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.
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... ).
1 comment | Leave a comment
pissed off