Understanding the motivation of people you disagree with

[uuu]

I recently had an experience where someone posted on social media, essentially, "What the fuck is up with people who believe X? Do they really think that ABC?" And I responded saying, "Although I don't believe X, I think their reasoning is more about DEF than ABC." Then this person accused me of defending group X and blocked me.

This was a very disheartening experience, and after mulling it over for a few days, I realized that my predominant feeling is one of shame. In the mind of the person who blocked me, it is sinful for me to even know about X-believers, even though I am not one, and this person regards me with suspicion merely because I am capable of describing the logic behind their beliefs. I feel ashamed, but I do not think the shame is justified: rather, I was shamed for having what I think is a healthy, even necessary level of intellectual curiosity.

-----

I have noticed that many people try to "sanitize" their media diet, to some extent or another. A common statement is, "It is exhausting to constantly be reminded about X, and I don't want to poison my brain with those ideas." To me this is a very insecure statement: I believe the things that I believe because they are correct, and I am not going to be seduced into believing in some offensive and horrible ideology just because someone charismatic or beautiful posts about it on social media.

I know arguing in circles about an issue you have already made up your mind about is exhausting, and I forgive people who want to carve out a space where their ideas can go unchallenged. But I think it is dangerous to spend too much time in this sort of bubble. If I am going to hold a strong position on a political issue, then I think I have an ethical obligation to engage on a regular basis with arguments from the opposite side. There are several reasons for this:

• It reminds me of why I disagree with these ideas and favor my own view
• It ensures that I hold my own view because it is correct, not because it is popular among people in my bubble
  
• It gives me the opportunity to win people over to my view

Also, it is funny to laugh at idiots online, but this is a matter of personal taste.

Do you have any limits on the kind of media that you consume? How do you strike a balance between engaging with a diverse spectrum of viewpoints and not getting burned out by pointless debate? How do you decide which ideas are "so offensive that I refuse to even consider them" and which ideas are "wrong but I am willing to hear them out"?

 

[Krypton]

It's not really about taking offense for me, but more about how much believing or considering an idea impedes my ability to function the way I want to function. I would never block someone for even considering those ideas themselves, though I might stop interacting with someone who tried to push the idea on me too much.

 

[uuu]

It's not really about taking offense for me, but more about how much believing or considering an idea impedes my ability to function the way I want to function.

Could you elaborate on this for me? Is there an example of an idea that impedes your ability to function just by considering it? If so, how do you deal with it when you encounter that idea in the course of life?

When I was very young (like 6-7 years old) I went through a phase of about a month where I would collapse in a fit of giggles every time I tried to say the word "girl." Because, you know, cooties. If I had to say it in a sentence it would completely disable me, like a hard reset button. Needless to say, I outgrew this phase pretty quickly: the word lost its effect.

Now, as adults we deal with much weightier words and a richer web of contextual associations, so I can understand why hearing someone forcefully describe a very offensive idea could be distracting and impede your life functionality. But like, have you seen Youtube? It seems like almost every day I hear someone saying some novel kind of insane bullshit, and it is only very rare that an idea is so viscerally repulsive that it short-circuits all my ability to intellectualize and reason about it abstractly.

 

[Krypton]

Could you elaborate on this for me? Is there an example of an idea that impedes your ability to function just by considering it? If so, how do you deal with it when you encounter that idea in the course of life?

I won't say the specific ideas that have affected me this way but stuff like "because of x characteristics you have that are immutable or very difficult to change, you are incapable (at least to a significant degree) of doing things that everyone around you tries to do on some level, or are integral to doing things you do on a regular basis". Often added to that there's an "it's also wrong to even try to do those things."

Also, "it is literally impossible to achieve the things you want to achieve in life, for anyone". Though I'm more willing to consider this one because it doesn't directly affect things I do on a day-to-day basis.

Believing these would impede my functionality almost by definition. I thankfully don't encounter the full brunt of these ideas in real life but I do sometimes encounter little "echoes" of the first one. I try to challenge the people who do those a bit, but sometimes I'll ignore it since it was a blip.

When I was very young (like 6-7 years old) I went through a phase of about a month where I would collapse in a fit of giggles every time I tried to say the word "girl." Because, you know, cooties. If I had to say it in a sentence it would completely disable me, like a hard reset button. Needless to say, I outgrew this phase pretty quickly: the word lost its effect.

Now, as adults we deal with much weightier words and a richer web of contextual associations, so I can understand why hearing someone forcefully describe a very offensive idea could be distracting and impede your life functionality. But like, have you seen Youtube? It seems like almost every day I hear someone saying some novel kind of insane bullshit, and it is only very rare that an idea is so viscerally repulsive that it short-circuits all my ability to intellectualize and reason about it abstractly.

It's pretty rare for me also, though I wouldn't say the repulsiveness of the idea is what causes it to affect my reasoning. Moreso the implications. I'm not sure what the rarity has to do with it though.

 

[mintoots]

This is simply about learning to have tough conversations without eroding respect for either party. Winning someone over is an ego game. It's a shameless motivation which doesn't really contribute much to the discourse. There is no monopoly on truth as perspectives abound. The pursuit for knowledge that is inclusive of empathy is respectable. Nobody has to change their minds, they simply have to generate enough understanding to remain respectfully cognizant of differing opinions. Arguments are toxic when the point is about winning. When it's just about being right, the whole point of having the conversation at all becomes moot. Diplomacy is a dance of respect and tolerance: knowing when to wield power gracefully and appropriately. Even if you wholeheartedly see your viewpoint as correct, chances are it isn't the only valid one.

 

[John K]

Some thoughts to play with ....

Could it be that it's all caused by a shadow Fi epidemic, and that is rooted in the way many people have an identity crisis that's really about visceral uncertainty. Lots of people cannot abide uncertainty. In the past, religion acted as both the magnifying lens and (for some) the antidote to this problem. These days, many people treat what they believe profoundly about the world as though it were a religion - when you question their ideas, you are challenging the foundations of their religion and so you are a heretic and unbeliever. Most people wouldn't express it this way but it's what is happening - just see their behaviour in response to a challenge. That's why it's not possible to have a rational discussion with many of them.

Myself, I hold the view that whatever we think we know, even if it has truth in it, is actually wrong in some fundamental way. That's because we are limited in what we can assimilate and understand, and we are learning new things all the time. If we shut the door, and decide that we have the truth, we put on shackles that close us to further insight in that sort of area - and we will be trapped in the wrongness that comes inevitably with it alongside any elements of truth that it contains.

I also hold the view that in many human perspectives on the world, there can be more than one truth - and these truths can contradict each other yet still be valid. It's meaningless to talk about truth or falsity in such situations and this is almost always the situation in politics. Speaking only for myself, I would be an idiot if I didn't live with all of these perspectives on the inside to see what the world looks like from in there - how can I possibly choose between them from the outside, or even whether it's necessary to make a choice at all?

It's so sad really, because all this fearful certainty stops folks from growing and sends them off down blind alleys like lost sheep, wielding their values like St Michael the Archangel's flaming sword.

 

[dZpADTLrPmX4c]

Do you have any limits on the kind of media that you consume? How do you strike a balance between engaging with a diverse spectrum of viewpoints and not getting burned out by pointless debate? How do you decide which ideas are "so offensive that I refuse to even consider them" and which ideas are "wrong but I am willing to hear them out"?

I minimize media consumption in general. It's not very fulfilling or productive.
My balance is kept by making sure debate isn't pointless. If somebody can't be reasonable or approaches it with a "must win this" mentality, I rarely get involved. I may step away if I'm given new information because I like to understand how that will affect my understanding before continuing.
Also having time to yourself to do your own thing helps a lot.

So far no ideas are so offensive that I won't consider them. Especially because sometimes the people espousing those ideas need only somebody to hear them out and reasonably explain the pros & cons of their perspective.

My condolences for being inappropriately shamed @ultrauber it's unpleasant even if unavoidable.

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

There's a massive difference in learning about a political viewpoint and engaging with an average proponent of that viewpoint. Almost every political commentator out there makes half of their content by strawmanning their opposition either in very crude terms or by some form of elaborate sarcasm, and the other half doesn't say anything constructive that hasn't been said before. If I'm going to learn about an ideology, I might as well get a book that deals exclusively with the subject matter.

Other decent sources are podcasts and live interviews. Classic journalism is in shambles and the last straw it's hanging onto is creating drama. That's why people like Joe Rogan are successful: a combination of a neutral host and information straight from the horse's mouth. Of course, 5 minutes later there's gonna be a reaction video trying to "explain" how it's actually all a dogwhistle or something, but they can't edit the source.

 

[mintoots]

. These days, many people treat what they believe profoundly about the world as though it were a religion - when you question their ideas, you are challenging the foundations of their religion and so you are a heretic and unbeliever

Yes. This is understandable since it is unnerving to lose what we think are cores to our identity. Which is why in most situations, the ability to respect differences is important. Once we acknowledge the respectable values of any individuality, the change doesn't have to be a crazy threat. Change may threaten the quality of our current existence but it should still be okay to be able to change one's mind. Most so in politics, both input and output should have the power to initiate change if it is meritable. Adaptation is important otherwise why do we even bother to learn or even have discourses? To associate identity values with thoughts is normal but to change identities as we evolve is normal too.

 

[Wyote]

To associate identity values with thoughts is normal but to change identities as we evolve is normal too.

I'm still gonna cancel you for something stupid you said ten years ago

 

[John K]

Yes. This is understandable since it is unnerving to lose what we think are cores to our identity. Which is why in most situations, the ability to respect differences is important. Once we acknowledge the respectable values of any individuality, the change doesn't have to be a crazy threat. Change may threaten the quality of our current existence but it should still be okay to be able to change one's mind. Most so in politics, both input and output should have the power to initiate change if it is meritable. Adaptation is important otherwise why do we even bother to learn or even have discourses? To associate identity values with thoughts is normal but to change identities as we evolve is normal too.

I very much agree. There's potentially so much to be gained by listening and reflecting, even if you don't agree. It isn't just the topics either, but we people ourselves are fascinating aren't we - just watching how different people relate to the world and each other with their personalities and interacting with them is a reward in itself.

The flat earth scene is a good example because a few months ago I was reading through some of their web sites. I got to wondering if I could actually refute what they were saying from first principles, and then it suddenly dawned on me that I couldn't. All I can do is appeal to scientific and navigational authority because I don't have easy access to the actual physical proof that the earth is round - I have to trust that the science I believe in is correct, but in practical terms cannot directly verify it for myself. It's humbling to realise that most of what I know about the world is like this - it's as much based on authority as any other sort of dogma.

It's fascinating seeing what chains of thought can be triggered off by being open to the influence of even very implausible ideas - I wouldn't have got to this insight without the flat-earthers, though I still think they are talking nonsense about the shape of the earth

 

[mintoots]

I'm still gonna cancel you for something stupid you said ten years ago

though I still think they are talking nonsense about the shape of the earth

LOL.

I think the valuable take out to that is exactly that processes are important too. It seems to be a process question for most flat earthers. The thing is, many of the succeeding developments of the world that worked with a round earth proved more efficient but yeah much of what we perceive of the world is solely a belief system.

 

[John K]

LOL.

I think the valuable take out to that is exactly that processes are important too. It seems to be a process question for most flat earthers. The thing is, many of the succeeding developments of the world that worked with a round earth proved more efficient but yeah much of what we perceive of the world is solely a belief system.

Quite - but I should make it clear what I mean. My faith is not in a round earth in the abstract, but that the professionals who have access to the right means can prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. You make a very good point that this empirical direct evidence is backed up by the inductive experience of centuries of assuming it's round and finding that this works out well in practical terms.

The flat earthers would perhaps counter this with their belief in their professionals, but mine are bigger than theirs ..... so there ....

 

[mintoots]

The flat earthers would perhaps counter this with their belief in their professionals, but mine are bigger than theirs ..... so there ....

Hahahaha! There goes the identity association again. All I know is that Magellan has sailed the world roundly otherwise I might never end up talking to you here in the forum this way. For me right now, earth roundness is crucial to my existence. Thus, I will fight for it.

Disclaimer: bits of this response should have been in orange. But I'm lazy.

 

[Wyote]

The flat earthers would perhaps counter this with their belief in their professionals, but mine are bigger than theirs ..... so there ....

I might be inclined to entertain a flat earth theory if it drew from some kind of inter/extradimensionality foundation.
That seems like an interesting and perhaps more plausible angle, though still a big mountain to climb in building evidence.

 

[John K]

Hahahaha! There goes the identity association again. All I know is the Magellan has sailed the world roundly otherwise I might never end up talking to you here in the forum this way. For me right now, earth roundness is crucial to my existence. Thus, I will fight for it.

The big laugh is that they're all completely barmy. The world is quite obviously

I might be inclined to entertain a flat earth theory if it drew from some kind of inter/extradimensionality foundation.
That seems like an interesting and perhaps more plausible angle, though still a big mountain to climb in building evidence.

Yeah - the hole in the middle is actually a black one and goes through to a parallel universe but that hasn't made earth flat just yet as we can see, but more like a donut - a much tastier prospect. It'll go into a flat disk eventually but with the hole still there of course.

 

[Wyote]

Yeah - the hole in the middle is actually a black one and goes through to a parallel universe but that hasn't made earth flat just yet as we can see, but more like a donut - a much tastier prospect. It'll go into a flat disk eventually but with the hole still there of course.

I'm on board with anything donut related

 

[slant]

I like to talk to people and learn about their history and the things they have gone through and that usually gives a lot of context as to why they believe what they believe and behave the way they behave.

I realize that what I believe is the "best" way to live is actually the best way for *me* to live and that I cannot impose my perspective on others. I do anyway because as a human what I crave most is connection and I connect more fully with peoplr who I have things in common with and agree with. I don't like to feel misunderstood or like the things I value are not valued by others, I feel less connected. So naturally I try to find people who I agree with so that I can feel that sense of connection. I can connect on different people on many things but there are certain people who I have more common beliefs in so it's easier to communicate.

I try not to isolate myself in a bubble of my ideas though. I try to put myself in positions where I am uncomfortable sometimes to remember there are other ideas out there.

What I have realized is that all ideas have an opposite idea and they must both exist. The constant tug and pull of different ideas usually end up balancing each other out. We all learn a lot because of diversity of opinion and whenever I'm annoyed with a certain type of idea I remind myself that my preferences are not some sort of grand order of the universe. My preferences are kind of arbitrary and just so happen to belong to me. They are no more valuable than the ideas than others except that I am the one thinking them and agreeing with them. I've changed my ideas plenty in the past so I realize my ideas can be flawed and I'm not married to them. I try to be flexible and open minded but human nature is inherently the opposite and I accept that in myself, too.

 

[John K]

I'm on board with anything donut related

Made myself feel hungry now.

You see - any sort of argument, no matter how divisive, can always come round to donuts if only people just chill a bit and work it through

 

[Lady Jolanda]

Do you have any limits on the kind of media that you consume? How do you strike a balance between engaging with a diverse spectrum of viewpoints and not getting burned out by pointless debate? How do you decide which ideas are "so offensive that I refuse to even consider them" and which ideas are "wrong but I am willing to hear them out"?

Before I answer this, I wanted to say, Ultrauber, I'm sorry you had to deal with being shamed for actually doing your due diligence in understanding other points of views. I hope you don't feel as badly anymore now. The person doing this guilt by association nonsense should feel ashamed instead.

I wasn't sure how to answer the poll, as answer 1 and 2 aren't mutually exclusive.

I do compartmentalize, as I cannot spend every second of every day on debating. I need to think, study, work, relax, socialize, play. I'm also not convinced that debating on its own is even all that helpful. It can be, when you both respect the other person first, and then seriously consider their opinions and beliefs. But that respect is born from recognizing the humanity in the other person, and that recognition doesn't arise from debating. It arises from connecting with the other person, through relaxation, socialization and play, and that is essential to coming to some sort of understanding. Not that I mean to propose this as some kind of tactic, I don't even think it works if it's not genuine, it's just an observation.

I also think that there aren't any ideas that are too offensive to consider. It's a category mistake that happens when one evaluates ideas based on morality rather than approximate truthfulness. The word 'wrong' is a bit unfortunate, as it's not very precise. An idea can be morally wrong, but factually right. Likewise, an idea can be morally right, but factually wrong. They are independent properties. It's probably better to say good and bad and correct and incorrect, though people don't do that of course, and then it often happens that you state a fact and then someone thinks you endorse that fact. That is akin to what happened to you.