4 ms·

> 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

by 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.

by csours 4y ago

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.