6 ms·

For me, "avoid being dogmatic yourself" is failing to bring home one very important point to avoid being dogmatic: understand that you are equally susceptible f

by cauch 2y ago

For me, "avoid being dogmatic yourself" is failing to bring home one very important point to avoid being dogmatic: understand that you are equally susceptible from the mistakes/misunderstandings that you blame others for. An example in this article is the following part > my angle ... becomes that of opposing their tribalism. Unfortunately ... most people just view me as the opposite of their own tribe But this part totally fails self-reflection: it talks about your "conservative friends" and your "liberal friends". They are labelled "conservative" or "liberal". How does the author know that the interlocutor did not act exactly like the author: the interlocutor brought a subject, from their point of view their position on it where pretty neutral and sensible, the author reacts by playing the devil's advocate. They therefore see the author as the "conservative" or "liberal" person, and if they follow the author's strategy, they will play the devil's advocate. And then, THE AUTHOR fails to realize they don't actually care about the conclusion. The lazy answer is: I'm smarter than them, I can tell when it's the case or not. Or: the subject I bring are not political, they are just common sense and sensible position, but they sometimes bring something I disagree with, and this is not common sense and sensible position. In both case, it's weak and does not acknowledge the possibilities that you may have done the same mistakes as them from time to time (either classifying a "moderate" as "far" just because they were doing the devil's advocate, or presenting opinions that are not "trivially moderate" from the eyes of your interlocutor). It's a detail, but because of that, I'm not sure the author is as "non dogmatic" as they think they are: they are saying what everybody is saying. The large majority of people don't say "I'm dogmatic and my opinions are crazy" (if they believe their opinions are crazy, then it means they don't believe in their opinions and it is not really their opinions).

InfinityByTen 2y ago
Absolutely. While I am a person who would avoid politics in most contexts myself, I couldn't help but feel uncomfortable with this attitude in this write up. If you see others as being "insufficiently equipped" to handle nuance, "because it's hard" or "because they are too resistant" is a judgement I prefer not to pass on others. > "Because if a desire to seek truth isn't there" Who defines the truth? As much as I understand there is a need to draw a line somewhere, I also believe that everyone has a right to their truth. And that's my truth. I let everyone have their perspective and don't see a need to impose mine or look down upon them if they don't agree to mine, this included :)
- lo_zamoyski 2y ago
  If everyone has their own truth, then how could you know that to be the case? You'd have to appeal to something outside of "your truth" to make that judgement. Meaning, if it were even possible (or coherent) for there to be such a thing as "your truth", then you couldn't know it to be the case. It simply would be "the truth" as far as you are concerned. You can't step outside yourself. There is no "objective POV". These sorts of claims are as incoherent as the equally intellectually jejune skeptical positions ("there is no truth" or "we cannot know the truth" or variations thereof). It's rare to see anyone outside of first year philosophy students make them. Why can't you just say we have disagreements about what the truth is?
  - InfinityByTen 2y ago
    That's another way to put it. The disagreement doesn't still elevate either party to a moral high ground. That was the only thing that upset me about this write up.
    - shw1n 2y ago
      I'm not claiming moral high ground, or that my method is a better or happier way of living life, I'm only claiming it's better for finding out what's true, with the assumption some objective truth exists. The sentence that covers this in the piece: "If someone is self-aware enough to consciously acknowledge their choice to remain in the bubble, that’s totally fair. I respect it like I’d respect anyone who chooses to participate in a more traditional religion. My issue is when this view is falsely passed off as an intellectually-driven one."
      - cauch 2y ago
        I think the problem is that everyone is claiming they don't remain in the bubble, including you. Why should I trust you when you say you don't remain in your bubble or that you are motivated in finding the truth, especially when you write an article that checks all the boxes of someone who is satisfied with comfortable conclusions? It's the problem with this sentence: > Because if a desire to seek truth isn't there The behavior of other people makes way more sense if you just consider that people have different values and different interests. If you take your list of values, people that are not aligned with you will, by definition of not being aligned, look to you as they are not desiring to seek the truth. For two reasons: 1) because some of the things you believe being truth are just BS. You are wrong (as we all are sometimes on some topics), and you are just seeing them dismissing something false and, in fact, they are the ones being interested in seeking the truth while you are not, 2) because some of the things you believe being an important truth is not important or relevant for them. I'm pretty sure you don't "display a desire to seek the truth" when it comes to the VIIth century Buddhist philosophy. Sure, if someone talks about it to you, you may say you are interested and follow what they say, but you still will look "not desiring to seek the truth": if they bring a conundrum in this topic to you, you will not drop everything and scream "oh my god, I need to find the answer, nothing else matter now". That's an extreme example, and there is a spectrum, but that illustrates that some of these people who you categorize as "not desiring to seek the truth" are in fact desiring to seek the truth, just not with the same path as you are, so they look like that to you. And, guess what, _you_ look like you don't desire to seek the truth to them. That sentence is, to me, very very telling: it did not even one second occur to you that maybe they are interesting in seeking the truth but are doing it in a different way or on different subjects. And by doing so, by not carefully considering all the possibilities, you show that yourself you have equally no desire to seek the truth. (if you see what I mean: you see Mr A not exploring all the possibilities on the subject that you like, so you conclude that they have no desire to seek the truth, but then, Mr A sees you not exploring all the possibilities on some subjects that you are overlooking. How is that different?) That is exactly the same problem with the "consciously acknowledge their choice to remain in the bubble": a majority of them are not in a bubble, but it looks like that you because you are not aligned with them. And you are explaining that moderate like you, some of them are in a bubble, but others are not. The only possibility to your eyes to not be in a bubble is to be aligned with you. The only possibility for them to not be in a bubble is to be aligned with them.
wat10000 2y ago
I’m having a real hard time with this one lately. The major mistake/misunderstanding I see now is thinking that a stupid, vindictive asshole who failed upwards would be a good person to run the country. I don’t think I’m susceptible to that. I’ve never viewed anyone the way a lot of these people view Donald Trump. I can’t imagine I ever will. Is it a failure of imagination or is something really different between us?
- themacguffinman 2y ago
  Trump may be a bad leader but he'd still be just one type of bad leader. I'm not trying to fully relativize Trump either, they're not all equally bad. I agree with Slavoj Zizek's take on Trump's appeal and why a lot of criticism of him seems to either have no effect or increases his fan appeal: As a general rule, people relate to others by identifying with their weaknesses, not only or not even primarily with their strengths. You aren't susceptible to his appeal because you're of a different class or background which has different sets of strengths/weaknesses which make it hard for you to relate to Trump. The weaknesses Trump has - his stubborn ignorance, his impulsiveness, his might-makes-right mentality and disdain for rules, his vindictiveness - are deeply shared with his fans. They will forgive his sins because it is their sins too. For example when Trump is attacked for an impulsive comment, they relate to the risk that they could also be cancelled for some comment that is seen as racist or sexist or something. His policy framework is made of the kind of simple ideas you'll find in a pub, I once heard Trump described as "the average guy from Queens" and it made a lot of sense to me. "Nobody knew healthcare was so complicated", "We're going to build a wall". I belong more to a white collar, professional class. I probably have a blindspot on the weaknesses and sins more endemic to my group, ones that I share with the figures I find appealing. If I had to guess I'd say it's something like an ideological/theoretical zeal, bureaucratic dysfunction, and an exclusionary judginess. When a politician unveils some theoretically elegant project and it largely fails and runs over budget and gets mired in bureaucratic hell, I'm maybe too quick to forgive that as it's a relatable sin.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    In short, people like the dumb jerk because they are also dumb jerks? I can't say I disagree, but I don't think that's what cauch's comment was going for.
shw1n 2y ago
this is actually in the footnotes and addressed by the "thinking in bets" section "[9] Fully understanding I can be the one in the wrong -- however, when this is the case, the person explaining is usually able to: understand my argument convey their disagreement in good faith without circular reasoning or rhetorical tricks" "There's a 40% chance this succeeds because of A, 25% chance of B, 10% of X, and 5% something we haven't thought of"
- cauch 2y ago
  The footnote is basically saying "I can tell when it's the case or not", which is in fact exactly my problem. That is not the answer that I'm expecting from someone who has self-reflection. For example: "understand my argument" is assuming that the argument is obviously correct. When someone presents to you an incorrect argument, 1) this person thinks the argument is correct (otherwise they will not present that argument), 2) you will not answer by saying "I've understood", you will argue. From their point of view, you are the one failing to understand. Now the question is: how many time this person was you? How many time you presented a bad argument and then blamed the interlocutor for "not understanding" when they don't accept a faulty argument? Same with "circular reasoning or rhetorical trick": when I disagree, it is always very easy to convince myself that there is a problem in the interlocutor logic. Especially if I failed to understand or misunderstood the argument. I would even say that for all discussions that are not trivial, there are always elements that can be seen as circular or rhetorical trick.
  - shw1n 2y ago
    That's not what this is saying at all. "Understand my argument" does not imply correctness in the slightest. It's possible to understand an incorrect argument and show where it's going wrong, plenty of people can detect fallacies. I've both done it to others and had it done to me. This seems to be a combining of "understanding" and "agreeing", which are separate things.
    - cauch 2y ago
      But you are the one both defending the argument and judging if they understood the argument. If it is your argument, it means you believe in it, it means you think it is a good argument and not a bad argument. So maybe in fact they are right and they understood the argument correctly, but you are the one mistaken. How can you tell? Let's, for the sake of discussion, imagine that your argument is bad. You believe it is good, but it is bad. It means that you don't yourself understand your own argument. How can you therefore judge if someone has understood the argument or not? You were saying that you can see when they use "circular reasoning" and "rhetorical trick". That's exactly the first impression that everyone has when they defend a bad argument and someone points at the flaws in it. I'm not mixing up "understanding" and "agreeing", I'm saying that you claim that you can tell if someone "understand", and I'm simply saying that it is not possible to tell if someone has understood if yourself you believe the argument is correct and they belief the argument is incorrect.

by cauch 2y ago

InfinityByTen 2y ago

Absolutely. While I am a person who would avoid politics in most contexts myself, I couldn't help but feel uncomfortable with this attitude in this write up. If you see others as being "insufficiently equipped" to handle nuance, "because it's hard" or "because they are too resistant" is a judgement I prefer not to pass on others. > "Because if a desire to seek truth isn't there" Who defines the truth? As much as I understand there is a need to draw a line somewhere, I also believe that everyone has a right to their truth. And that's my truth. I let everyone have their perspective and don't see a need to impose mine or look down upon them if they don't agree to mine, this included :)

lo_zamoyski 2y ago
If everyone has their own truth, then how could you know that to be the case? You'd have to appeal to something outside of "your truth" to make that judgement. Meaning, if it were even possible (or coherent) for there to be such a thing as "your truth", then you couldn't know it to be the case. It simply would be "the truth" as far as you are concerned. You can't step outside yourself. There is no "objective POV". These sorts of claims are as incoherent as the equally intellectually jejune skeptical positions ("there is no truth" or "we cannot know the truth" or variations thereof). It's rare to see anyone outside of first year philosophy students make them. Why can't you just say we have disagreements about what the truth is?
- InfinityByTen 2y ago
  That's another way to put it. The disagreement doesn't still elevate either party to a moral high ground. That was the only thing that upset me about this write up.
  - shw1n 2y ago
    I'm not claiming moral high ground, or that my method is a better or happier way of living life, I'm only claiming it's better for finding out what's true, with the assumption some objective truth exists. The sentence that covers this in the piece: "If someone is self-aware enough to consciously acknowledge their choice to remain in the bubble, that’s totally fair. I respect it like I’d respect anyone who chooses to participate in a more traditional religion. My issue is when this view is falsely passed off as an intellectually-driven one."
    - cauch 2y ago
      I think the problem is that everyone is claiming they don't remain in the bubble, including you. Why should I trust you when you say you don't remain in your bubble or that you are motivated in finding the truth, especially when you write an article that checks all the boxes of someone who is satisfied with comfortable conclusions? It's the problem with this sentence: > Because if a desire to seek truth isn't there The behavior of other people makes way more sense if you just consider that people have different values and different interests. If you take your list of values, people that are not aligned with you will, by definition of not being aligned, look to you as they are not desiring to seek the truth. For two reasons: 1) because some of the things you believe being truth are just BS. You are wrong (as we all are sometimes on some topics), and you are just seeing them dismissing something false and, in fact, they are the ones being interested in seeking the truth while you are not, 2) because some of the things you believe being an important truth is not important or relevant for them. I'm pretty sure you don't "display a desire to seek the truth" when it comes to the VIIth century Buddhist philosophy. Sure, if someone talks about it to you, you may say you are interested and follow what they say, but you still will look "not desiring to seek the truth": if they bring a conundrum in this topic to you, you will not drop everything and scream "oh my god, I need to find the answer, nothing else matter now". That's an extreme example, and there is a spectrum, but that illustrates that some of these people who you categorize as "not desiring to seek the truth" are in fact desiring to seek the truth, just not with the same path as you are, so they look like that to you. And, guess what, _you_ look like you don't desire to seek the truth to them. That sentence is, to me, very very telling: it did not even one second occur to you that maybe they are interesting in seeking the truth but are doing it in a different way or on different subjects. And by doing so, by not carefully considering all the possibilities, you show that yourself you have equally no desire to seek the truth. (if you see what I mean: you see Mr A not exploring all the possibilities on the subject that you like, so you conclude that they have no desire to seek the truth, but then, Mr A sees you not exploring all the possibilities on some subjects that you are overlooking. How is that different?) That is exactly the same problem with the "consciously acknowledge their choice to remain in the bubble": a majority of them are not in a bubble, but it looks like that you because you are not aligned with them. And you are explaining that moderate like you, some of them are in a bubble, but others are not. The only possibility to your eyes to not be in a bubble is to be aligned with you. The only possibility for them to not be in a bubble is to be aligned with them.

wat10000 2y ago

I’m having a real hard time with this one lately. The major mistake/misunderstanding I see now is thinking that a stupid, vindictive asshole who failed upwards would be a good person to run the country. I don’t think I’m susceptible to that. I’ve never viewed anyone the way a lot of these people view Donald Trump. I can’t imagine I ever will. Is it a failure of imagination or is something really different between us?

themacguffinman 2y ago
Trump may be a bad leader but he'd still be just one type of bad leader. I'm not trying to fully relativize Trump either, they're not all equally bad. I agree with Slavoj Zizek's take on Trump's appeal and why a lot of criticism of him seems to either have no effect or increases his fan appeal: As a general rule, people relate to others by identifying with their weaknesses, not only or not even primarily with their strengths. You aren't susceptible to his appeal because you're of a different class or background which has different sets of strengths/weaknesses which make it hard for you to relate to Trump. The weaknesses Trump has - his stubborn ignorance, his impulsiveness, his might-makes-right mentality and disdain for rules, his vindictiveness - are deeply shared with his fans. They will forgive his sins because it is their sins too. For example when Trump is attacked for an impulsive comment, they relate to the risk that they could also be cancelled for some comment that is seen as racist or sexist or something. His policy framework is made of the kind of simple ideas you'll find in a pub, I once heard Trump described as "the average guy from Queens" and it made a lot of sense to me. "Nobody knew healthcare was so complicated", "We're going to build a wall". I belong more to a white collar, professional class. I probably have a blindspot on the weaknesses and sins more endemic to my group, ones that I share with the figures I find appealing. If I had to guess I'd say it's something like an ideological/theoretical zeal, bureaucratic dysfunction, and an exclusionary judginess. When a politician unveils some theoretically elegant project and it largely fails and runs over budget and gets mired in bureaucratic hell, I'm maybe too quick to forgive that as it's a relatable sin.
- wat10000 2y ago
  In short, people like the dumb jerk because they are also dumb jerks? I can't say I disagree, but I don't think that's what cauch's comment was going for.

shw1n 2y ago

this is actually in the footnotes and addressed by the "thinking in bets" section "[9] Fully understanding I can be the one in the wrong -- however, when this is the case, the person explaining is usually able to: understand my argument convey their disagreement in good faith without circular reasoning or rhetorical tricks" "There's a 40% chance this succeeds because of A, 25% chance of B, 10% of X, and 5% something we haven't thought of"

cauch 2y ago
The footnote is basically saying "I can tell when it's the case or not", which is in fact exactly my problem. That is not the answer that I'm expecting from someone who has self-reflection. For example: "understand my argument" is assuming that the argument is obviously correct. When someone presents to you an incorrect argument, 1) this person thinks the argument is correct (otherwise they will not present that argument), 2) you will not answer by saying "I've understood", you will argue. From their point of view, you are the one failing to understand. Now the question is: how many time this person was you? How many time you presented a bad argument and then blamed the interlocutor for "not understanding" when they don't accept a faulty argument? Same with "circular reasoning or rhetorical trick": when I disagree, it is always very easy to convince myself that there is a problem in the interlocutor logic. Especially if I failed to understand or misunderstood the argument. I would even say that for all discussions that are not trivial, there are always elements that can be seen as circular or rhetorical trick.
- shw1n 2y ago
  That's not what this is saying at all. "Understand my argument" does not imply correctness in the slightest. It's possible to understand an incorrect argument and show where it's going wrong, plenty of people can detect fallacies. I've both done it to others and had it done to me. This seems to be a combining of "understanding" and "agreeing", which are separate things.
  - cauch 2y ago
    But you are the one both defending the argument and judging if they understood the argument. If it is your argument, it means you believe in it, it means you think it is a good argument and not a bad argument. So maybe in fact they are right and they understood the argument correctly, but you are the one mistaken. How can you tell? Let's, for the sake of discussion, imagine that your argument is bad. You believe it is good, but it is bad. It means that you don't yourself understand your own argument. How can you therefore judge if someone has understood the argument or not? You were saying that you can see when they use "circular reasoning" and "rhetorical trick". That's exactly the first impression that everyone has when they defend a bad argument and someone points at the flaws in it. I'm not mixing up "understanding" and "agreeing", I'm saying that you claim that you can tell if someone "understand", and I'm simply saying that it is not possible to tell if someone has understood if yourself you believe the argument is correct and they belief the argument is incorrect.