Common set of facts, common language, where does it come from? Do we need a new social convention where folks are expected to lay our their language and definitions, and the FACTS they will draw on for the conversations they are about to have? Then do we need to set a time limit on how long we have to present that and agree on what we ha…
Common set of facts, common language, where does it come from? Do we need a new social convention where folks are expected to lay our their language and definitions, and the FACTS they will draw on for the conversations they are about to have? Then do we need to set a time limit on how long we have to present that and agree on what we have in common, or else just walk away from each other if there's not enough alignment?
I listen a lot to Braver Angels debates and presentations and they seem to be able to have civil conversations, but they have really strict rules about maintaining positive regard and don't allow people to question each other directly The discourse is generally meant to encourage understanding and it rarely gets into "what actions do we take as a result of what we learned?" Some days I despair of our citizenry being sensible enough to use these tools to make the kind of important and long-lasting decisions we need to in this crazy country.
"Common set of facts, common language, where does it come from? Do we need a new social convention where folks are expected to lay our their language and definitions, and the FACTS they will draw on for the conversations they are about to have?"
I think it's just a question of being willing to listen and have your mind changed. Being able to admit when you don't know something. To not assert things without evidence.
To use this conversation with Brigit as an example, once somebody has decided that anybody who says something other than what she believes is a liar, it makes it almost impossible to have a conversation. When I present new information, even with evidence, she can't accept them. Because the truth itself threatens her ego.
The common goal in any productive conversation has to be arriving at the truth or even better, as you say, some sort of productive action. I'm not a fan of conversations where everybody is spending 90% of their energy on not offending or challenging the other person. But of course, it's important not to trigger the other person's ego too much.
So to have a productive conversation, you need people who are genuinely motivated to get at the truth, who are willing to learn, and who have their egos at least somewhat under control. Getting all three of these in both people at the same time is, sadly, pretty rare.😅 But it's definitely possible.
Very well stated. I guess we just need to start by checking that practicing providing evidence, listening, learning, and trying to get to some shared version of "the truth" is the goal. Onward!
Steve, have you written about your own intellectual and political journey? How did you come to have the heterodox views that you have? Does it largely come from your upbringing, or have you made major shifts in perspective over time (I realize that any thinking person as you describe above will have constant minor shifts in perspective; I'm talking here more about larger changes). And in particular, what influence or experiences helped you escape the groupthink? If that is a fertile subject for you, perhaps an article on it?
You are quite right that too few discussions have a common goal of arriving at a better approximation of the truth. More commonly, people assume they already have the truth, so their goal is either (1) to convince the other people to agree or (2) to demonstrate to themselves their own moral or intellectual superiority and enjoy the feelings of self-validation that ensue.
"Steve, have you written about your own intellectual and political journey? How did you come to have the heterodox views that you have?"
That's an interesting question! I touched on it very briefly in my article, The Left's Identity (Politics) Crisis, but it was more about how the Left's politics is being overrun than my personal journey.
I mean, I really don't feel as if I've been on much of a journey. As you say, my views are always up for revision, but my values, I think, have remained pretty consistent. I recently saw somebody online describe me (as a compliment) as a conservative. It doesn't bother me, the labels never have, but I've never seen myself that way. I see myself as a left-leaning, liberal guy, who has watched discourse on pretty much every topic descend into madness around me.😅
As many other people have observed, a liberal who stayed more or less still on the political spectrum for the past ten years (even the past *five* years), is now seen by many people on the Left as Right-wing. I feel that the larger changes have been in the political landscape, not in me personally.
So yeah, insofar as my views are heterodox, I think it's just because I instinctively try to take a level-headed, honest, and forward-thinking approach to political issues. And that's become increasingly unusual. But what's really interesting to me is how many people agree with the "heterodox" things I'm saying. I really don't think any of the things I say are controversial. I think in many cases they're the majority view. It's just that I'm maybe more willing than some to say them publicly.
"More commonly, people assume they already have the truth, so their goal is either (1) to convince the other people to agree or (2) to demonstrate to themselves their own moral or intellectual superiority and enjoy the feelings of self-validation that ensue."
My spouse and I are pretty much in tune about politics and society (tho we differ on some things). We've talked about how, even as lifelong progressive liberals, we now find ourselves outside the tribe, at least in terms of the opinion leaders. For example, a lovely organization we volunteer at, has for the most laudable of reasons become woke, and we wonder how long it will be able to fulfil it's mission. For dissenting about DiAngelo's "White Fragility" a while back, we are on the periphery, not excluded but regarded with suspicion by some in leadership.
Like you, we feel that we basically have the same values we've had for decades, but there are other changes. A lot is the shift among the left, towards strategies which we strongly believe (after considerable thought and reading/viewing/talking) are counter-productive to progressive/liberal goals compatible with our values. But even with similar goals, any dissent on strategies, or even deep discussion of them, seems to be largely suppressed on the left today; it has become far more dogmatic than the subculture we joined many years ago. Some of the things which repelled us from moralistic conservatives seem to be emerging as mainstream on the left, with nearly no self-awareness.
But I have to admit, that I have also shifted. Not my values so much as my evaluation of the evidence on what works and what doesn't, which has evolved since my youth. Translating values to the real world involves connecting them with our best model of how the world works, and that latter model can change over time. I'm less optimistic that breaking things from passionate enthusiasm will somehow result in the emergence of a better order; there are far more ways to break things than to fix them, and we are not anywhere close to the worst case (ie: with nothing to lose as a society). Today I have more respect for concepts like "know why a fence was built before tearing it down" or "when remodeling, understand which walls you are removing are load-bearing walls and have a plan for that". I suppose those may be considered more "conservative" in a broad sense.
I was curious about your own path in part because my impression is that relatively fewer people of color break free of the narrative. There can be factors of peer pressure, or expected tribal loyalty to complicate the path. And of course, the role handed to them by The Oppression Narrative is superficially more attractive - they are assigned the role of the aggrieved party with the moral high ground, resenting the privilege of other other side; they can celebrate themselves, numb out any incipient criticism, and blame other people for everything. As a human being, I can see the attraction of that, but I think it's poisoned candy - albeit a slow poison whose effects on mental health are gradual and easily attributed to those same oppressors.
I realize that breaking free of that is possible for all sexes, races, sexual orientations, etc. But it's harder for those whom The Narrative elevates. We know its possible tho - we enjoy Coleman Hughes, John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, and YOU, among others. Thank you for the light you shed; I enjoy the fruits of your taking the time to think things out.
Common set of facts, common language, where does it come from? Do we need a new social convention where folks are expected to lay our their language and definitions, and the FACTS they will draw on for the conversations they are about to have? Then do we need to set a time limit on how long we have to present that and agree on what we have in common, or else just walk away from each other if there's not enough alignment?
I listen a lot to Braver Angels debates and presentations and they seem to be able to have civil conversations, but they have really strict rules about maintaining positive regard and don't allow people to question each other directly The discourse is generally meant to encourage understanding and it rarely gets into "what actions do we take as a result of what we learned?" Some days I despair of our citizenry being sensible enough to use these tools to make the kind of important and long-lasting decisions we need to in this crazy country.
"Common set of facts, common language, where does it come from? Do we need a new social convention where folks are expected to lay our their language and definitions, and the FACTS they will draw on for the conversations they are about to have?"
I think it's just a question of being willing to listen and have your mind changed. Being able to admit when you don't know something. To not assert things without evidence.
To use this conversation with Brigit as an example, once somebody has decided that anybody who says something other than what she believes is a liar, it makes it almost impossible to have a conversation. When I present new information, even with evidence, she can't accept them. Because the truth itself threatens her ego.
The common goal in any productive conversation has to be arriving at the truth or even better, as you say, some sort of productive action. I'm not a fan of conversations where everybody is spending 90% of their energy on not offending or challenging the other person. But of course, it's important not to trigger the other person's ego too much.
So to have a productive conversation, you need people who are genuinely motivated to get at the truth, who are willing to learn, and who have their egos at least somewhat under control. Getting all three of these in both people at the same time is, sadly, pretty rare.😅 But it's definitely possible.
Very well stated. I guess we just need to start by checking that practicing providing evidence, listening, learning, and trying to get to some shared version of "the truth" is the goal. Onward!
Steve, have you written about your own intellectual and political journey? How did you come to have the heterodox views that you have? Does it largely come from your upbringing, or have you made major shifts in perspective over time (I realize that any thinking person as you describe above will have constant minor shifts in perspective; I'm talking here more about larger changes). And in particular, what influence or experiences helped you escape the groupthink? If that is a fertile subject for you, perhaps an article on it?
You are quite right that too few discussions have a common goal of arriving at a better approximation of the truth. More commonly, people assume they already have the truth, so their goal is either (1) to convince the other people to agree or (2) to demonstrate to themselves their own moral or intellectual superiority and enjoy the feelings of self-validation that ensue.
"Steve, have you written about your own intellectual and political journey? How did you come to have the heterodox views that you have?"
That's an interesting question! I touched on it very briefly in my article, The Left's Identity (Politics) Crisis, but it was more about how the Left's politics is being overrun than my personal journey.
I mean, I really don't feel as if I've been on much of a journey. As you say, my views are always up for revision, but my values, I think, have remained pretty consistent. I recently saw somebody online describe me (as a compliment) as a conservative. It doesn't bother me, the labels never have, but I've never seen myself that way. I see myself as a left-leaning, liberal guy, who has watched discourse on pretty much every topic descend into madness around me.😅
As many other people have observed, a liberal who stayed more or less still on the political spectrum for the past ten years (even the past *five* years), is now seen by many people on the Left as Right-wing. I feel that the larger changes have been in the political landscape, not in me personally.
So yeah, insofar as my views are heterodox, I think it's just because I instinctively try to take a level-headed, honest, and forward-thinking approach to political issues. And that's become increasingly unusual. But what's really interesting to me is how many people agree with the "heterodox" things I'm saying. I really don't think any of the things I say are controversial. I think in many cases they're the majority view. It's just that I'm maybe more willing than some to say them publicly.
"More commonly, people assume they already have the truth, so their goal is either (1) to convince the other people to agree or (2) to demonstrate to themselves their own moral or intellectual superiority and enjoy the feelings of self-validation that ensue."
And yes, this nails it I think.
That describes my own history pretty well too.
My spouse and I are pretty much in tune about politics and society (tho we differ on some things). We've talked about how, even as lifelong progressive liberals, we now find ourselves outside the tribe, at least in terms of the opinion leaders. For example, a lovely organization we volunteer at, has for the most laudable of reasons become woke, and we wonder how long it will be able to fulfil it's mission. For dissenting about DiAngelo's "White Fragility" a while back, we are on the periphery, not excluded but regarded with suspicion by some in leadership.
Like you, we feel that we basically have the same values we've had for decades, but there are other changes. A lot is the shift among the left, towards strategies which we strongly believe (after considerable thought and reading/viewing/talking) are counter-productive to progressive/liberal goals compatible with our values. But even with similar goals, any dissent on strategies, or even deep discussion of them, seems to be largely suppressed on the left today; it has become far more dogmatic than the subculture we joined many years ago. Some of the things which repelled us from moralistic conservatives seem to be emerging as mainstream on the left, with nearly no self-awareness.
But I have to admit, that I have also shifted. Not my values so much as my evaluation of the evidence on what works and what doesn't, which has evolved since my youth. Translating values to the real world involves connecting them with our best model of how the world works, and that latter model can change over time. I'm less optimistic that breaking things from passionate enthusiasm will somehow result in the emergence of a better order; there are far more ways to break things than to fix them, and we are not anywhere close to the worst case (ie: with nothing to lose as a society). Today I have more respect for concepts like "know why a fence was built before tearing it down" or "when remodeling, understand which walls you are removing are load-bearing walls and have a plan for that". I suppose those may be considered more "conservative" in a broad sense.
I was curious about your own path in part because my impression is that relatively fewer people of color break free of the narrative. There can be factors of peer pressure, or expected tribal loyalty to complicate the path. And of course, the role handed to them by The Oppression Narrative is superficially more attractive - they are assigned the role of the aggrieved party with the moral high ground, resenting the privilege of other other side; they can celebrate themselves, numb out any incipient criticism, and blame other people for everything. As a human being, I can see the attraction of that, but I think it's poisoned candy - albeit a slow poison whose effects on mental health are gradual and easily attributed to those same oppressors.
I realize that breaking free of that is possible for all sexes, races, sexual orientations, etc. But it's harder for those whom The Narrative elevates. We know its possible tho - we enjoy Coleman Hughes, John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, and YOU, among others. Thank you for the light you shed; I enjoy the fruits of your taking the time to think things out.