The centrifugal forces of ideology

Someone posted a comment on another blog about the strong reaction some people have against Trump supporters. The commenter related how her own daughter who is an ER doctor called the mother a racist. The daughter also said she can’t believe the mother was supporting Trump who puts her the daughter’s life at risk because of inadequate personal protective equipment. The mother feels that it’s the responsibility of the state governor, not the president. As a result the mother and daughter haven’t talked in months.

Her story reminds me of an encounter I had when Romney was running against Obama. I was at a get together at a friend’s house where the daughter of a friend proclaimed that she wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney because "he wants to kill me." When I asked what she meant by that she explained that she has a condition that was life-threatening if she got pregnant. She wanted the government to provide contraceptives for people like her. Romney was against government-provided contraceptives. Ergo, he wants to kill people like her. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? There is no arguing with that, literally. 

In her mind her need became a right and there is no honest disagreement with her position. If you don't agree with her that means you want to kill her. That probably helps explain why people like this hate Trump (and conservatives) so viscerally and viciously. They're literally threatened by the existence of people who disagree. I'm speculating here but I think the people who hate Trump and conservatives see them as evil, not wrong, so this justifies the whole cancel culture agenda. Actually I'm not speculating or mind reading so much. I've heard people explicitly say Trump and his supporters are evil. And, yes, you can find similar examples of people on the right calling Obama or Biden supporters evil. 

I suppose this reaction typifies what it means to be an ideologue. They see everything as either-or with no shades of grey. If you say you support Trump that means you agree with everything he says or does. Every. Single. Thing. Or if you’re an Obama supporter he never did anything wrong. Never. As I said above there is no arguing with an ideologue. You either agree 100% with an ideologue or you’re no longer human. Unfortunately that mentality justifies a lot of what is playing out in front of our eyes today. Cancel culture. Tearing down statues. Rioting. And so on. The centrifugal forces of fear and hatred fueled by ideology tear us apart.

Tips for Political Debate, part 2 – Fake Nous

Tips for Political Debate, part 2 – Fake Nous

Here is part 2 of Huemer's tips on how to handle political debates. Continuing from the previous five tips Huemer offers the following: be charitable, don't confuse issues, don't be tribal, have modest aims, don't waste time, and don't misinterpret people.

In the first tip about being charitable Huemer recommends not straw-manning or weak-manning. Instead of straw-manning, "assume your opponent holds the most reasonable view that could plausibly explain his words, not the stupidest one." Regarding weak-manning, "when defending a position, don't just address the least reasonable opponents. Address the most plausible, most interesting, and/or most common opposing positions."

Huemer doesn't refer to another concept called steel-manning in which you try to improve your opponent's position to be even stronger than what they're offering then address that stronger position. Naturally this takes more effort and applies his tip of being charitable. Steel-manning might not be feasible to do in the heat of a discussion but we could think about an issue, say the opposing position on abortion or gun control, before getting into a debate then think about how to make their argument the best you can before coming up with your response.

Tips for Political Debate, part 1 – Fake Nous

Tips for Political Debate, part 1 – Fake Nous

I like and agree with Philosopher Michael Huemer’s guidelines on how to discuss politics with someone who doesn’t agree with you. His first tip sets the tone.

1. Guiding principle: Your goal is to make progress toward understanding, if not agreement. 

It is not to “score points”, express emotions, prove your moral or intellectual superiority, humiliate the other party, or otherwise cause harm. (If this isn’t true, then you shouldn’t be engaged in discussion at all; you’re part of society’s problem.) Everything else follows from this.

Huemer follows this with four other tips in this post (which is the first of two on the subject): don’t beg the question, don’t be emotional, don’t take it personal, and don’t be dogmatic. These tips probably sound obvious but they have sub-parts to explain what Huemer means or gives examples to flesh out his point.

I'd summarize his overall method as "Seek to understand and be understood rather than to win." I've never seen someone "win" a political debate. By that I mean I've never seen a debate that ends with one of the people saying, "You're right and I'm wrong. I'm going to jettison my long-held belief based on this discussion." The most you can hope for is to plant a seed of doubt. As Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff say in The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up A Generation For Failure disagreement "is part of the process by which people do each other the favor of counteracting each other's confirmation bias."