Labeling versus Discussing or Debating

A New Radical Centrism

@a_centrism

Lefties call people they disagree with fascists and racists even though 99% of the time they are neither. Righties call people they disagree with communists and pedophiles even though 99% of the time they are neither. Once these insults lose their sting, what will replace them?

My reply: Good point. For both sides it’s way more fun (and easier) just to label people than to debate them.

What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known? Russell Conjugation - Eric Weinstein

What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known?

I came across a reference to something called the Russell Conjugation, an idea created by the philosopher Bertrand Russell. (It’s also called an emotive conjugation.) It consists of three statements that describe the same behavior from different perspectives. Here is an example from an article by Eric Weinstein.

I am firm. [Positive empathy]

You are obstinate. [Neutral to mildly negative empathy]

He/She/It is pigheaded. [Very negative empathy]

As Weinstein explains:

In order to understand the concept properly you have to appreciate that most words and phrases are actually defined not by a single dictionary description, but rather two distinct attributes:

I) The factual content of the word or phrase.

II) The emotional content of the construction.

How would this apply to political disagreements? Would it be the following? “I am right (because I have the correct principles). You are mistaken (because your principles are wrong). They are evil (because they have no principles, or their principles are evil).” In this case, “I” refers to yourself. “You” refers to a friend who disagrees with you. “They” refers to a politician or pundit who is on the other side.

I pose it this way because I think we are not likely to label a friend as evil. If we believe a friend is evil, why are we friends? But it is much easier for us to call someone we don’t know evil precisely because we don’t have a personal connection. As philosophers like Jonathan Haidt (The Righteous Mind) remind us, our psychology has deep tribal roots. Many experiments run by researchers show that they can get participants form us vs. them groups based on superficial qualities such as eye color or sports team affiliation. (See more at this You Are Not So Smart episode.)

I know that my observation on how we label friends versus people we don’t know doesn’t hold up all the time. I know friends who have disowned family members or have terminated friendships over political disagreements such as which presidential candidate to for. But I also know people who haven’t done this.

No Winners - by Matthew Willis - The Racquet: The Plague of Either-Or Thinking

No Winners - by Matthew Willis - The Racquet

As a tennis player I've been following the drama with Novak Djokovic trying to play in the 2022 Australian Open while not being vaccinated from COVID. Ultimately, his visa was rejected and he was deported from Australia. The article linked above explains how Djokovic and his team tried to justify letting him play in the Open without being vaccinated. (I don't know if you need to subscribe to Willis's Substack to read it.)

I agree with this statement in the linked article: "I’ve been amazed over the last week or so watching how simple, or black and white, many people (journalists, fans, players et al) seem to think this saga is. Good vs evil." I call it the plague of either-or thinking. While I question whether the approach Australia has taken in dealing with the pandemic has been effective, I also have little sympathy for anyone who tries to enter the country knowing the stand the Australian government has taken.

It also doesn't help that people either love or hate Djokovic so it's easy for them to use him to reinforce their previous conclusions about the pandemic. To those who question the safety of the vaccines and/or whether the government has the right to mandate to get the vaccine, to wear masks or to self-isolate, Novak is a hero. To those who believe the government does have the right to mandate getting the "jab," require masks in public, and shut down restaurants, bars and other businesses, Novak is seen as an "anti-vaxxer" who puts his preferences before public safety. I'm not a mind reader so I can't say what Novak's motivation was but I'm sure some people think he was trying to "game the system."

To me Novak had three choices: 1. get the vaccinations needed to enter, 2. submit valid paperwork to justify why you can't get a vaccine, or 3. don't go. 

Djokovic has a lot at stake given that the Australian Open is one of the four major tennis tournaments that count toward a “Grand Slam.” Djokovic has 20 Grand Slam titles, tied with Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. If Djokovic had won the Australian Open he would have had the most Grand Slam titles in men’s tennis history. His choice on he handled this situation threatens his quest to have the most slams. Instead, Nadal could end up with this honor. (Federer won’t be playing due to an injury.) Considering what is at stake I question the wisdom of Djokovic’s decision. I wonder if he does too.

Elon Musk Thinks Every Child Should Learn About These 50 Cognitive Biases | Inc.com

Elon Musk Thinks Every Child Should Learn About These 50 Cognitive Biases | Inc.com

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1472647410568642564?s=20

The article in Inc. lists the 50 cognitive biases that Elon Musk thinks kids should be taught about in school. The second link takes you to the tweet Musk posted that shows these biases in an infographic. Given the number of these biases covering them would require a course dedicated to them. (This list, by the way, isn't comprehensive.)

Understanding the Divide Between Social Justice Advocates and the Left-Leaning "Anti-Woke" Community

Understanding the Divide Between Social Justice Advocates and the Left-Leaning "Anti-Woke" Community

The article at this link on the Clearer Thinking website does a nice job describing the positions of the "woke" left versus the "anti-woke" left. They use steelmanning to outline the positions both sides take on a variety of issues. (Steelmanning involves trying to strengthen the argument of the opposing side before trying to refute it.)

It would have been nice if they would have included libertarians and conservatives in this exercise! Of course if had done this the article would be twice as long.

Learn to Think with the Best of Them

This is the title of a section in Peter T. Coleman’s The Way Out: How To Overcome Toxic Polarization. Coleman’s book strives to show ways to deal with the strident difference of opinion we see all around us. I’ve chosen to put on long quote that I like. It relates to my July 29 post, Favorite Twitter Follows/Examples of Objective Thinkers. I believe many of the names in the table of that post present good examples of people with whom I don’t necessarily agree with but feel they strive to be objective. Prime examples would be Scott Adams, Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald.

As creatures of habit in a highly polarized era, most of us tend to follow the rule, “move toward similar others and away from different.” We are automatically inclined to surround ourselves with and therefore think with similar others who share “congenial information” versus “uncongenial information” – simply because it is easier and more comforting.

…

Most of us tend to close ranks and prefer to listen to those we mostly agree with during such tense times (it just feels so good!). This tendency to move toward the similar is intensified by the internet sorting algorithms employed today by many of the major technology platforms that automatically direct us to news, information, and opinion content that is complimentary to our own. This all serves to significantly reduce the nuance and accuracy of our understanding of complicated issues.

One check on this echo-chamber effect is to actively choose to think and learn with different people; that is, intentionally choose to hear from people across the divide. No, it does not mean that you need to tune into the nut jobs on talk radio and cable TV that spout nonsense and conspiracy theories. But it does suggest that there is much to gain from seeking out the best representatives of people you disagree with and thinking through complex issues (although not necessarily agreeing) with them.

…

So, if you are interested in gaining a more accurate understanding of a particular issue, learn to seek out the best thought leaders on the other side. [Emphasis added.]

I’d say there is another reason to do this: to test our beliefs. Someone who disagrees with you might present information we hadn’t considered when reaching our position or they might reveal a potential weakness in our argument. It doesn’t mean we have to ditch our position; it might mean acknowledging that we need to tweak it.

New Neuroscience Reveals 7 Secrets That Will Make You Emotionally Intelligent - Barking Up The Wrong Tree

New Neuroscience Reveals 7 Secrets That Will Make You Emotionally Intelligent - Barking Up The Wrong Tree

Eric Barker who wrote Barking Up the Wrong Tree: The Surprising Science Behind Why Everything You Know About Success Is (Mostly) Wrong also has a blog where he shares his insights based on Barker’s research. I recommend his book. I also recommend reading his summary of another book which I read recently. It’s Conflicted: How Productive Disagreements Lead to Better Outcomes by Ian Leslie.

I’ve been reading several books lately on how to overcome the extreme polarization we see, particularly in politics. So far, I haven’t come across anything in these books that I found to be earthshaking, “eureka!” insights. But there is one that I believe deserves promoting; Eric Barker agrees. He devotes a long blog post to capturing the key points of Conflicted. Below I’ve provided Barker’s summary of these key points. I debated whether to do this because you might read the summary below and think, “Eh, what’s the big deal?” If so, I invite you to read Barker’s entire post to get a better idea what is behind these key points.

Without further ado, here is the final section of Barker’s post.

Sum Up

This is how to have emotionally intelligent disagreements:

• Remember The Relationship: Enemies don’t say, “You are right. I am wrong.” Friends do.
• De-Escalate: If your disputes sound even half as snarky as my writing, you’re doing it wrong.
• Stop Trying To Control What They Think Or Feel: When their autonomy is threatened, people attack or shut down.
• Help Them Make Their Argument Stronger: If you can’t disprove the best version of their argument, then you’re not “right”, you’re just playing tricks. And, more importantly, “steelmanning” shows you’re listening and that you’re sincere. [HCS comment: steelmanning is the opposite of using a straw man argument in which we purposely oversimplify or exaggerate someone’s argument in order to discount it. Steelmanning involves trying to strengthen the argument of your conversational partner before trying to rebut it.]
• Disrupt The Script: Constructive conversations have ups and downs. Don’t escalate tension. Make a joke or say something positive.
• Get Curious: So those aliens that talk to you, do they give good advice?
• Help Them Question Their Own Thinking: Therapists don’t say: “That’s ridiculous. Where in your brain did the stroke occur for you to have an idea so stupid?” No, they ask questions until you start to question your own thinking and it crosses the blood-brain barrier that what you’ve been saying is the equivalent of 2+2=147.