genetic defects is logically speaking the most definitive way to stop that genetic defect from spreading. Restriction costs resources and has the potential for failure. You see what I'm saying? Being completely unbiased is a form of psychopathy. But it does let you see truths others are unable to see. Eugenics targeted at actual known genetic defects in both sufferers and recessive carriers does logically lead to a better outcome then the moral path. If you just let natural selection play out the defect could just stick around causing suffering across many many generations of people. But this is the extreme example. The extreme example triggers moral reactions which in turn becomes a mirror to your biases. A more realistic example is: "do I eliminate the jobs of everyone whose livelihood depends on success in the oil industry to stave off the impending catastrophe of global warming?"

Koshkin 4y ago
> Being completely unbiased is a form of psychopathy. Nice. On the other hand, we must remember that biases can be, and are, exploited: “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”
bena 4y ago
Yeah, I like to remind people we do eugenics all the time. With plants and animals. We don't call it that because we often feel that humans are a different class of life and we need special words to describe things we do to ourselves. But breeding a dachshund is eugenics. You are selecting for desired traits and not allowing undesirable dogs to breed. Like, it technically works. We don't do it because it also means violating people's privacy and autonomy. And that's just wrong. The mechanisms are inhumane.

Koshkin 4y ago

> rationalize the opposing viewpoints Putting oneself in the other’s place is the least one can do. But in politics, for example, all you will find is that there’s no right or wrong but rather opposing interests (of which there may be more then two). Then all you can do is start to appeal to the irrational - faith (religion), hope (expectations), love (e.g. patriotism), etc.

jvanderbot 4y ago
Thats kind of the point. It takes the wind out of my sails when I realize there isn't any sense of "right" or "wrong" that can be agreed upon. Instead, you have to talk about values, and why one approach favors one value over the other. At that point, you're not talking to a heretic, but a human being with a different value system, which is often not far from yours.