4 ms·

I think this often tends to fall along political lines. In my experience, the left tends to like simple stories ("we are poor and the capitalists are rich, so

I think this often tends to fall along political lines. In my experience, the left tends to like simple stories ("we are poor and the capitalists are rich, so just take their money and give it to us", "if people love each other, they should be able to marry, no matter the gender"). The right tends to like complex explanations ("taking money from the rich destroys the incentive structure required for effective resource allocation", "gay marriage makes gay people happy, but destroy the Christian values on which the western society was build, and therefore may have unpredictable consequences"). Neither approach is right or wrong. The left tends to oversimplify and prioritize surface compassion above all else (the communism case), but sometimes the simple argument really is the right argument (the gay marriage case). The right tries to show off how smart and sophisticated their arguments are, and how "it's not that simple". Sometimes they get it right (such as in the communism case), but they very often try to find a "but actually" explanation where one is not warranted (the gay marriage case).

Cyph0n 3mo ago
Funnily enough, your comment introduces complexity into what I see as a fairly simple argument. Also, I love how you pulled communism out of nowhere. A centrist would nod along with every sentence :)
jolmg 3mo ago
It's probably more that one person understands their own views better than they do those of others, regardless of the particular views of each. Meaning, they perceive the other's views as simple and their own as complex. A leftist can equally say that a rightist likes simple stories ("if the poor want to be rich, they should just apply themselves", "less developed countries are such because their race (DNA) results in inferior IQ"). The left tends to like complex explanations ("we don't live in a perfect meritocracy for one to just apply themselves. There's various complex societal issues preventing that stemming from racism, sexism, inherited trauma, classism, differing values from working-class cultures, etc. Some of it can be seen as maybe unintended but real covert oppression by the upper classes, which leads to a sense of societal responsibility instead of just simple surface compassion.", "Countries may be less developed because of a plethora of reasons, including historical events that lead to different issues and compounding effects, cultures that value other things over those that lead to personal economic growth (e.g. people that couldn't imagine leaving their aging parents to care for themselves or be left with strangers instead of personally becoming their caregivers), etc. Intelligence doesn't exist on a one-dimensional spectrum as measured by IQ. IQ itself probably doesn't only depend on DNA. It's possible your environment and personal history also influence it. If the belief comes from statistical reports on the average IQ by country, it's also possible it's due to brain drain from emigration.")
nathan_compton 3mo ago
I think this is more of an example of what arguments you are exposed to. We typically only see the most superficial version of our opponents arguments and we see complex versions of our own. Its one of the simplest kinds of propaganda. "Capital" is a big honking book. It has substantially more to it than "take their money and give it to us," and contemporary leftist thought has a huge number of different intellectual takes on how to right the world, from syndicalism to libertarian socialism, and the debates are vigorous (sometimes too vigorous, if you ask me). I could just as easily characterize (eg) the Christian right as fundamentally only making one argument: "God wants it to be this way." That would be dumb. I've read CS Lewis and Chesterton, Ivan Illich. I happen to think that, fundamentally, there isn't anything like the Christian god out there, but I can see that its not just as simple as the cartoon I sketched above.

Cyph0n 3mo ago

Funnily enough, your comment introduces complexity into what I see as a fairly simple argument. Also, I love how you pulled communism out of nowhere. A centrist would nod along with every sentence :)

jolmg 3mo ago

It's probably more that one person understands their own views better than they do those of others, regardless of the particular views of each. Meaning, they perceive the other's views as simple and their own as complex. A leftist can equally say that a rightist likes simple stories ("if the poor want to be rich, they should just apply themselves", "less developed countries are such because their race (DNA) results in inferior IQ"). The left tends to like complex explanations ("we don't live in a perfect meritocracy for one to just apply themselves. There's various complex societal issues preventing that stemming from racism, sexism, inherited trauma, classism, differing values from working-class cultures, etc. Some of it can be seen as maybe unintended but real covert oppression by the upper classes, which leads to a sense of societal responsibility instead of just simple surface compassion.", "Countries may be less developed because of a plethora of reasons, including historical events that lead to different issues and compounding effects, cultures that value other things over those that lead to personal economic growth (e.g. people that couldn't imagine leaving their aging parents to care for themselves or be left with strangers instead of personally becoming their caregivers), etc. Intelligence doesn't exist on a one-dimensional spectrum as measured by IQ. IQ itself probably doesn't only depend on DNA. It's possible your environment and personal history also influence it. If the belief comes from statistical reports on the average IQ by country, it's also possible it's due to brain drain from emigration.")

nathan_compton 3mo ago

I think this is more of an example of what arguments you are exposed to. We typically only see the most superficial version of our opponents arguments and we see complex versions of our own. Its one of the simplest kinds of propaganda. "Capital" is a big honking book. It has substantially more to it than "take their money and give it to us," and contemporary leftist thought has a huge number of different intellectual takes on how to right the world, from syndicalism to libertarian socialism, and the debates are vigorous (sometimes too vigorous, if you ask me). I could just as easily characterize (eg) the Christian right as fundamentally only making one argument: "God wants it to be this way." That would be dumb. I've read CS Lewis and Chesterton, Ivan Illich. I happen to think that, fundamentally, there isn't anything like the Christian god out there, but I can see that its not just as simple as the cartoon I sketched above.