What divisions should teach us, and why it's spiralling now

[avasopht]

In a nutshell (to give you an idea of what I'll cover), it comes down to this:
1. There are complex topics, and it takes expertise to understand some
2. Stress hormones (e.g. adrenaline) power down the parts of your brain that make you think rationally
3. Our brain is vulnerable to irrational thinking

1. There are complex topics, and it takes expertise to understand some

Whenever I see two factions diametrically opposed where each side is convinced the other is batshit crazy, it tells me that we may be looking at a subject that is probably too complex for most people to effectively evaluate.

We have no disagreement that the sun warms the Earth. It's pretty obvious because you can feel the sun's rays when they are visible, and even a child can deduce the connection between the sun being out and it being hot outside.

In the past, there were political disagreements about a lot of things that through hindsight we now know what was right. Apartheid is wrong. Slavery is wrong. Profiting from slavery and child labour is wrong. Women should be allowed to vote. And so on.

Women being allowed to vote seems obvious today, but not too long before women were allowed to vote, most people could not vote as voting was only available to the wealthy.

In order to make good sense of the world, you have to accept the one true truth: we human beings are incomprehensibly and exceptionally fucking stupid. Our stupidity knows no bounds, even if we are demonstrably intelligent because the brain is vulnerable to an endless array of cognitive biases, glitches and various forms of psychological and emotional manipulation.

To top it off we have these stupid unconscious defence mechanisms that form a protective shield for our fragile egos. It's so subtle and an experiential constant that, like the fact that our nose is always in view, we become blind to its persistent manipulation of our subjective experience.

You'll tell yourself and others things like "art is not important because it doesn't pay the bills," or that "maths and science are of no value because it is through music and the arts that we "truly" connect with our human selves" for the sole purpose of protecting yourself from admitting that you suck at art or struggled to do well in maths and science. It's useful to drive us away from things we suck at so that we can devote more time to the areas we're more likely to thrive, but being unconscious aids in the persistent self-deceptions that are easy to spot in others but hide in our own blind spots.

2. Stress hormones (e.g. adrenaline) power down the parts of your brain that make you think rationally

This is very important.

We have a lot of misconceptions about "stress". It's often associated with outbursts and visible behaviours such as biting nails and stuff. But it's of a biological nature. It weakens your immune system, raises the risk of mental illness, and impairs higher cognitive functioning of the brain.

Paradoxically, some stress hormones can heighten your senses and improve cognitive performance (I think cortisol can do this to some degree, but may need to be accompanied by other hormones, or be activated by different pathways in the brain).

Nevertheless, the more stressful global events are, the greater seed we have for a reduced ability to think rationally about things. Even our ability to make decisions is impaired.

3. Our brain is vulnerable to irrational thinking
I can't stress this enough.

Our brains are capable of both extraordinary feats of brilliant and astronomically huge levels of incompetence.

In order to not be fooled so easy, not only do you need to confront your fragile ego and its unconscious defence mechanisms, but you also have to face the fact that we are all pretty dumb relative to the complexity of the world we live in.

Well, it's less a problem of how "dumb" we are, but how unaware we are of our cognitive shortcomings. By failing (or worse refusing) to address our mind's quirks, we can almost guarantee we will make a fool of ourselves on some topic and not even know it.

[DaveyG]

I can summarise:

[avasopht]

I can summarise:

you're off by a few parsecs

[bxbrkrz]

Looks like I was too busy watching UFO videos and I missed something important, or not

[guitfnky]

this is why critical thinking skills are so important.

[integerpoet]

We have no disagreement that the sun warms the Earth. It's pretty obvious because you can feel the sun's rays when they are visible, and even a child can deduce the connection between the sun being out and it being hot outside.

That's crazy talk. You're obviously part of the worldwide conspiracy to oppress freedom of thought.

[bxbrkrz]

We have no disagreement that the sun warms the Earth. It's pretty obvious because you can feel the sun's rays when they are visible, and even a child can deduce the connection between the sun being out and it being hot outside.

That's crazy talk. You're obviously part of the worldwide conspiracy to oppress freedom of thought.

Our Sun is mostly responsible for Globally Warming the Earth. We have no disagreement, as we can all feel it, From the great state of Arizona, to the splendid nation of Zimbabwe

[jam-s]

That's crazy talk. You're obviously part of the worldwide conspiracy to oppress freedom of thought.

Our Sun is mostly responsible for Globally Warming the Earth. We have no disagreement, as we can all feel it, From the great state of Arizona, to the splendid nation of Zimbabwe

[bxbrkrz]

Our Sun is mostly responsible for Globally Warming the Earth. We have no disagreement, as we can all feel it, From the great state of Arizona, to the splendid nation of Zimbabwe

Because using tens of thousands of Saturn V seized rockets to nuke the Sun forever is not carbon neutral, imho.

[Creativemind]

Is this anti-covid vs covid?

[avasopht]

Our Sun is mostly responsible for Globally Warming the Earth. We have no disagreement, as we can all feel it, From the great state of Arizona, to the splendid nation of Zimbabwe

I wasn't talking about global warming. Let's not try to derail this thread for kicks

[avasopht]

Is this anti-covid vs covid?

I've not mentioned covid.

No, this is exactly what it says at face value. What I've written is non-partisan and apolitical.

[integerpoet]

Let's not try to derail this thread for kicks

For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to derail the thread. I was agreeing via satire.

One of my favorite expressions of a related idea is "The Smartest Monkeys" by XTC.

I could be accused of ridiculing the opposition, I suppose, which makes me part of the problem!

[avasopht]

Let's not try to derail this thread for kicks

For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to derail the thread. I was agreeing via satire.

One of my favorite expressions of a related idea is "The Smartest Monkeys" by XTC.

I could be accused of ridiculing the opposition, I suppose, which makes me part of the problem!

I figured your comment was satire

[bxbrkrz]

Our Sun is mostly responsible for Globally Warming the Earth. We have no disagreement, as we can all feel it, From the great state of Arizona, to the splendid nation of Zimbabwe

I wasn't talking about global warming. Let's not try to derail this thread for kicks

One issue I can see that may be hard to solve is who can be the experts, and how to elect them by me, a common human. One way would be to decide which culture is the 'better' culture, and only trust experts from one particular culture. Worldwide.

Our Goddess Sun does warm Earth all around both sides of its flat surfaces, thanks to her magical tentacles made of light.

Fun thread

[orthodox]

In the past, there were political disagreements about a lot of things that through hindsight we now know what was right. Apartheid is wrong. Slavery is wrong. Profiting from slavery and child labour is wrong. Women should be allowed to vote. And so on.

The "so on" part seems dangerous to me. I imagine most varied consequences.

Women being allowed to vote seems obvious today, but not too long before women were allowed to vote, most people could not vote as voting was only available to the wealthy.

Still I doubt which system was right after reading the topic. If the universal suffrage is right and every incompetent or irrational person should have an equal say, isn't it just in order to satisfy our egos.

[bxbrkrz]

Forgiveness is the only answer to divisions. But is that irrational thinking?

[motuscott]

I haz been touched by her noodley majesty
Call HR

[avasopht]

Still I doubt which system was right after reading the topic. If the universal suffrage is right and every incompetent or irrational person should have an equal say, isn't it just in order to satisfy our egos.

1. Representation
2. Conflict of interest
3. There's nothing to suggest people who mostly inherited their wealth are more rational
4. Attempts to limit votes to "rational" voters is easy to rig

[platzangst]

These are interesting points. Ultimately, though, I doubt stating them will help much.

I feel that one of the reasons things are getting more divided is that people aren't arguing about facts so much as they are about morality. Whether X fact is or isn't true, or can or can't be verified in some way, isn't really the issue as I see it - it's that if X is true than that means (to somebody) that anyone who doesn't immediately and wholeheartedly fall in line behind X is not only wrong, but a monster, or a slave, or some other derogatory thing. It's not enough to be correct, one must be righteous.

As an example: I have long been a proponent of free speech, dating back from my youth when conservatives were always trying to censor art for the sake of "family values". Then, it was a liberal stance to be in favor of free speech. Today there are progressives who have taken to calling for suppressing speech they don't like, and you can find liberal voices who say that free speech is a conservative or even "alt-right" issue. It's purely a matter of opinion whether the right of someone to express themselves is greater than the right of anyone to be able to always avoid someone else's offensive opinions. But the conversation is never framed in those terms - the other side is always the tyrant, the other side is leading people to destruction and death in some way. And then if you try to strike a middle ground, both sides accuse you of being a centrist, which seems to mean being just as bad as the other side only more wishy-washy about it. Neither side will question their own stance, neither side is interested in considering that the other side might have a valid reason for believing as they do (for doing so opens up the possibility that your own opinion may be wrong!), and the facts are largely irrelevant in the face of moral righteousness.

This is aggravated by various forms of social media, where one is rewarded for scoring witty bon mots upon their ideological rivals. A reasoned and well-considered stance isn't given nearly the same kind of attention as dunking on the enemy. One snotty meme provides far more endorphins than a thousand sober analyses.

[avasopht]

These are interesting points. Ultimately, though, I doubt stating them will help much.

I feel that one of the reasons things are getting more divided is that people aren't arguing about facts so much as they are about morality. Whether X fact is or isn't true, or can or can't be verified in some way, isn't really the issue as I see it - it's that if X is true than that means (to somebody) that anyone who doesn't immediately and wholeheartedly fall in line behind X is not only wrong, but a monster, or a slave, or some other derogatory thing. It's not enough to be correct, one must be righteous.

As an example: I have long been a proponent of free speech, dating back from my youth when conservatives were always trying to censor art for the sake of "family values". Then, it was a liberal stance to be in favor of free speech. Today there are progressives who have taken to calling for suppressing speech they don't like, and you can find liberal voices who say that free speech is a conservative or even "alt-right" issue. It's purely a matter of opinion whether the right of someone to express themselves is greater than the right of anyone to be able to always avoid someone else's offensive opinions. But the conversation is never framed in those terms - the other side is always the tyrant, the other side is leading people to destruction and death in some way. And then if you try to strike a middle ground, both sides accuse you of being a centrist, which seems to mean being just as bad as the other side only more wishy-washy about it. Neither side will question their own stance, neither side is interested in considering that the other side might have a valid reason for believing as they do (for doing so opens up the possibility that your own opinion may be wrong!), and the facts are largely irrelevant in the face of moral righteousness.

This is aggravated by various forms of social media, where one is rewarded for scoring witty bon mots upon their ideological rivals. A reasoned and well-considered stance isn't given nearly the same kind of attention as dunking on the enemy. One snotty meme provides far more endorphins than a thousand sober analyses.

In matters like these, there just isn't a single simple answer that is right.

But that shouldn't be a problem.

The key is to open dialogue to understand other positions so that we can look at things from more angles.

Our education systems have failed us, as an introduction to the various schools of thought should have been studied in more depth so that we wouldn't have to keep relearning the same things (if at all). Instead, it just ends up being a tiny minority of people who bother to sit down and reason about the ongoing debates on what will make our lives most awesome.

Several years ago I could see where Social Justice Warriors were headed, because I'm some liberal and progressive dispositions, but I noticed that SJWs were going way beyond merely challenging me. Instead they were, as you described, confront me and demanding I all of a sudden accept and adopt their instruction and immediately start using terms as they have prescribed - and any discussion or critique was treated as if I'd spat on them all.

Or they'd berate someone for not demonstrating they were up to date with their new social norms - most of which I'd not encountered much of (if at all).

[platzangst]

In matters like these, there just isn't a single simple answer that is right.

But that shouldn't be a problem.

The key is to open dialogue to understand other positions so that we can look at things from more angles.

Our education systems have failed us, as an introduction to the various schools of thought should have been studied in more depth so that we wouldn't have to keep relearning the same things (if at all). Instead, it just ends up being a tiny minority of people who bother to sit down and reason about the ongoing debates on what will make our lives most awesome.

Several years ago I could see where Social Justice Warriors were headed, because I'm some liberal and progressive dispositions, but I noticed that SJWs were going way beyond merely challenging me. Instead they were, as you described, confront me and demanding I all of a sudden accept and adopt their instruction and immediately start using terms as they have prescribed - and any discussion or critique was treated as if I'd spat on them all.

Or they'd berate someone for not demonstrating they were up to date with their new social norms - most of which I'd not encountered much of (if at all).

That's pretty much my point. The division is a morality-fueled division, dressed up with facts and reason only so far as each side selects what facts supports their side, downplaying or even ignoring what doesn't. There's no "multiple angles" - unless one side is trying to convince others to see their own side - there's just a Manichean world-view that accepts no compromise.

Or to put it another way: anyone open-minded enough to read your words and seriously consider them isn't the person who most needs to hear them, and alas, the people who they need to reach the most are the most likely to disregard them in the first place.

I will take your point about education, though - when I was that age, the slogan that went around was that school didn't teach you what to think, it taught you how to think. I fear that may no longer be the case, if I were to judge by the quality of online debate these days.

[plaamook]

I think the real problem isn't that humans are stupid as such. Relative to each other sure but there's no universal meter for cosmic stupidity.
I think it's more that (as stated by the OP) humans (smart or dumb) are insanely complex emotionally, which is what gives rise to the ego defending that seems to drive most of the conflict people experience. With themselves and the world around them.
I don't see this as a character flaw but rather a glitch we're all magically born with. The byproduct of the power our minds have, something like that.
So then the question becomes, how do we simplify our complexity?
In my experience it's potentially (though not necessarily) a life long endeavour that most people aren't genuinely interested in.
Or they decide being less egocentric would be the coolest way to be so they go about sort of emulating that but not actually doing much of it.
And there's a good reason for this. It's not fun much of the time.
But it's honest and genuine and probably the only way forward.
No one will 'win' the culture war.

[jam-s]

Imho tribalism has been coded into our genes from biological evolution in a harsh and scarce environment. Cultural evolution on the other hand can greatly reduce its effect, but it cannot eliminate it to 100% and thus we still tend to get tribal and thus divided sometimes when faced with opposing views.

[integerpoet]

The details of this post are US-centric but I suspect they at least partially map onto other countries because it's largely technological.

People have always "argued" in support of stupid, specious, tribal "opinions". The most important function (though not purpose) of the early postal service was to deliver biased newspapers to rural areas. The heyday of yellow journalism in the late 19th century pushed the US and Spain into war. For a while, production and distribution of radio and TV were expensive enough and the fairness doctrine was controlling enough to create an environment in which a small number of editorial voices seeking to avoid offending advertisers was enough to lull us into a sense that we had grown out of all that. But we never really did; that was just an accident of technology and public policy which sought to control that technology which lasted a few decades. These days, the fairness doctrine is long gone and any idiot or miscreant can publish widely again and social media confuses both advertisers and the masses about who publishes what and how credible it might be. We are merely rediscovering who we were all along, dismaying as that may be.

That all said, I am all for bringing back something akin to the fairness doctrine. If given teeth, it would cut several television networks, web sites, and even entire business models off at the knees. I mean, let's face it, nobody loves Facebook but Facebook. Good riddance to bad rubbish.