This is a post about logic and behavior. It is not about respecting your feelings but challenging them.

Still, I'd like to start this without pushing anyone's buttons, because affective heuristics happen, but I'm afraid the rest may not make as much sense as it might without starting by pushing some buttons.

For some of you, the history actually won't push any buttons or incite bias...still, I'll hide it behind a cut for those of you for whom it may, and you can jump down to the discussion and forego the history if you want to try it that way. Or you might try to short-circuit the probable reaction bias and give On Expressing Your Concerns a read to help consciously note the particular subconscious primate social instincts expected:

...history abounds with lessons on the price of being the first, or even the second, to say that the Emperor has no clothes. Nor are people hardwired to distinguish "expressing a concern" from "disagreement even with common knowledge"...If you perform the group service of being the one who gives voice to the obvious problems, don't expect the group to thank you for it...

( ...it creates bias... )

Disengagement is about protecting your personal and emotional space, and there is truth in the need to do this from haters and trolls and spreaders of nonsense, but there are also problems to be found with the logic of "disengagement" as it is defended by some individuals and groups. Some of those ideas might not be expressed openly, but are clear in a view of the pattern of argument and behavior of the group, others are expressed openly as obvious truths:

• Everyone who disagrees with you has clearly never read your material or they would agree with you, and if they say they have they are lying.


• Should anyone provably have read your material and still disagree, they clearly didn't understand it, are irrational, or don't want to accept its truth.


• Everyone who disagrees with you is attempting to shut you down. Especially if they continue disagreeing.


• Everyone who questions or attacks your truths also never attacks the side you are against, because if they are not with you they must be against you.


• Everyone who questions or attacks your truths is helping support the side you are against, giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Therefore, they are the enemy.


• If someone makes you deeply, personally angry, they are a Nazi, and the issue is not with you.


• Everyone who disagrees with the group truth is an ignorant fuckface who should be beaten up.


• If someone questions or argues against group truth, ignore them because they are ranting asshats.


• The only sane, rational, good discussion is that which reaffirms the righteousness of the accepted group truths and do not challenge it.

I think we've all seen this pattern before, unfortunately.

Any of you oppose the war lately? How did your war-supporting friends or acquaintances treat you or speak to you? Are you a traitor? Are you not a real patriot? Are you anti-American? Have any of them simply stopped speaking with you? Do they argue you are ignorant (or worse) because you refuse to agree with them? Do they think you should be beaten or physically assaulted to teach you a lesson?

( ...seen it before... )

( ...what's wrong with that..? )

( ...escaping the ego's needs... )

In no particular order, other posts discussing this topic more in depth at Overcoming Bias are Supercritical Uncriticality, The Halo Effect, One Argument Against an Army, Avoiding Your Beliefs' Real Weak Points, Burdensome Details, The Affect Heuristic and Affective Death Spirals.

They're all worth the read.

( ...closing thoughts and closing fallacies... ).

I don't know why I keep reading Chris' journal; it's obvious he's marked me "enemy", decided nothing I have to say is of value to him, and has decided to piss whatever friendship we had down the toilet.

I guess I still read it because I find his perspective valuable and agree with it far more often than not, and he has excellent links to various news items and media I don't usually come across on my own. I'll definitely be picking up this book on his recommendation.

At the same time, reading things like this, knowing he thinks these are great Guides to the Truth, and knowing they end up functioning as nothing more than (ironically) ways to shut down conversation is trying and tiring to put myself through.

( ...critique and example... )

You'll also note other similar cases of blindness to rhetorical problems throughout: in this case, blanket, broad-brush statements about "white people" are made, which (if you care to ask) are defended with the explanation that this is shorthand for SOME white people: it's, "Oh, not ALL white people. You know what I mean."

( ...hypocrisy... )

In the end, Chris' lists, while being based on real problem issues that deserve public attention, are often no different than this conservative rant about liberal tactics, and how the ignorant, dishonest libruls are all just sneaky, evil con-men and you need to watch out for their dirty tactics! It's all based on the same foundation, and the tribal politics are just as difficult to watch.

I guess the main reason I keep reading his journal is out of a hope he'll...I don't know...mature through this "angry young liberal" (or whatever the hell it is) worldview he's working from, where critics and dissenters are all willfully ignorant or just-plain-wicked enemies.

Note that I've split this up into parts in this post to hopefully make it a little easier to wade through.

The Chat

The other night, a week or two ago, in a chat that became heated in places, Shreyas said to me, "You have the ability to express yourself without insulting others, so use it."

As is usual in real-time chat, especially emotional/heated chat, I was saying exactly what I meant without putting much diplomatic spin on it, leaving it to others to filter the meaning out from their own reactions. One would think that after twelve years with my wife, I would realize this is usually a bad idea. Some people can do that, and some people just can't or don't want to.

So, Shreyas is right. The idea that people should be able to express themselves without insulting others or letting anger or force taint their words is a correct idea. But this does not mean I agree with the conclusion that may be come to from the idea.

( Read more... )

So, Guy posted this statement over at Story Games in a conversation someone pointed me to. I'm smirking a bit because Rich Forest's response to the statement sounds to me like an argument that certain individuals becoming offended about "Gamers are Brain Damaged" isn't so stupid or nonsense a behavior after all.

Tied up in this, Matt Wilson goes on to ask a rather pertinent question that deserves consideration:

Who has the right to decide when it's "blown out of proportion?"

The answer to the question seems to me: it's a case-by-case situation per individual. So, YOU have the right to decide something has been blown out of proportion by another individual. Every single one of you. You have to as a part of life.

But let's litmus test the whole idea that claims of overreaction are really just a way to shut down conversation:

( Read more... )

So, what then is the solution to making claims of overreaction? Can you or can't you? Is it bad or is it reasonable?

This is a complex situation, not nearly as black and white as some would have it. Consider: maybe me dismissing something as overreaction doesn't mean I'm trying to shut down conversation at all, maybe it means I'm sick and tired of your personal hang-ups being pushed on me. That I don't have the energy or desire to crucify and martyr myself so you can feel better, by defending myself from your ghosts.

Or maybe it does. Maybe I am trying to shut down the conversation, and maybe that is all about my personal hang ups, instead, and it has nothing to do with you trying to shut down judgement of your behavior or discussion of your errors.

But the answer can't be found in pat monochrome truisms.

I could have also titled this entry "How To Read and Utilize Analogies", but I decided to be clever, instead. Also, if you have read the "Judgemental Nonsense" and "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" entries, there's nothing really new here with the exception of the bottom-most issue; if you haven't, those may (hopefully) prove equally enlightening regarding the points I argue here.

There is a thread on the Forge that has recently caused some flack among certain circles. By example, John Wick pops on to cite that a group of his friends are horribly offended and insulted by the contents of the thread and the comparisons made therein.

( Read more... )

But I hope they read this and my last LJ entry on the subject. I really do. I don't say this to be an ass. I say this because I am concerned for the human race, because I hope it helps them and affects them in a positive way.

( Read more... )

Over on Vincent's blog, Ron Edwards made a comment that has been making the rounds because it is so controversial...I know, Ron Edwards making a controversial comment? Good gods! The world must be coming to an end!

{Smack}

If Ron Edwards making a controversial and highly charged statement that causes certain sorts to decry him as the devil himself is news to you, where the hell have have you been for the last five years? This is par for the course.

( Read more... )

ADDENDUM: There's a discussion over on Johnathan Walton's LJ that is complimentary to this one, you'll have to scroll down to see my comment on the issue, which directly relates to a number of points raised above.