4 ms·

I wonder if we need better role models for embracing uncertainty. If you're a low NFC person, there are a bunch of high status people that take public dogmatic

by abeppu 4y ago

I wonder if we need better role models for embracing uncertainty. If you're a low NFC person, there are a bunch of high status people that take public dogmatic stances, and demonstrate that you have high confidence in a worldview of sweeping generalizations without having to think too hard if only you adopt the Dogma. But I can't really think of role models where someone says "X, Y, Z are all complex and the thing that's valuable in my life is W, so it's healthy and intentional that I neither think about X, Y, Z or have an opinion on them" and that's socially validated or even celebrated.

xyzzy123 4y ago
The Dogma usually includes statements like "people who don't care about X are part of the problem" and considerable social effort is spent on recruiting more "soldiers" and influencing group norms. The unaligned are considered "fodder" by the ideologically committed. Not everyone needs to be recruited. Most people can be kept in line by ensuring everyone knows what the "safe" view is within a specific group and occasionally punishing defectors.
- pixl97 4y ago
  This is generally but not always true. Lets make an imaginary situation where you live on an island and are running out of trees. There are mostly two sides here. The people that are burning though trees at a faster rate than they grow are the problem. Not caring about the problem, especially in the case you are the ones burning those trees is going to ensure 'Tree 0 day' comes. Everyone will get affected if you reach that point.
  - xyzzy123 4y ago
    I think we might be talking slightly past each other. It's absolutely true that for many values of X, being "unaligned" or "uncertain" on X does some harm. What I'm saying is that human social dynamics mean that there's usually a range of acceptable beliefs for issues X, Y & Z and it's wise to understand when it's acceptable to express uncertainty and when it's not. Uncertainty is a stance, a position, which can easily be outside the range of socially acceptable beliefs. For example, I have zero opinion on "body positivity". But I know that many groups will hold the opinion "it does no good if only we believe in body positivity, ALL of society needs to change". Expressing uncertainty or indifference in these situations will be construed as social defection by True Believers and punished.
munificent 4y ago
> I wonder if we need better role models for embracing uncertainty. I've felt this way for a long time. American fiction and films are heavily skewed towards protagonists strong-willed protagonists that "trust their gut" and have a high bias to action. That leads people to believe that if you're right, you will immediately know that you're right and that spending time thinking about a problem means you're weak-willed. It's a toxic aspect of our culture. Obviously, courage and action are important. But so is learning from others, cooperating, and understanding ambiguity.
- LeonB 4y ago
  Very true. Anyone urging caution, or any government department with “standards” is universally the bad guy in film. There’s a huge gap between what is entertaining and what is good outside of fiction. “reality tv” makes this particularly dangerous as horrible (though entertaining) people become more and more famous, again and again. This spills over into some really dire consequences globally. For example — and you wouldn’t believe this unless you’d seen it happen — the most powerful nation on Earth actually went so far as to elect a reality tv star to their highest office!

by abeppu 4y ago

xyzzy123 4y ago

The Dogma usually includes statements like "people who don't care about X are part of the problem" and considerable social effort is spent on recruiting more "soldiers" and influencing group norms. The unaligned are considered "fodder" by the ideologically committed. Not everyone needs to be recruited. Most people can be kept in line by ensuring everyone knows what the "safe" view is within a specific group and occasionally punishing defectors.

pixl97 4y ago
This is generally but not always true. Lets make an imaginary situation where you live on an island and are running out of trees. There are mostly two sides here. The people that are burning though trees at a faster rate than they grow are the problem. Not caring about the problem, especially in the case you are the ones burning those trees is going to ensure 'Tree 0 day' comes. Everyone will get affected if you reach that point.
- xyzzy123 4y ago
  I think we might be talking slightly past each other. It's absolutely true that for many values of X, being "unaligned" or "uncertain" on X does some harm. What I'm saying is that human social dynamics mean that there's usually a range of acceptable beliefs for issues X, Y & Z and it's wise to understand when it's acceptable to express uncertainty and when it's not. Uncertainty is a stance, a position, which can easily be outside the range of socially acceptable beliefs. For example, I have zero opinion on "body positivity". But I know that many groups will hold the opinion "it does no good if only we believe in body positivity, ALL of society needs to change". Expressing uncertainty or indifference in these situations will be construed as social defection by True Believers and punished.

munificent 4y ago

> I wonder if we need better role models for embracing uncertainty. I've felt this way for a long time. American fiction and films are heavily skewed towards protagonists strong-willed protagonists that "trust their gut" and have a high bias to action. That leads people to believe that if you're right, you will immediately know that you're right and that spending time thinking about a problem means you're weak-willed. It's a toxic aspect of our culture. Obviously, courage and action are important. But so is learning from others, cooperating, and understanding ambiguity.

LeonB 4y ago
Very true. Anyone urging caution, or any government department with “standards” is universally the bad guy in film. There’s a huge gap between what is entertaining and what is good outside of fiction. “reality tv” makes this particularly dangerous as horrible (though entertaining) people become more and more famous, again and again. This spills over into some really dire consequences globally. For example — and you wouldn’t believe this unless you’d seen it happen — the most powerful nation on Earth actually went so far as to elect a reality tv star to their highest office!