3 ms·

I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to presume that more valid positions are likely to be found closer to the midpoint of the current Overton window. I su

by Gormo 1y ago

I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to presume that more valid positions are likely to be found closer to the midpoint of the current Overton window. I suspect that as a matter of Bayesian probability, more extreme positions are more likely to be wrong.

MangoToupe 1y ago
On which topic? Saying the average person can't decide between two viewpoints on any given topic seems ridiculous.
ElevenLathe 1y ago
The whole premise of the Overton window is that it does not represent the full spectrum of opinions on some issues, which is unchanging, but rather some socially constructed window onto that spectrum, which does change. Assuming that the midpoint is probably correct is equivalent to saying that any change from the status quo is probably bad. Is that what you really mean?
- Gormo 1y ago
  > The whole premise of the Overton window is that it does not represent the full spectrum of opinions on some issues, which is unchanging, but rather some socially constructed window onto that spectrum, which does change. Why would you assume that the full spectrum of opinions on an issue would be unchanging? The concept of the Overton window is meant to represents how attitudes do change in response to variations in perceived extremes. > Assuming that the midpoint is probably correct is equivalent to saying that any change from the status quo is probably bad. Is that what you really mean? Basically, yes. I you have a mature system that's reached a stable equilibrium, then its parameters are likely to be optimized against its inputs and constraints, so deviation from that equilibrium is likely to produce less optimal results. If the inputs or constraints have changed significantly, of course, then that might not be applicable.
  - ElevenLathe 1y ago
    > Why would you assume that the full spectrum of opinions on an issue would be unchanging? The spectrum of actual opinions (which is related to the Overton window) may not be unchanging, but the spectrum of all possible opinions by definition can't change. The range of opinions on nuclear weapons goes from "Let's use all of the nukes that exist right now, and also build more and use those, at any cost." to "Nuclear weapons are so evil that any amount of sacrifice is justifiable if it effects even a minuscule change in the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used, or more being built, or existing ones dismantled." This has been true since they were invented, and will continue to be true forever. But both opinions are outside the Overton window, which changes over time.
const_cast 1y ago
Based on a gander at history, I doubt it. Usually one side is actually right and it seems very obvious now but was not obvious at the time. And, typically, the moderate or midpoint position seem incredibly stupid now. Like the 3/5ths compromise.

by Gormo 1y ago

MangoToupe 1y ago

On which topic? Saying the average person can't decide between two viewpoints on any given topic seems ridiculous.

ElevenLathe 1y ago

The whole premise of the Overton window is that it does not represent the full spectrum of opinions on some issues, which is unchanging, but rather some socially constructed window onto that spectrum, which does change. Assuming that the midpoint is probably correct is equivalent to saying that any change from the status quo is probably bad. Is that what you really mean?

Gormo 1y ago
> The whole premise of the Overton window is that it does not represent the full spectrum of opinions on some issues, which is unchanging, but rather some socially constructed window onto that spectrum, which does change. Why would you assume that the full spectrum of opinions on an issue would be unchanging? The concept of the Overton window is meant to represents how attitudes do change in response to variations in perceived extremes. > Assuming that the midpoint is probably correct is equivalent to saying that any change from the status quo is probably bad. Is that what you really mean? Basically, yes. I you have a mature system that's reached a stable equilibrium, then its parameters are likely to be optimized against its inputs and constraints, so deviation from that equilibrium is likely to produce less optimal results. If the inputs or constraints have changed significantly, of course, then that might not be applicable.
- ElevenLathe 1y ago
  > Why would you assume that the full spectrum of opinions on an issue would be unchanging? The spectrum of actual opinions (which is related to the Overton window) may not be unchanging, but the spectrum of all possible opinions by definition can't change. The range of opinions on nuclear weapons goes from "Let's use all of the nukes that exist right now, and also build more and use those, at any cost." to "Nuclear weapons are so evil that any amount of sacrifice is justifiable if it effects even a minuscule change in the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used, or more being built, or existing ones dismantled." This has been true since they were invented, and will continue to be true forever. But both opinions are outside the Overton window, which changes over time.

const_cast 1y ago

Based on a gander at history, I doubt it. Usually one side is actually right and it seems very obvious now but was not obvious at the time. And, typically, the moderate or midpoint position seem incredibly stupid now. Like the 3/5ths compromise.