Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Idk. I cited the article because it listed the nine cognitive deficiencies occurring today which are listed in Haidt's book. The opinions of the author are his.

You recommended a book. I said, what does it say? You pointed me to that article, for which thank you, except that I really can't tell from that article what the book is about, because the article is, as you say, word salad.

Reading this is like reading someone avoiding a point he doesn't like.

I don't know whether I like it or not because I still don't understand what the point is.

Calling out false equivalence is the new false equivalence. I can say that. Why? Because it's got just as much validity behind it as your convenient decisions to label something false equivalence. I don't like this point very much... Hmm. False equivalence!

Maybe you missed it, but I referred to both-sidesism because that author (not you) literally said "both sides" were doing something.

I don't have any problem with the idea that there are phenomena that cut across both major political parties. For example, I just posted in this thread about the way that changes in publishing technology have resulted it epistemic foreclosure.

That said, it seems foolish to me to insist that both sides are equivalent in some important way, because they representing different parts of society and tend to act and be affected in different ways. For example, with regard to the changes in publishing technology that I described, conservatives tend to feel unrepresented in the mainstream media in ways that liberals do not, and tend to have more access to ideologically aligned sources of capital, and so they have created conservative media institutions that parallel the mainstream in ways that liberals have not (the Washington Times, Fox News, etc.). When liberals have tried this, it hasn't worked (Air America).

For this reasons, arguments that "both sides" do something are usually an effort to absolve one side by suggesting that whatever they're doing is ubiquitous, and/or an effort to signaling centrist virtue. Or both! How can you tell which? Sometimes the preening gives it away.

Everything's a game. If you're making moves based on faulty reasoning, you're playing badly. If you're asserting there should be certain rules based on faulty reasoning, you're playing badly.

Viewing things as a game is not a heuristic that automatically indicates cognitive distortion. Given actions have reactions, this view can be consistent with a logically sound approach to life.

If everything is a game, then the value of pointing out that people are playing a game is nil.

But is it wrong? No. So your point is?

It's a useless and stupid thing to say. There are liberals and conservatives, and there are people who are deluded and there liars. So what? That .ppt slide has zero explanatory power.

Both are lying. If you insist the author of something is some form of bigot despite clear evidence she is not, you are a liar. If you then refuse to engage her on the subject because you know that would expose your argument that she is a bigot to be a lie, you are a liar doubling down. If you insist she retract her commentary because you don't want anyone to engage it, again because you know such engagement would prove you not only incorrect but a liar, you are a dangerous liar.

No, it's not true that both are lying. Accusing some There certainly are instances where people use claims of bigotry to shut down discussions, but even in that case it's really a form of ad hominem attack rather than lying. Which is to say, it's different.

Moreover, it's certainly not the case that any responsive claim of prejudice is an ad hominem attack that is an effort to avoid a conversation. I will give you an example, one you know well. When Ezra Klein said to Sam Harris, if you're going to talk about Charles Murray's ideas, you really need to acknowledge and discuss the racial context. There are people who try to silence Murray, but that is not what Klein was doing. Rather than avoid a conversation, he engaged in a lengthy debate with Sam Harris, which is the opposite of refusing to engage.

That you relabel poor or intentionally bad reasoning as the benign sounding act of "insisting that there is a broader context" does not confer validity on that illogic. You cannot just just call a thing something else (very different from what it actually is) and make it so. (See "Mission Accomplished" or Bush's endless environmentally damaging policies re-named as environmentally friendly policies.)

You could be understood as suggested that any claim of prejudice that doesn't start a conversation is necessarily poor or intentionally bad reasoning. I don't think you mean that. You could think I mean that any claim of prejudice is necessarily made in good faith and is inherently not poor or intentionally bad reasoning, but obviously I don't mean that either. So I'm not sure what your point is.

I agree. Hence, I say the people at the poles are comprised, one half, of intentional actors.

The point I was trying to make is that nobody is the poles, except to visit. Everyone lives somewhere between them.

70/30.

Give me a break. You have one political party led by a bullshit artist who makes things up so constantly that no one bats an eye anymore, and a party that is scared to call him on it and happy to enjoy the benefits. The Administration is full of bullshit artists.

Where are the Democratic leaders who constantly truck in bad faith? Even calling it 70/30 is dangerously close to false equivalence.

Nope. Trump is partly a reaction. The correctness movement was around long before he was. I recall its silliness in the 90s.

The two sides feed off each other. They've been Oceania and Eurasia since the concept of correctness reared its head long ago. Trump has simply taken it to a new level.

This idea that Trumpian gaslighting is somehow similar to political correctness -- I think that's what you mean -- is totally nutso. You should explain that one.

I can't speak for Haidt, but I think his critique of colleges stems from the very reasonable position that they are the establishment. Their professors and administration are expected to behave like adults. He never says as much out loud, but it's clearly implied that those on the right are imbeciles, opportunists, and propagandists. There's no point in shaming them.

If you're careful to take the right courses and to avoid subjects where controversial issues will be raised.

But again, Haidt is writing for a much broader audience. He's explaining why the idiocy we're seeing on the extreme right and extreme left is occurring. He's explaining what's wrong with the minds of these demented people. And like it or not, these people are having a profound political influence, and have been for some time now.

Dude, on this particular point you are like the Monty Python's Black Knight who wants to keep fighting with limbs, except that the wounds are self-inflicted. As you just said, campus politics is a meaningless spectacle that doesn't really affect anyone.