Since the title is a little dramatic/click baity: getting off of social media and seeing that conspiracy predictions weren't coming true were the keys getting out. Surprise surprise. Here is the...
Since the title is a little dramatic/click baity: getting off of social media and seeing that conspiracy predictions weren't coming true were the keys getting out. Surprise surprise.
Here is the turning point from the article:
About this time, one of Ramona’s friends told her she would be taking a break from social media — a “cleanse,” she called it — to see if it helped her mental health. Ramona was curious. On some level, she knew her social media habits were connected to her anxiety. On a whim, she decided to join her friend. She now believes some part of her brain saw it as a way out.
“Doomscrolling is how I used to cope with it,” she said, referring to her anxiety.
The “cleanse” stretched from days into weeks, and Ramona felt her mind unclench. She felt more present. Her thoughts less troubled, her mind wandered. She looked up old friends and thought more hopefully about the future.
There's a lot of backstory that seems like padding, but another useful insight I got was that feeling cut off and seeking connection, then finding it in the Qanon forums, was what got her into the conspiracy theories in the first place.
One of the traps of this kind of thinking is that if nothing I can tell that person can change their mind, then there's not much meaningful interaction to be had trying to dissuade them. So maybe these insights about why people go this way can help us find ways to engage with them in a meaningful way, or at least have more empathy.
Wish I'd seen your summary before I read through the whole lengthy article! Didn't learn anything new, especially after all my time browsing r/QAnonCasualties and listening to the QAA podcast.
Wish I'd seen your summary before I read through the whole lengthy article! Didn't learn anything new, especially after all my time browsing r/QAnonCasualties and listening to the QAA podcast.
This article uses simple grammar throughout, and includes a "here's what a conspiracy theory is" sidebar. You aren't the intended audience. This was written for the casualties, and I hope many of...
This article uses simple grammar throughout, and includes a "here's what a conspiracy theory is" sidebar. You aren't the intended audience. This was written for the casualties, and I hope many of them will read it and realize what's happened to them.
Thanks! Tildes is a place where I have started reading the comments first because the quality of information is generally high enough that I can get a sense of whether a long article or video is...
Thanks! Tildes is a place where I have started reading the comments first because the quality of information is generally high enough that I can get a sense of whether a long article or video is worth my time.
It's my belief that a lot of what we're dealing with is the sense of community these people get from misinformation/conspiracy communities, and that this sense of community and belonging is to...
It's my belief that a lot of what we're dealing with is the sense of community these people get from misinformation/conspiracy communities, and that this sense of community and belonging is to them, far more valuable than truth.
While I agree with you that a feeling of belonging is the key driver, I don't think it's so much that community is more important than the truth. I think a toxic community warps one's sense of...
While I agree with you that a feeling of belonging is the key driver, I don't think it's so much that community is more important than the truth. I think a toxic community warps one's sense of what truth is.
Couple of examples:
I am a long-time reader of Alison Green's Ask Manager advice column, and this is a key theme that pops up over and over there, not just from her but from the people writing in and in the comments: a toxic or dysfunctional workplace can really change one's sense of what professionals norms are
my dad, who is a doctor (veterinarian) lives in a small town in East Texas. During the pandemic, Texas was a hotbed of Covid denialism and disinformation. Despite literally having
decades of experience as a public health official, he showed up at a family gathering during the height of the pandemic offering ivermectin for Covid prophylaxis even after it had been studied and demonstrated to be ineffective. Thankfully he was offering safe doses at least.
As I am wont to do, I will end with a quotation, which is not proof, but I find a pithy expression of an idea can be a useful mental shorthand for identifying similar information and making connections between ideas.
Like water poured into a container, most of us eventually turn into – or remain – whoever we surround ourselves with. We can choose our tribe, but we cannot change that our tribe is our destiny.
This is definitely worth thinking about, and could be a chicken/egg type of situation, but many times these people are faced with an undeniable truth, and the decision that follows: accept the...
This is definitely worth thinking about, and could be a chicken/egg type of situation, but many times these people are faced with an undeniable truth, and the decision that follows: accept the truth and leave the community, or deny what's painfully obvious to maintain their place within their community; is often the rubric that seems to suggest they value the sense of belonging more than some altruistic truth.
I can see that. Change is hard in the best of times. If that change that takes someone away from power, money, love, or things that are familiar and safe, they might choose the lie.
I can see that. Change is hard in the best of times. If that change that takes someone away from power, money, love, or things that are familiar and safe, they might choose the lie.
I think what really opened my eyes to something like this was the documentary about flat earthers on Netflix, Behind the Curve. You could see that some of them might not fully believe it but they...
I think what really opened my eyes to something like this was the documentary about flat earthers on Netflix, Behind the Curve. You could see that some of them might not fully believe it but they have a community.
I agree with you 100%, and I want to emphasize your point because I think the distinction is super-important. Believing it's about people for whom the "community is more important than the truth"...
While I agree with you that a feeling of belonging is the key driver, I don't think it's so much that community is more important than the truth. I think a toxic community warps one's sense of what truth is.
I agree with you 100%, and I want to emphasize your point because I think the distinction is super-important. Believing it's about people for whom the "community is more important than the truth" creates a sense that it is about a certain type of people. I think this is false. I believe there is no such thing as rationality not affected by our need for community - we all are affected by this.
Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber argue in their book The Enigma of Reason that reasoning evolved not as a truth-detection tool but as a cooperation tool - we reason to convince others to cooperate with us, to justify our actions in front of them etc. Reasoning cannot be separated from social aspects of our lives.
Your notion that a toxic community warps one's sense of truth applies not only to toxic workplaces or marginal groups like the one in the article. It applies to large social groups and even whole societies, sometimes to an extreme degree (Nazi Germany... or if you are interested in more current warping on a societal level, I recommend the 1420 YouTube channel).
BTW, as a non-American, I view a lot of the stuff related to the current level of polarization in the US from this perspective - two distinct large communities, each with the sense of truth warped in their own way. The problem is that it is hard to perceive that warping from the inside of your tribe. My own sense of truth is certainly also warped in some way.
How do you see the "other side" having truth warped? I'm not saying that has not happened; it's just that in my experience, the people who say things like that have, at beat, a warped sense of...
How do you see the "other side" having truth warped? I'm not saying that has not happened; it's just that in my experience, the people who say things like that have, at beat, a warped sense of priority/importance (e.g., "the Democrats don't follow through on their promises to help the working man so both sides are the same").
I am not sure I understand your question. Are you asking about my opinion on the warping in the Republicans vs Democrats case? Or how to spot the warping? Or how I think the mind does the warping?...
I am not sure I understand your question. Are you asking about my opinion on the warping in the Republicans vs Democrats case? Or how to spot the warping? Or how I think the mind does the warping?
That thing you mention - that "the Democrats don't follow through..." - I wish I could convey what it's like to observe American politics from the outside (and from a distance - I have not been to the US since 2002). It's much deeper than whether any party follows on their promises.
It is like each side has its own set of things they consider facts (Fox vs NYT vs our local reporting about the US are sometimes like there were three separate instances of the USA), their own mental model of what the other side is like, and their interpretation of why they are like that - pretty often because they are bad people; one side sees the other as racists, bigots, backward and dumb people, the other as Marxists, mentally unstable demagogues, neo-racists. Each side can easily find examples that "prove" their image of the other side is correct. Each side has a massive and profoundly emotional blind spot to good arguments and good people from the other side. Sometimes it seems truly bizarre to me - both US sides (although one a bit more than the other).
It's kind of like that 1420 channel I recommended - it feels bizarre listening about alleged Ukrainian "Nazis" and poor innocent Russia defending the motherland from NATO attack... but at the same time, you understand that if you were living in the same information bubble they are living in, you would probably think what they think.
Please do not take this the wrong way. I am not trying to disparage Americans - I believe that when conditions are right, something like that can happen anywhere. And my reality is warped too - no doubt about it. It's just that this topic fascinates me and something very interesting is happening in the US.
BTW, any other non-Americans here? I would be interested to know how you see it.
Non-North American here (I'm Brazilian). I see the USA politics as just two right wing parties. One just hates black, poor and other minorities less. To be clear I'm not talking about the...
Non-North American here (I'm Brazilian).
I see the USA politics as just two right wing parties. One just hates black, poor and other minorities less.
To be clear I'm not talking about the citizens, just the politicians and their "fanbases".
I was basically asking what you meant by this. I think we all know how the Trump-aligned folks have their sense of truth warped. I'd just like to know how you think everybody else has their sense...
each with the sense of truth warped in their own way.
I was basically asking what you meant by this. I think we all know how the Trump-aligned folks have their sense of truth warped. I'd just like to know how you think everybody else has their sense warped because generally the only people who think it's necessary to say things like that are, for example, alt-right folks who are pretending to be centrists.
Well... I think your comment itself is a representation of what I see as "warping" - it is based on a set of assumptions that you seem to consider evident but I do not. Do we? All of them? Can you...
Well... I think your comment itself is a representation of what I see as "warping" - it is based on a set of assumptions that you seem to consider evident but I do not.
I think we all know how the Trump-aligned folks have their sense of truth warped.
Do we? All of them? Can you see no "good" reasons why vote for Trump? You don't have to give me reasons why not to vote for Trump - I think he is a narcissistic sociopath and a grave danger to American democracy. It's just that I can see a bunch of reasons why some people might want to vote for him - reasons I do not necessarily agree with, but reasons I understand. And I don't want to get too much into it, because it would be a book and not a comment, but I think the Democrats partially caused Trump (Hillary Clinton? I still remember this ancient rant because I related to it).
the only people who think it's necessary to say things like that are, for example, alt-right folks who are pretending to be centrists
I think one of the most common methods of how the mind warps the truth is using negatively emotionally charged labels instead of engaging with the merit of an argument. If it were up to me, labels would be forbidden in discussions and we would all have to argue why the specific thing is wrong. It would be tedious, but labels (racist, bigot, alt-right, marxist, dumb, whatever) are a way too easy and tempting way to avoid thinking about something - the brain just jumps to a prefabricated reason why I do not have to question my mental model of reality and I don't even notice.
And pretending to be centrists? That's another commonly used method our minds trick us - people assume the intention of their opponents based on their model of reality, not the other person's model of reality. What if they truly believe they are centrists? Even if they were wrong, that would not imply pretending.
This is the saddest thing you see when observing America from the outside - not only each side does not understand the other, but because they interpret the other side using their own mental framework (= without empathy), the inevitable result is that the other side appears malicious - they do not do what they do because they believe it is good for America - they have hidden agendas, they are pretending something etc. (obviously Republicans have their own version of this effect that distorts their view about you - because your view doesn't make sense from within their framework, they also assume you are pretending. )
Maybe we could try something - one person commonly labeled as alt-right is Sam Harris. I do not agree with everything he says, but consider him extremely smart, I listened to a bunch of his podcasts and I think I know his opinions somewhat well (generally speaking - not all of them, I don't have that much time). Give me one specific thing where you think he is pretending something or where you think he is wrong and let's discuss that thing specifically... and without labels. I think it might reveal some of that warping. Potentially on my side too - who knows, maybe my mind is just warped the same way Sam Harris's is.
The problem with discussions like this is that it is hard to convey how it appears from the outside to those who are inside. The warping is invisible from the inside. Yes, I have seen people associated with Republicans who appear delusional to me. When you mention those "folks", I understand who you are talking about and why you might think they represent Republicans. But I have also seen people associated with Democrats who appear delusional to me. And Republicans think they represent you. And I can kind of understand why when I consider the biased media, social bubbles, selective attention, and all those cognitive tricks the human mind is capable of. You could take this description, write an inverted version of it ("marxist"->"alt-right" etc.), and it would make just as much sense to them as this makes to you.
That is why I keep recommending that Russian channel. You are outside of their reality, so you can see the warping. But you can also try to imagine yourself in their shoes. How hard it must be to admit to yourself that your beloved country, who you believed to be heroically fighting Nazis, is actually a lot closer to Nazis than those you are at war with? That channel is like a truth-warping lab.
I grew up in a country occupied by Russians. It is extremely hard for me to find empathy for them. But if I can find at least a little bits and hints of understanding for Russians, then you can find the same for Republicans.
I think that if Americans fail to find empathy for the other side (that does not mean you have to agree with them), life will be pretty shitty for them. And not only for them - I live in a small insignificant country dangerously close to Russia - American politics might have a bigger impact on our fate than our own. If Americans elect Trump again, we might be all fucked. I guess this is why I keep rambling about this topic.
I believe they're referring to specific, concrete facts that are demonstrably wrong but many Trump supporters still believe. That the earth is flat. The Covid was either a hoax or a bioweapo. The...
I think we all know how the Trump-aligned folks have their sense of truth warped.
Do we?
I believe they're referring to specific, concrete facts that are demonstrably wrong but many Trump supporters still believe. That the earth is flat. The Covid was either a hoax or a bioweapo. The Covid vaccine had microchips in it or is killing people or making them sterile. Climate change is a hoax or maybe somehow good for the planet. I think that's the sort of thing they were looking for on the other side. Not just a lack of respect for people who disagree with them, but actual delusions. Situations where they hold a specific belief that is demonstrably false despite readily available evidence.
And pretending to be centrists?
They aren't just assuming that people do that because they can't fathom someone truly being a centrist or something. There are discord channels where right wing extremists discuss joining forums and pretending to be centrists in order to sway opinion to their side. There were a lot of very well documented posts about it with screens screenshots on reddit. Apologies for all not linking, I don't use that site anymore and it would take me a while to find since I don't recall exactly what subreddits they popped up in. They're definitely not accusing Sam Harris specifically of not being genuine in his political views.
I can empathize with my flat earther, Trump supporter aunt. She's scared, she's lonely, she's believed in a religion her whole life that she interprets as teaching that gay and trans people are existential threats to her community a la Sodom and Gomorrah. I understand her feelings, but she is delusional. Her beliefs do not comport with reality, and it can be easily proven. I can't think of a common belief among liberals or leftists that is so blatantly, provably false. I can think of lots of things that they believe that have not been proven to be true (the Covid vaccine will not have any significant negative longterm affects), or even things that may seem very likely to be false (Communism can work under the right circumstances with the right framework) and certainly opinions that seem much stronger than seems supported by evidence (all Trump supporters are cruel and racist), but those things aren't actually delusions. They're opinions and conjectures that can't be proven false. The people holding them might not be completely intellectually rigorous, but they're not holding an outright false belief in the face of evidence.
If you have counter examples, I'm extremely curious to learn about them.
As for labels, I agree that they're overrused but j disagree that they aren't useful at all. And I think you'd be surprised at how many people on the left do understand people on the right. They may not always bring that compassion and understanding to every discussion, but it's there. I understand the fears about immigrants. I understand anti-abortion arguments. I understand the fears of people who's jobs would likely need to change drastically if we significantly reduced our use of fossil fuels. I also understand racism and sexism and the way Christianity has been used as a propaganda tool. I don't see how any of that changes anything. They're still trying to do things that hurt me and the people I love.
If someone is attacking me because they think I have money and they want to steal it, it doesn't matter if I understand that they're wrong about the money. If I understand that they're hungry and just want to sleep in a clean warm bed. If I understand that they were abused and that someone they trusted told them that I'm a demon and I can't actually be harmed. All of those things are interesting, and I could use them in some circumstances, but when they're actively trying to do me harm, all I can do is fight back to defend myself, and none of that understanding changes that.
Many? How many? I do not deny people like that exist... but are they all there is to Trumpism? Are they even the majority? Or just an attention-grabbing minority? I believe it is actually hard to...
but many Trump supporters still believe. That the earth is flat. The Covid was either a hoax or a bioweapo. The Covid vaccine had microchips in it or is killing people or making them sterile. Climate change is a hoax or maybe somehow good for the planet.
Many? How many? I do not deny people like that exist... but are they all there is to Trumpism? Are they even the majority? Or just an attention-grabbing minority? I believe it is actually hard to estimate because of media bias, selective perception and all kinds of cognitive distortions. I have certainly listened to Trump voters who seemed rational (talking about the economy, critiquing Hillary Clinton, corruption of the establishment etc.) and did not believe any of the things you mention (funny thing - the only one flat-earther I personally know IRL is, believe it or not, a liberal).
And don't forget - just as you (not you personally, your "side") tend to identify Republicans with their most extreme and attention-grabbing representatives, they also tend to identify you with the most extreme 60-genders non-binary anti-capitalist pro-Hamas version of you - and those people also really exist.
If you have counter examples, I'm extremely curious to learn about them.
Uh, to be completely honest, I was trying to avoid doing that here. It would mean touching sensitive points and getting dangerously close to offending sacred cows, and I don't want to do that. It could also get me some of those labels, although where I live, my views are very common and would be probably labeled as "centrist". Things that are related to cultural wars.
It would be hard to explain without digging into details about my views, but if you want an example... I am all for men-women equality in the classical sense (equal pay for equal work, equal rights etc.) but some stuff related to what gets labeled as "feminism" nowadays seems completely delusional to me (for example, the belief that we actually live in "patriarchy"). Other things I would label as pretty close to delusional are mixed into debates about gender, anything that mentions terms like "woke" or "cultural appropriation" or "late stage capitalism" (participating in this discussion was a surreal experience for me - it was as if I was talking with people who use the language that sounds like English, but words actually mean different things - that felt delusional).
And I want to emphasize - those are complex issues, but it is about the distance between what is considered normal inside your group and outside. Many things that go completely unnoticed here on Tildes would feel so extreme in my country that they would be labeled as "radical-something" or "ultra-something".
BTW, I remember how I subscribed to NYT many years ago and when I was reading those discussions, I was surprised, because compared to discussions in our media, they were so polite. I thought "wow, those Americans are so cultured and mature". Then I realized those were not actual discussions - they were just one side of the argument, talking about imagined evil-ized image of the other side, that was not actually participating in the discussion) - and to be fair, their discussions are just as one-sided. Or Tildes itself - do you see Trump voters battling it out with Biden voters here? Maybe I just missed it. Or maybe I should start using Discord because I am not aware of many places where both sides of the American debate actually talk to each other.
And a big part of what I see as delusional on your side is your perception of the other side. I can't count how many times I have seen someone mentioning something that sounded totally normal and uncontroversial and open to discussion to me (maybe we should limit immigration and maybe there are only 2 genders) only to be labeled as a bigot, racist, homophobe, thansphobe, conspiracy theorist and good know what other label - I am convinced that this is actually why many people vote for Trump; because they feel like you belittle them and humiliate them.
I think you'd be surprised at how many people do understand each other, especially people on the left understanding the right.
That's great to hear. And I think this can be explained by the distance - I am reading a lot about America, but I am not there. Those things that get over the ocean are more likely to be more extreme, emotional, attention-grabbing. But on the other hand - when you compare the current US to the 2000 version, do you feel the level of understanding is the same?
Her beliefs do not comport with reality, and it can be easily proven.
Not that easily, apparently. I mean... not to her. And this is the core idea I am trying to get across with all of this - that when you are inside, when you have some emotional reasons to believe something, it cannot be easily shown to you why it appears as a delusion from the outside. And I think it applies to Flat-earth just as to "patriarchy".
If someone is attacking me because they think I have money and they want to steal it, it doesn't matter if I understand that they're wrong about the money.
I get that. I feel a bit weird in this discussion, because it is almost as if I was trying to defend Republicans... but when I discuss with a Republican, I try to defend you. Opinion-wise, I would probably vote for Democrats if I were an American. But when you express that they are attacking you... that's exactly what they think about you! Each side is defensive. One of you has to be the bigger man and try to understand despite of feeling attacked... or you will both lose (and possibly descend into an actual civil war).
I think the primary disagreement between us is that we are using different definitions of "delusional". I am using it to mean "belief in facts that are provably untrue to a reasonable standard",...
I think the primary disagreement between us is that we are using different definitions of "delusional". I am using it to mean "belief in facts that are provably untrue to a reasonable standard", while you are using it to mean "holding outlandish or controversial opinions but treating them as uncontroversial".
Uh, to be completely honest, I was trying to avoid doing that here.
I'm sorry to hear that. It was the main thing I was curious about. I'm not going to try to change your mind about the things you have mentioned, but I will say that what you've brought up has only strengthened my belief that the left - even the center left with whom I tend to disagree - might not always maintain intellectual and empathetic rigor but they do not display delusion as I have defined it above, while the right wing absolutely does.
Not that easily, apparently. I mean... not to her.
Because she does not believe in science. She believes that demons in the government are changing the words in already printed Bibles to make Christians more vulnerable to possession. Lab tests mean nothing because magic is real, in her mind.
(Edit to clarify: I am not using my aunt as an example of someone typical of the right. I am using her as an example of someone whose beliefs I understand very well, and have found that understanding to be completely unhelpful in practice. I am aware that she is a very extreme example.)
If a test that followed the scientific method was able to prove that actually we only have 4% patriarchy particles when a minimum to be considered a patriarchy is 26%, and I still believed that we lived in a patriarchy, that would be delusional. Currently, there's no test for that. There's a combination of evidence and opinion. I believe that we do live in one, and while I would consider the belief that we do not incorrect, I do not consider it delusional.
Ehm, I am pretty sure that many Trump supporters would also be able to pull out some links to articles/stats proving in their eyes how Democrats are nuts (although that thing about economy and...
a lot
Ehm, I am pretty sure that many Trump supporters would also be able to pull out some links to articles/stats proving in their eyes how Democrats are nuts (although that thing about economy and climate change - isn't that exactly one of those matters that you consider "evident" (they are nuts if they prioritize economy - that's why you included that link, right?) although it is actually more complicated?).
But I am starting to feel really weird about all this. I believe it's good to doubt and Socratically question... but actually, I believe you. Between me and you, I do believe those links you provided are more or less correct and there are a lot of pro-Trump nuts. It just seems that saying that on Tildes would be preaching to the choir. I will save those links for a discussion with Trumpists. Also, I believe there is this weird dynamics where the two sides are pushing each other to more and more extreme position, so I would expect the number of nuts to be growing (if things continue the way they are) - but that would be another super-long comment.
If a test that followed the scientific method was able to prove that actually we only have 4% patriarchy particles when a minimum to be considered a patriarchy is 26%, and I still believed that we lived in a patriarchy, that would be delusional. Currently, there's no test for that. There's a combination of evidence and opinion. I believe that we do live in one, and while I would consider the belief that we do not incorrect, I do not consider it delusional.
Let me correct myself a bit - I realized I did not say it well. I do not consider belief in "patriarchy" delusional as long as it is reflected (the way you do it) as a belief or opinion. I consider it delusional when someone lists a list of things where things appear to be skewed to disadvantage women and believes this proves patriarchy as a matter of fact while ignoring that you could just as easily "prove" matriarchy by listing things where things appear to be skewed to disadvantage men (and don't even get to the matter of intent). Generally, I would define "delusion" as treating something as objective reality when it is a subjective content of your mind projected onto reality.
But I am afraid we are getting more and more OT and the dangerous about it is that I would love to discuss all of those topics for days... instead of working. I just realized I spent hours writing this! It was supposed to be a quick response while I drink my morning coffee.
I'm just now seeing your edit. For the sake of argument, assume that I do perfectly understand them. What should I I do with that information in order to make the situation better?
I'm just now seeing your edit.
One of you has to be the bigger man and try to understand despite of feeling attacked...
For the sake of argument, assume that I do perfectly understand them. What should I
I do with that information in order to make the situation better?
Maybe you could start building bridges with those parts of the other side that could be open to it? Talk to them and try to find at least some minimal common ground? Easy for me to say, right? I...
For the sake of argument, assume that I do perfectly understand them. What should I
I do with that information in order to make the situation better?
Maybe you could start building bridges with those parts of the other side that could be open to it? Talk to them and try to find at least some minimal common ground?
Easy for me to say, right? I am trying to imagine how you feel. Talking to Trumpists must be for you what talking to pro-Russian compatriots is for me. I am old enough to remember our country still occupied by Russians, and talking to those people is driving me crazy. It literally hurts in my stomach. There are people in this world whom you can punch in the face and tell them America did it, and they will believe you. And they will help you punch them once more... and all of their friends too. It is hard not to shout in their faces that they are all morons. Often, the best I can muster is to be pragmatic and treat them respectfully only because I know that if I don't, I will push them even closer to Russia.
There is also something I cannot explain well; it's just a feeling... have you seen Everything Everywhere All at Once? There is something that makes me uneasy about Raymond, but maybe giving the other side the benefit of the doubt, even when they are hitting you with a baton, has value in itself? Like the prisoner's dilemma, except not being the one who ruined the possibility of cooperation is more important to you than avoiding prison.
But again, for the sake of argument, what if I know them to be wrong? What do you mean by "build a bridge"? Compromise, even if they're wrong and that will hurt us both? I'm not even talking about...
But again, for the sake of argument, what if I know them to be wrong? What do you mean by "build a bridge"? Compromise, even if they're wrong and that will hurt us both? I'm not even talking about emotional or intellectual discomfort, I'm talking about practicality.
When you think they are wrong, treat them the way you want to be treated when you are wrong... because you are. There is only one thing that is 100% sure - we are all wrong in something.
what if I know them to be wrong
When you think they are wrong, treat them the way you want to be treated when you are wrong... because you are. There is only one thing that is 100% sure - we are all wrong in something.
No, that was not my question. Please do not reword my questions. Obviously you can decline to answer or request clarifications, but I am honestly not particularly interested in the answers to...
No, that was not my question. Please do not reword my questions. Obviously you can decline to answer or request clarifications, but I am honestly not particularly interested in the answers to questions that I did not ask and I don't believe they will bring me any closer to you understanding me, me understanding you, or either or us broadening our understanding of discourse generally. What I'm trying to determine is the use in understanding another person's incorrect position when they will not budge on it. I am not saying "I do know them to be wrong, please give me advice." which you could reasonably respond to with "consider that you are not wrong", I am asking you, if they are certainly wrong, is there any practical purpose in understanding them? Is there anything that can be done with that information, and if so, what?
If the answer is to treat them like I would be treated when I'm wrong, well, when I'm wrong, I like to be kindly corrected. Preferably with reliable sources, or at least the direction that I can look for those sources. Is that what you are suggesting the use of understanding someone else's incorrect positions to be? That we can more effectively correct them? How would one do this when the issue at hand is an instance of magical thinking - for example, that we should not act on global warming because we are living in the end times and our planet won't matter soon anyway?
What if it is something where the facts can be easily shown to them, like the curvature of the earth, and this evidence fails to change their mind?
At that point, does there continue to be a use to understanding someone else's incorrect position? I am not asking if I should ever assume whether someone is incorrect, or if I am capable of being incorrect -I certainly am. I am asking what the practical purpose is of understanding someone's incorrect position and how you believe it is best to effectively utilize that understanding.
I think we are starting to turn in circles. I am trying to come up with an answer but only things I already said pop up. And if that did not work until now, it will not work. This is what this...
I think we are starting to turn in circles. I am trying to come up with an answer but only things I already said pop up. And if that did not work until now, it will not work.
I like to be kindly corrected. Preferably with reliable sources, or at least the direction that I can look for those sources.
This is what this whole discussion is about. The main thesis is this: rationality is subservient to our emotional needs and belonging to a community is a big part of that. When someone's need for belonging is only satisfied in a community of the Flat-Earthers, no amount of showing them the curvature of the Earth will change their mind. Bombard them with evidence and show them how stupid they are, and they will feel like shit even more and they will need to escape to the community where they feel good even more.
Keep telling people that they are racists, bigots, morons, sexists, deplorables, conspiracy theorists and god knows what... and where do you think they will feel like they belong? With you... or the guy telling them they are good people and you are a bunch of elitist assholes?
It's ironic, how desperately I am trying to understand you and how impossible it seems to be for us reach that understanding. I don't think you've actually answered this "What should I do if I...
It's ironic, how desperately I am trying to understand you and how impossible it seems to be for us reach that understanding.
I don't think you've actually answered this "What should I do if I understand someone completely and also they are wrong?" question at all, but please feel free to quote yourself if you have. It's been a long conversation, it's possible that I missed it.
The closest that I recall to an answer was that I should treat them the way that I want to be treated when I'm wrong, but you also might be saying that I should never correct them, even kindly? You seem to be assuming that that's impossible? Because you then used words like "bombard" and "telling them they're deplorables" which I would not consider kind. Please forgive me if I'm not summarizing you correctly, it's not in an attempt to twist your words, I'm just hoping that stating my understanding of your points will be more effective than asking you questions in helping us reach an understanding.
It seems to me that the only purpose of understanding the opposition, as far as your suggestions go, are to 1) encourage kindness and 2) find the incorrectness with our own ideas. It doesn't seem like it can actually help to find solutions or sway anyone, because if either of us is wrong about something, the other is not able to act on that information in any way. I'm sure I must not be understanding you, I welcome correction.
I'd like to restate here at the bottom, the primary question that I feel is in the way of my understanding:
If I understand someone's position with absolute clarity, and they are definitely wrong, what should I do and how does having that understanding of them help me to do that?
I suggest you read the book I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, The Enigma of Reason by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber. Also maybe some cognitive psychology textbook. I think this thread...
I suggest you read the book I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, The Enigma of Reason by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber. Also maybe some cognitive psychology textbook. I think this thread rests on some basic assumptions about how reasoning and cognition work, and it does not make sense if you do not share those assumptions.
I don't have any strong issues with that quote in particular, but for anyone who finds it to be profound and thinks the person who said it might have some valuable insight that they'd like to...
I don't have any strong issues with that quote in particular, but for anyone who finds it to be profound and thinks the person who said it might have some valuable insight that they'd like to follow up on. . . he really, really doesn't.. He's an extremely gross individual with very, very bad ideas who apparently said a sort of vague not wrong thing one time.
Thanks for pointing this out. I mostly interact with the quote outside of larger context, so I generally don't research the sources of random quotes. Not only would doing so be exhausting, trying...
Thanks for pointing this out.
I mostly interact with the quote outside of larger context, so I generally don't research the sources of random quotes. Not only would doing so be exhausting, trying to figure out where to draw the line would be difficult. I agree that this guy seems genuinely gross, but the idea is useful.
Couple of thoughts I have:
make the source unattributed
leave the attribution but annotate it with your caveat "He's an extremely gross individual with very, very bad ideas who apparently said a sort of vague not wrong thing one time"
delete it and just accept losing a useful idea from toxic source
I'm inclined to do the first one, but I am interested in what you (or anyone) thinks is the best route route forward?
If you're talking about this instance, #2. If you're talking about the future, just use another quote from someone less disgusting. I found a million alternative quotes searching "we are who we...
If you're talking about this instance, #2. If you're talking about the future, just use another quote from someone less disgusting. I found a million alternative quotes searching "we are who we surround ourselves with quote". In fact, that whole thing was suggested once I typed "surround."
For anyone following the outcome of this thread, I amended the quote in my database with the following disclaimer: Note: this person is a proponent of many of toxic, harmful ideas. That this quote...
For anyone following the outcome of this thread, I amended the quote in my database with the following disclaimer:
Note: this person is a proponent of many of toxic, harmful ideas. That this quote is speaks a truth does not mean that his other ideas should be considered similarly valuable.
Since the title is a little dramatic/click baity: getting off of social media and seeing that conspiracy predictions weren't coming true were the keys getting out. Surprise surprise.
Here is the turning point from the article:
There's a lot of backstory that seems like padding, but another useful insight I got was that feeling cut off and seeking connection, then finding it in the Qanon forums, was what got her into the conspiracy theories in the first place.
One of the traps of this kind of thinking is that if nothing I can tell that person can change their mind, then there's not much meaningful interaction to be had trying to dissuade them. So maybe these insights about why people go this way can help us find ways to engage with them in a meaningful way, or at least have more empathy.
Wish I'd seen your summary before I read through the whole lengthy article! Didn't learn anything new, especially after all my time browsing r/QAnonCasualties and listening to the QAA podcast.
This article uses simple grammar throughout, and includes a "here's what a conspiracy theory is" sidebar. You aren't the intended audience. This was written for the casualties, and I hope many of them will read it and realize what's happened to them.
Thanks! Tildes is a place where I have started reading the comments first because the quality of information is generally high enough that I can get a sense of whether a long article or video is worth my time.
It's my belief that a lot of what we're dealing with is the sense of community these people get from misinformation/conspiracy communities, and that this sense of community and belonging is to them, far more valuable than truth.
While I agree with you that a feeling of belonging is the key driver, I don't think it's so much that community is more important than the truth. I think a toxic community warps one's sense of what truth is.
Couple of examples:
decades of experience as a public health official, he showed up at a family gathering during the height of the pandemic offering ivermectin for Covid prophylaxis even after it had been studied and demonstrated to be ineffective. Thankfully he was offering safe doses at least.
As I am wont to do, I will end with a quotation, which is not proof, but I find a pithy expression of an idea can be a useful mental shorthand for identifying similar information and making connections between ideas.
This is definitely worth thinking about, and could be a chicken/egg type of situation, but many times these people are faced with an undeniable truth, and the decision that follows: accept the truth and leave the community, or deny what's painfully obvious to maintain their place within their community; is often the rubric that seems to suggest they value the sense of belonging more than some altruistic truth.
I can see that. Change is hard in the best of times. If that change that takes someone away from power, money, love, or things that are familiar and safe, they might choose the lie.
I think what really opened my eyes to something like this was the documentary about flat earthers on Netflix, Behind the Curve. You could see that some of them might not fully believe it but they have a community.
I agree with you 100%, and I want to emphasize your point because I think the distinction is super-important. Believing it's about people for whom the "community is more important than the truth" creates a sense that it is about a certain type of people. I think this is false. I believe there is no such thing as rationality not affected by our need for community - we all are affected by this.
Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber argue in their book The Enigma of Reason that reasoning evolved not as a truth-detection tool but as a cooperation tool - we reason to convince others to cooperate with us, to justify our actions in front of them etc. Reasoning cannot be separated from social aspects of our lives.
Your notion that a toxic community warps one's sense of truth applies not only to toxic workplaces or marginal groups like the one in the article. It applies to large social groups and even whole societies, sometimes to an extreme degree (Nazi Germany... or if you are interested in more current warping on a societal level, I recommend the 1420 YouTube channel).
BTW, as a non-American, I view a lot of the stuff related to the current level of polarization in the US from this perspective - two distinct large communities, each with the sense of truth warped in their own way. The problem is that it is hard to perceive that warping from the inside of your tribe. My own sense of truth is certainly also warped in some way.
How do you see the "other side" having truth warped? I'm not saying that has not happened; it's just that in my experience, the people who say things like that have, at beat, a warped sense of priority/importance (e.g., "the Democrats don't follow through on their promises to help the working man so both sides are the same").
I am not sure I understand your question. Are you asking about my opinion on the warping in the Republicans vs Democrats case? Or how to spot the warping? Or how I think the mind does the warping?
That thing you mention - that "the Democrats don't follow through..." - I wish I could convey what it's like to observe American politics from the outside (and from a distance - I have not been to the US since 2002). It's much deeper than whether any party follows on their promises.
It is like each side has its own set of things they consider facts (Fox vs NYT vs our local reporting about the US are sometimes like there were three separate instances of the USA), their own mental model of what the other side is like, and their interpretation of why they are like that - pretty often because they are bad people; one side sees the other as racists, bigots, backward and dumb people, the other as Marxists, mentally unstable demagogues, neo-racists. Each side can easily find examples that "prove" their image of the other side is correct. Each side has a massive and profoundly emotional blind spot to good arguments and good people from the other side. Sometimes it seems truly bizarre to me - both US sides (although one a bit more than the other).
It's kind of like that 1420 channel I recommended - it feels bizarre listening about alleged Ukrainian "Nazis" and poor innocent Russia defending the motherland from NATO attack... but at the same time, you understand that if you were living in the same information bubble they are living in, you would probably think what they think.
Please do not take this the wrong way. I am not trying to disparage Americans - I believe that when conditions are right, something like that can happen anywhere. And my reality is warped too - no doubt about it. It's just that this topic fascinates me and something very interesting is happening in the US.
BTW, any other non-Americans here? I would be interested to know how you see it.
Non-North American here (I'm Brazilian).
I see the USA politics as just two right wing parties. One just hates black, poor and other minorities less.
To be clear I'm not talking about the citizens, just the politicians and their "fanbases".
I was basically asking what you meant by this. I think we all know how the Trump-aligned folks have their sense of truth warped. I'd just like to know how you think everybody else has their sense warped because generally the only people who think it's necessary to say things like that are, for example, alt-right folks who are pretending to be centrists.
Well... I think your comment itself is a representation of what I see as "warping" - it is based on a set of assumptions that you seem to consider evident but I do not.
Do we? All of them? Can you see no "good" reasons why vote for Trump? You don't have to give me reasons why not to vote for Trump - I think he is a narcissistic sociopath and a grave danger to American democracy. It's just that I can see a bunch of reasons why some people might want to vote for him - reasons I do not necessarily agree with, but reasons I understand. And I don't want to get too much into it, because it would be a book and not a comment, but I think the Democrats partially caused Trump (Hillary Clinton? I still remember this ancient rant because I related to it).
I think one of the most common methods of how the mind warps the truth is using negatively emotionally charged labels instead of engaging with the merit of an argument. If it were up to me, labels would be forbidden in discussions and we would all have to argue why the specific thing is wrong. It would be tedious, but labels (racist, bigot, alt-right, marxist, dumb, whatever) are a way too easy and tempting way to avoid thinking about something - the brain just jumps to a prefabricated reason why I do not have to question my mental model of reality and I don't even notice.
And pretending to be centrists? That's another commonly used method our minds trick us - people assume the intention of their opponents based on their model of reality, not the other person's model of reality. What if they truly believe they are centrists? Even if they were wrong, that would not imply pretending.
This is the saddest thing you see when observing America from the outside - not only each side does not understand the other, but because they interpret the other side using their own mental framework (= without empathy), the inevitable result is that the other side appears malicious - they do not do what they do because they believe it is good for America - they have hidden agendas, they are pretending something etc. (obviously Republicans have their own version of this effect that distorts their view about you - because your view doesn't make sense from within their framework, they also assume you are pretending. )
Maybe we could try something - one person commonly labeled as alt-right is Sam Harris. I do not agree with everything he says, but consider him extremely smart, I listened to a bunch of his podcasts and I think I know his opinions somewhat well (generally speaking - not all of them, I don't have that much time). Give me one specific thing where you think he is pretending something or where you think he is wrong and let's discuss that thing specifically... and without labels. I think it might reveal some of that warping. Potentially on my side too - who knows, maybe my mind is just warped the same way Sam Harris's is.
The problem with discussions like this is that it is hard to convey how it appears from the outside to those who are inside. The warping is invisible from the inside. Yes, I have seen people associated with Republicans who appear delusional to me. When you mention those "folks", I understand who you are talking about and why you might think they represent Republicans. But I have also seen people associated with Democrats who appear delusional to me. And Republicans think they represent you. And I can kind of understand why when I consider the biased media, social bubbles, selective attention, and all those cognitive tricks the human mind is capable of. You could take this description, write an inverted version of it ("marxist"->"alt-right" etc.), and it would make just as much sense to them as this makes to you.
That is why I keep recommending that Russian channel. You are outside of their reality, so you can see the warping. But you can also try to imagine yourself in their shoes. How hard it must be to admit to yourself that your beloved country, who you believed to be heroically fighting Nazis, is actually a lot closer to Nazis than those you are at war with? That channel is like a truth-warping lab.
I grew up in a country occupied by Russians. It is extremely hard for me to find empathy for them. But if I can find at least a little bits and hints of understanding for Russians, then you can find the same for Republicans.
I think that if Americans fail to find empathy for the other side (that does not mean you have to agree with them), life will be pretty shitty for them. And not only for them - I live in a small insignificant country dangerously close to Russia - American politics might have a bigger impact on our fate than our own. If Americans elect Trump again, we might be all fucked. I guess this is why I keep rambling about this topic.
I believe they're referring to specific, concrete facts that are demonstrably wrong but many Trump supporters still believe. That the earth is flat. The Covid was either a hoax or a bioweapo. The Covid vaccine had microchips in it or is killing people or making them sterile. Climate change is a hoax or maybe somehow good for the planet. I think that's the sort of thing they were looking for on the other side. Not just a lack of respect for people who disagree with them, but actual delusions. Situations where they hold a specific belief that is demonstrably false despite readily available evidence.
They aren't just assuming that people do that because they can't fathom someone truly being a centrist or something. There are discord channels where right wing extremists discuss joining forums and pretending to be centrists in order to sway opinion to their side. There were a lot of very well documented posts about it with screens screenshots on reddit. Apologies for all not linking, I don't use that site anymore and it would take me a while to find since I don't recall exactly what subreddits they popped up in. They're definitely not accusing Sam Harris specifically of not being genuine in his political views.
I can empathize with my flat earther, Trump supporter aunt. She's scared, she's lonely, she's believed in a religion her whole life that she interprets as teaching that gay and trans people are existential threats to her community a la Sodom and Gomorrah. I understand her feelings, but she is delusional. Her beliefs do not comport with reality, and it can be easily proven. I can't think of a common belief among liberals or leftists that is so blatantly, provably false. I can think of lots of things that they believe that have not been proven to be true (the Covid vaccine will not have any significant negative longterm affects), or even things that may seem very likely to be false (Communism can work under the right circumstances with the right framework) and certainly opinions that seem much stronger than seems supported by evidence (all Trump supporters are cruel and racist), but those things aren't actually delusions. They're opinions and conjectures that can't be proven false. The people holding them might not be completely intellectually rigorous, but they're not holding an outright false belief in the face of evidence.
If you have counter examples, I'm extremely curious to learn about them.
As for labels, I agree that they're overrused but j disagree that they aren't useful at all. And I think you'd be surprised at how many people on the left do understand people on the right. They may not always bring that compassion and understanding to every discussion, but it's there. I understand the fears about immigrants. I understand anti-abortion arguments. I understand the fears of people who's jobs would likely need to change drastically if we significantly reduced our use of fossil fuels. I also understand racism and sexism and the way Christianity has been used as a propaganda tool. I don't see how any of that changes anything. They're still trying to do things that hurt me and the people I love.
If someone is attacking me because they think I have money and they want to steal it, it doesn't matter if I understand that they're wrong about the money. If I understand that they're hungry and just want to sleep in a clean warm bed. If I understand that they were abused and that someone they trusted told them that I'm a demon and I can't actually be harmed. All of those things are interesting, and I could use them in some circumstances, but when they're actively trying to do me harm, all I can do is fight back to defend myself, and none of that understanding changes that.
Many? How many? I do not deny people like that exist... but are they all there is to Trumpism? Are they even the majority? Or just an attention-grabbing minority? I believe it is actually hard to estimate because of media bias, selective perception and all kinds of cognitive distortions. I have certainly listened to Trump voters who seemed rational (talking about the economy, critiquing Hillary Clinton, corruption of the establishment etc.) and did not believe any of the things you mention (funny thing - the only one flat-earther I personally know IRL is, believe it or not, a liberal).
And don't forget - just as you (not you personally, your "side") tend to identify Republicans with their most extreme and attention-grabbing representatives, they also tend to identify you with the most extreme 60-genders non-binary anti-capitalist pro-Hamas version of you - and those people also really exist.
Uh, to be completely honest, I was trying to avoid doing that here. It would mean touching sensitive points and getting dangerously close to offending sacred cows, and I don't want to do that. It could also get me some of those labels, although where I live, my views are very common and would be probably labeled as "centrist". Things that are related to cultural wars.
It would be hard to explain without digging into details about my views, but if you want an example... I am all for men-women equality in the classical sense (equal pay for equal work, equal rights etc.) but some stuff related to what gets labeled as "feminism" nowadays seems completely delusional to me (for example, the belief that we actually live in "patriarchy"). Other things I would label as pretty close to delusional are mixed into debates about gender, anything that mentions terms like "woke" or "cultural appropriation" or "late stage capitalism" (participating in this discussion was a surreal experience for me - it was as if I was talking with people who use the language that sounds like English, but words actually mean different things - that felt delusional).
And I want to emphasize - those are complex issues, but it is about the distance between what is considered normal inside your group and outside. Many things that go completely unnoticed here on Tildes would feel so extreme in my country that they would be labeled as "radical-something" or "ultra-something".
BTW, I remember how I subscribed to NYT many years ago and when I was reading those discussions, I was surprised, because compared to discussions in our media, they were so polite. I thought "wow, those Americans are so cultured and mature". Then I realized those were not actual discussions - they were just one side of the argument, talking about imagined evil-ized image of the other side, that was not actually participating in the discussion) - and to be fair, their discussions are just as one-sided. Or Tildes itself - do you see Trump voters battling it out with Biden voters here? Maybe I just missed it. Or maybe I should start using Discord because I am not aware of many places where both sides of the American debate actually talk to each other.
And a big part of what I see as delusional on your side is your perception of the other side. I can't count how many times I have seen someone mentioning something that sounded totally normal and uncontroversial and open to discussion to me (maybe we should limit immigration and maybe there are only 2 genders) only to be labeled as a bigot, racist, homophobe, thansphobe, conspiracy theorist and good know what other label - I am convinced that this is actually why many people vote for Trump; because they feel like you belittle them and humiliate them.
That's great to hear. And I think this can be explained by the distance - I am reading a lot about America, but I am not there. Those things that get over the ocean are more likely to be more extreme, emotional, attention-grabbing. But on the other hand - when you compare the current US to the 2000 version, do you feel the level of understanding is the same?
Not that easily, apparently. I mean... not to her. And this is the core idea I am trying to get across with all of this - that when you are inside, when you have some emotional reasons to believe something, it cannot be easily shown to you why it appears as a delusion from the outside. And I think it applies to Flat-earth just as to "patriarchy".
I get that. I feel a bit weird in this discussion, because it is almost as if I was trying to defend Republicans... but when I discuss with a Republican, I try to defend you. Opinion-wise, I would probably vote for Democrats if I were an American. But when you express that they are attacking you... that's exactly what they think about you! Each side is defensive. One of you has to be the bigger man and try to understand despite of feeling attacked... or you will both lose (and possibly descend into an actual civil war).
I think the primary disagreement between us is that we are using different definitions of "delusional". I am using it to mean "belief in facts that are provably untrue to a reasonable standard", while you are using it to mean "holding outlandish or controversial opinions but treating them as uncontroversial".
A lot.
A very significant amount.
Not always the majority, but a large plurality..
I'm sorry to hear that. It was the main thing I was curious about. I'm not going to try to change your mind about the things you have mentioned, but I will say that what you've brought up has only strengthened my belief that the left - even the center left with whom I tend to disagree - might not always maintain intellectual and empathetic rigor but they do not display delusion as I have defined it above, while the right wing absolutely does.
Because she does not believe in science. She believes that demons in the government are changing the words in already printed Bibles to make Christians more vulnerable to possession. Lab tests mean nothing because magic is real, in her mind.
(Edit to clarify: I am not using my aunt as an example of someone typical of the right. I am using her as an example of someone whose beliefs I understand very well, and have found that understanding to be completely unhelpful in practice. I am aware that she is a very extreme example.)
If a test that followed the scientific method was able to prove that actually we only have 4% patriarchy particles when a minimum to be considered a patriarchy is 26%, and I still believed that we lived in a patriarchy, that would be delusional. Currently, there's no test for that. There's a combination of evidence and opinion. I believe that we do live in one, and while I would consider the belief that we do not incorrect, I do not consider it delusional.
Ehm, I am pretty sure that many Trump supporters would also be able to pull out some links to articles/stats proving in their eyes how Democrats are nuts (although that thing about economy and climate change - isn't that exactly one of those matters that you consider "evident" (they are nuts if they prioritize economy - that's why you included that link, right?) although it is actually more complicated?).
But I am starting to feel really weird about all this. I believe it's good to doubt and Socratically question... but actually, I believe you. Between me and you, I do believe those links you provided are more or less correct and there are a lot of pro-Trump nuts. It just seems that saying that on Tildes would be preaching to the choir. I will save those links for a discussion with Trumpists. Also, I believe there is this weird dynamics where the two sides are pushing each other to more and more extreme position, so I would expect the number of nuts to be growing (if things continue the way they are) - but that would be another super-long comment.
Let me correct myself a bit - I realized I did not say it well. I do not consider belief in "patriarchy" delusional as long as it is reflected (the way you do it) as a belief or opinion. I consider it delusional when someone lists a list of things where things appear to be skewed to disadvantage women and believes this proves patriarchy as a matter of fact while ignoring that you could just as easily "prove" matriarchy by listing things where things appear to be skewed to disadvantage men (and don't even get to the matter of intent). Generally, I would define "delusion" as treating something as objective reality when it is a subjective content of your mind projected onto reality.
But I am afraid we are getting more and more OT and the dangerous about it is that I would love to discuss all of those topics for days... instead of working. I just realized I spent hours writing this! It was supposed to be a quick response while I drink my morning coffee.
Anyway, thanks, it was interesting.
I'm just now seeing your edit.
For the sake of argument, assume that I do perfectly understand them. What should I
I do with that information in order to make the situation better?
Maybe you could start building bridges with those parts of the other side that could be open to it? Talk to them and try to find at least some minimal common ground?
Easy for me to say, right? I am trying to imagine how you feel. Talking to Trumpists must be for you what talking to pro-Russian compatriots is for me. I am old enough to remember our country still occupied by Russians, and talking to those people is driving me crazy. It literally hurts in my stomach. There are people in this world whom you can punch in the face and tell them America did it, and they will believe you. And they will help you punch them once more... and all of their friends too. It is hard not to shout in their faces that they are all morons. Often, the best I can muster is to be pragmatic and treat them respectfully only because I know that if I don't, I will push them even closer to Russia.
There is also something I cannot explain well; it's just a feeling... have you seen Everything Everywhere All at Once? There is something that makes me uneasy about Raymond, but maybe giving the other side the benefit of the doubt, even when they are hitting you with a baton, has value in itself? Like the prisoner's dilemma, except not being the one who ruined the possibility of cooperation is more important to you than avoiding prison.
Or maybe this is just my delusion.
But again, for the sake of argument, what if I know them to be wrong? What do you mean by "build a bridge"? Compromise, even if they're wrong and that will hurt us both? I'm not even talking about emotional or intellectual discomfort, I'm talking about practicality.
When you think they are wrong, treat them the way you want to be treated when you are wrong... because you are. There is only one thing that is 100% sure - we are all wrong in something.
No, that was not my question. Please do not reword my questions. Obviously you can decline to answer or request clarifications, but I am honestly not particularly interested in the answers to questions that I did not ask and I don't believe they will bring me any closer to you understanding me, me understanding you, or either or us broadening our understanding of discourse generally. What I'm trying to determine is the use in understanding another person's incorrect position when they will not budge on it. I am not saying "I do know them to be wrong, please give me advice." which you could reasonably respond to with "consider that you are not wrong", I am asking you, if they are certainly wrong, is there any practical purpose in understanding them? Is there anything that can be done with that information, and if so, what?
If the answer is to treat them like I would be treated when I'm wrong, well, when I'm wrong, I like to be kindly corrected. Preferably with reliable sources, or at least the direction that I can look for those sources. Is that what you are suggesting the use of understanding someone else's incorrect positions to be? That we can more effectively correct them? How would one do this when the issue at hand is an instance of magical thinking - for example, that we should not act on global warming because we are living in the end times and our planet won't matter soon anyway?
What if it is something where the facts can be easily shown to them, like the curvature of the earth, and this evidence fails to change their mind?
At that point, does there continue to be a use to understanding someone else's incorrect position? I am not asking if I should ever assume whether someone is incorrect, or if I am capable of being incorrect -I certainly am. I am asking what the practical purpose is of understanding someone's incorrect position and how you believe it is best to effectively utilize that understanding.
I think we are starting to turn in circles. I am trying to come up with an answer but only things I already said pop up. And if that did not work until now, it will not work.
This is what this whole discussion is about. The main thesis is this: rationality is subservient to our emotional needs and belonging to a community is a big part of that. When someone's need for belonging is only satisfied in a community of the Flat-Earthers, no amount of showing them the curvature of the Earth will change their mind. Bombard them with evidence and show them how stupid they are, and they will feel like shit even more and they will need to escape to the community where they feel good even more.
Keep telling people that they are racists, bigots, morons, sexists, deplorables, conspiracy theorists and god knows what... and where do you think they will feel like they belong? With you... or the guy telling them they are good people and you are a bunch of elitist assholes?
It's ironic, how desperately I am trying to understand you and how impossible it seems to be for us reach that understanding.
I don't think you've actually answered this "What should I do if I understand someone completely and also they are wrong?" question at all, but please feel free to quote yourself if you have. It's been a long conversation, it's possible that I missed it.
The closest that I recall to an answer was that I should treat them the way that I want to be treated when I'm wrong, but you also might be saying that I should never correct them, even kindly? You seem to be assuming that that's impossible? Because you then used words like "bombard" and "telling them they're deplorables" which I would not consider kind. Please forgive me if I'm not summarizing you correctly, it's not in an attempt to twist your words, I'm just hoping that stating my understanding of your points will be more effective than asking you questions in helping us reach an understanding.
It seems to me that the only purpose of understanding the opposition, as far as your suggestions go, are to 1) encourage kindness and 2) find the incorrectness with our own ideas. It doesn't seem like it can actually help to find solutions or sway anyone, because if either of us is wrong about something, the other is not able to act on that information in any way. I'm sure I must not be understanding you, I welcome correction.
I'd like to restate here at the bottom, the primary question that I feel is in the way of my understanding:
If I understand someone's position with absolute clarity, and they are definitely wrong, what should I do and how does having that understanding of them help me to do that?
I suggest you read the book I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, The Enigma of Reason by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber. Also maybe some cognitive psychology textbook. I think this thread rests on some basic assumptions about how reasoning and cognition work, and it does not make sense if you do not share those assumptions.
I'm not trying to find out the correct way to reason, I'm trying to find out your opinion.
I don't have any strong issues with that quote in particular, but for anyone who finds it to be profound and thinks the person who said it might have some valuable insight that they'd like to follow up on. . . he really, really doesn't.. He's an extremely gross individual with very, very bad ideas who apparently said a sort of vague not wrong thing one time.
Thanks for pointing this out.
I mostly interact with the quote outside of larger context, so I generally don't research the sources of random quotes. Not only would doing so be exhausting, trying to figure out where to draw the line would be difficult. I agree that this guy seems genuinely gross, but the idea is useful.
Couple of thoughts I have:
I'm inclined to do the first one, but I am interested in what you (or anyone) thinks is the best route route forward?
If you're talking about this instance, #2. If you're talking about the future, just use another quote from someone less disgusting. I found a million alternative quotes searching "we are who we surround ourselves with quote". In fact, that whole thing was suggested once I typed "surround."
For anyone following the outcome of this thread, I amended the quote in my database with the following disclaimer:
Note: this person is a proponent of many of toxic, harmful ideas. That this quote is speaks a truth does not mean that his other ideas should be considered similarly valuable.
Thanks to @updawg and @GenuinelyCrooked for your thoughts!
My vote is for number two. A broken clock and all that.