Bad Thinkers: On Accelerationism, Conspiracy Theory, and Intellectual Vices

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Bad Thinkers: On Accelerationism, Conspiracy Theory, and Intellectual Vices

«‹›2 »

Quidam Viator: Jan 24, 2001; ask me about how voting Donald Trump was worth 400k and counting dead.

I include, for your consideration, the text of this Aeon article about the self-examination of one's own intellectual vices and virtues:

quote:

Meet Oliver. Like many of his friends, Oliver thinks he is an expert on 9/11. He spends much of his spare time looking at conspiracist websites and his research has convinced him that the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, DC, of 11 September 2001 were an inside job. The aircraft impacts and resulting fires couldn�t have caused the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center to collapse. The only viable explanation, he maintains, is that government agents planted explosives in advance. He realises, of course, that the government blames Al-Qaeda for 9/11 but his predictable response is pure Mandy Rice-Davies: they would say that, wouldn�t they?

Polling evidence suggests that Oliver�s views about 9/11 are by no means unusual. Indeed, peculiar theories about all manner of things are now widespread. There are conspiracy theories about the spread of AIDS, the 1969 Moon landings, UFOs, and the assassination of JFK. Sometimes, conspiracy theories turn out to be right � Watergate really was a conspiracy � but mostly they are bunkum. They are in fact vivid illustrations of a striking truth about human beings: however intelligent and knowledgeable we might be in other ways, many of us still believe the strangest things. You can find people who believe they were abducted by aliens, that the Holocaust never happened, and that cancer can be cured by positive thinking. A 2009 Harris Poll found that between one‑fifth and one‑quarter of Americans believe in reincarnation, astrology and the existence of witches. You name it, and there is probably someone out there who believes it.

You realise, of course, that Oliver�s theory about 9/11 has little going for it, and this might make you wonder why he believes it. The question �Why does Oliver believe that 9/11 was an inside job?� is just a version of a more general question posed by the US skeptic Michael Shermer: why do people believe weird things? The weirder the belief, the stranger it seems that someone can have it. Asking why people believe weird things isn�t like asking why they believe it�s raining as they look out of the window and see the rain pouring down. It�s obvious why people believe it�s raining when they have compelling evidence, but it�s far from obvious why Oliver believes that 9/11 was an inside job when he has access to compelling evidence that it wasn�t an inside job.

I want to argue for something which is controversial, although I believe that it is also intuitive and commonsensical. My claim is this: Oliver believes what he does because that is the kind of thinker he is or, to put it more bluntly, because there is something wrong with how he thinks. The problem with conspiracy theorists is not, as the US legal scholar Cass Sunstein argues, that they have little relevant information. The key to what they end up believing is how they interpret and respond to the vast quantities of relevant information at their disposal. I want to suggest that this is fundamentally a question of the way they are. Oliver isn�t mad (or at least, he needn�t be). Nevertheless, his beliefs about 9/11 are the result of the peculiarities of his intellectual constitution � in a word, of his intellectual character.

Usually, when philosophers try to explain why someone believes things (weird or otherwise), they focus on that person�s reasons rather than their character traits. On this view, the way to explain why Oliver believes that 9/11 was an inside job is to identify his reasons for believing this, and the person who is in the best position to tell you his reasons is Oliver. When you explain Oliver�s belief by giving his reasons, you are giving a �rationalising explanation� of his belief.

The problem with this is that rationalising explanations take you only so far. If you ask Oliver why he believes 9/11 was an inside job he will, of course, be only too pleased to give you his reasons: it had to be an inside job, he insists, because aircraft impacts couldn�t have brought down the towers. He is wrong about that, but at any rate that�s his story and he is sticking to it. What he has done, in effect, is to explain one of his questionable beliefs by reference to another no less questionable belief. Unfortunately, this doesn�t tell us why he has any of these beliefs. There is a clear sense in which we still don�t know what is really going on with him.

Now let�s flesh out Oliver�s story a little: suppose it turns out that he believes lots of other conspiracy theories apart from the one about 9/11. He believes the Moon landings were faked, that Diana, Princess of Wales, was murdered by MI6, and that the Ebola virus is an escaped bioweapon. Those who know him well say that he is easily duped, and you have independent evidence that he is careless in his thinking, with little understanding of the difference between genuine evidence and unsubstantiated speculation. Suddenly it all begins to make sense, but only because the focus has shifted from Oliver�s reasons to his character. You can now see his views about 9/11 in the context of his intellectual conduct generally, and this opens up the possibility of a different and deeper explanation of his belief than the one he gives: he thinks that 9/11 was an inside job because he is gullible in a certain way. He has what social psychologists call a �conspiracy mentality�.

Notice that the proposed character explanation isn�t a rationalising explanation. After all, being gullible isn�t a reason for believing anything, though it might still be why Oliver believes 9/11 was an inside job. And while Oliver might be expected to know his reasons for believing that 9/11 was an inside job, he is the last person to recognise that he believes what he believes about 9/11 because he is gullible. It is in the nature of many intellectual character traits that you don�t realise you have them, and so aren�t aware of the true extent to which your thinking is influenced by them. The gullible rarely believe they are gullible and the closed-minded don�t believe they are closed-minded. The only hope of overcoming self-ignorance in such cases is to accept that other people � your co-workers, your spouse, your friends � probably know your intellectual character better than you do. But even that won�t necessarily help. After all, it might be that refusing to listen to what other people say about you is one of your intellectual character traits. Some defects are incurable.

Gullibility, carelessness and closed-mindedness are examples of what the US philosopher Linda Zagzebski, in her book Virtues of the Mind (1996), has called �intellectual vices�. Others include negligence, idleness, rigidity, obtuseness, prejudice, lack of thoroughness, and insensitivity to detail. Intellectual character traits are habits or styles of thinking. To describe Oliver as gullible or careless is to say something about his intellectual style or mind-set � for example, about how he goes about trying to find out things about events such as 9/11. Intellectual character traits that aid effective and responsible enquiry are intellectual virtues, whereas intellectual vices are intellectual character traits that impede effective and responsible inquiry. Humility, caution and carefulness are among the intellectual virtues Oliver plainly lacks, and that is why his attempts to get to the bottom of 9/11 are so flawed.

Oliver is fictional, but real-world examples of intellectual vices in action are not hard to find. Consider the case of the �underwear bomber� Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit in 2009. Abdulmutallab was born in Lagos, Nigeria, to affluent and educated parents, and graduated from University College London with a degree in mechanical engineering. He was radicalised by the online sermons of the Islamic militant Anwar al-Awlaki, who was subsequently killed by an American drone strike. It�s hard not to see the fact that Abdulmutallab was taken in by Awlaki�s sermons as at least partly a reflection of his intellectual character. If Abdulmutallab had the intellectual character not to be duped by Awlaki, then perhaps he wouldn�t have ended up on a transatlantic airliner with explosives in his underpants.

Intellectual character explanations of questionable beliefs are more controversial than one might imagine. For example, it has been suggested that explaining peoples� bad behaviour or weird beliefs by reference to their character makes us more intolerant of them and less empathetic. Yet such explanations might still be correct, even if they have deleterious consequences. In any case, it�s not obvious that character explanations should make us less tolerant of other peoples� foibles. Suppose that Oliver can�t help being the kind of person who falls for conspiracy theories. Shouldn�t that make us more rather than less tolerant of him and his weird beliefs?

A different objection to character-based explanations is that it�s just not true that people have questionable beliefs because they are stupid or gullible. In How We Know What Isn�t So (1991), the US social psychologist Thomas Gilovich argues that many such beliefs have �purely cognitive origins�, by which he means that they are caused by imperfections in our capacities to process information and draw conclusions. Yet the example he gives of a cognitive explanation takes us right back to character explanations. His example is the �hot hand� in basketball. The idea is that when a player makes a couple of shots he is more likely to make subsequent shots. Success breeds success.

Gilovich used detailed statistical analysis to demonstrate that the hot hand doesn�t exist � performance on a given shot is independent of performance on previous shots. The question is, why do so many basketball coaches, players and fans believe in it anyway? Gilovich�s cognitive explanation is that belief in the hot hand is due to our faulty intuitions about chance sequences; as a species, we�re bad at recognising what genuinely random sequences look like.

And yet when Gilovich sent his results to a bunch of basketball coaches, what happened next is extremely revealing. One responded: �Who is this guy? So he makes a study. I couldn�t care less.� This seems like a perfect illustration of intellectual vices in operation. The dismissive reaction manifested a range of vices, including closed-mindedness and prejudice. It�s hard not to conclude that the coach reacted as he did because he was closed-minded or prejudiced. In such cases as this, as with the case of Oliver, it�s just not credible that character traits aren�t doing significant explanatory work. A less closed-minded coach might well have reacted completely differently to evidence that the hot hand doesn�t exist.

Could we explain the dismissiveness of the coach without referring to his personality in general? �Situationists�, as they are called, argue that our behaviour is generally better explained by situational factors than by our supposed character traits. Some see this as a good reason to be skeptical about the existence of character. In one experiment, students at a theological seminary were asked to give a talk elsewhere on campus. One group was asked to talk about the parable of the Good Samaritan, while the rest were assigned a different topic. Some were told they had plenty to time to reach the venue for the lecture, while others were told to hurry. On their way to the venue, all the students came across a person (an actor) apparently in need of help. In the event, the only variable that made a difference to whether they stopped to help was how much of a hurry they were in; students who thought they were running late were much less likely to stop and help than those who thought they had time. According to the Princeton philosopher Gilbert Harman, the lesson of such experiments is that �we need to convince people to look at situational factors and to stop trying to explain things in terms of character traits�.

The character traits that Harman had in mind are moral virtues such as kindness and generosity, but some situationists also object to the idea of intellectual virtues and vices. For example, they point to evidence that people perform much better in problem-solving tasks when they are in a good mood. If trivial situational factors such as mood or hunger are better at explaining your intellectual conduct than your so-called intellectual character, then what is the justification for believing in the existence of intellectual character traits? If such traits exist, then shouldn�t they explain one�s intellectual conduct? Absolutely, but examples such as Oliver and Gilovich�s basketball coach suggest that intellectual character traits do explain a person�s intellectual conduct in an important range of cases. People don�t believe weird things because they are hungry or in a bad (or good) mood. The view that people don�t have character traits such as gullibility, carelessness or prejudice, or that people don�t differ in intellectual character, deprives us of seemingly compelling explanations of the intellectual conduct of both Oliver and the basketball coach.

Suppose it turns out that Oliver lives in a region where conspiracy theories are rife or that he is under the influence of friends who are committed conspiracy theorists. Wouldn�t these be perfectly viable situational, non-character explanations of his beliefs about 9/11? Only up to a point. The fact that Oliver is easily influenced by his friends itself tells us something about his intellectual character. Where Oliver lives might help to explain his beliefs, but even if conspiracy theories are widespread in his neck of the woods we still need to understand why some people in his region believe them, while others don�t.

Differences in intellectual character help to explain why people in the same situation end up believing such different things. In order to think that intellectual character traits are relevant to a person�s intellectual conduct, you don�t have to think that other factors, including situational factors, are irrelevant. Intellectual character explains intellectual conduct only in conjunction with a lot of other things, including your situation and the way your brain processes information. Situationism certainly would be a problem for the view that character traits explain our conduct regardless of situational factors, but that is not a view of character anyone has ever wanted to defend.

In practical terms, one of the hardest things about dealing with people such as Oliver is that they are more than likely to accuse you of the same intellectual vices that you detect in them. You say that Oliver is gullible for believing his 9/11 conspiracy theory; he retorts that you are gullible for believing the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission. You say that he dismisses the official account of 9/11 because he is closed-minded; he accuses you of closed-mindedness for refusing to take conspiracy theories seriously. If we are often blind to our own intellectual vices then who are we to accuse Oliver of failing to realise that he believes his theories only because he is gullible?

These are all legitimate questions, but it�s important not to be too disconcerted by this attempt to turn the tables on you. True, no one is immune to self-ignorance. That doesn�t excuse Oliver. The fact is that his theory is no good, whereas there is every reason to believe that aircraft impacts did bring down the Twin Towers. Just because you believe the official account of what happened in 9/11 doesn�t make you gullible if there are good reasons to believe that account. Equally, being skeptical about the wilder claims of 9/11 conspiracy theorists doesn�t make you closed-minded if there are good reasons to be skeptical. Oliver is gullible because he believes things for which he has no good evidence, and he is closed-minded because he dismisses claims for which there is excellent evidence. It�s important not to fall into the trap of thinking that what counts as good evidence is a subjective matter. To say that Oliver lacks good evidence is to draw attention to the absence of eye-witness or forensic support for his theory about 9/11, and to the fact that his theory has been refuted by experts. Oliver might not accept any of this but that is, again, a reflection of his intellectual character.

Once you get past the idea that Oliver has somehow managed to turn the tables on you, there remains the problem of what to do about such people as him. If he is genuinely closed-minded then his mind will presumably be closed to the idea that he is closed-minded. Closed-mindedness is one of the toughest intellectual vices to tackle because it is in its nature to be concealed from those who have it. And even if you somehow get the Olivers of this world to acknowledge their own vices, that won�t necessarily make things any better. Tackling one�s intellectual vices requires more than self-knowledge. You also need to be motivated to do something about them, and actually be able to do something about them.

Should Oliver be condemned for his weaknesses? Philosophers like to think of virtues as having good motives and vices as having bad motives but Oliver�s motives needn�t be bad. He might have exactly the same motivation for knowledge as the intellectually virtuous person, yet be led astray by his gullibility and conspiracy mentality. So, both in respect of his motives and his responsibility for his intellectual vices, Oliver might not be strictly blameworthy. That doesn�t mean that nothing should be done about them or about him. If we care about the truth then we should care about equipping people with the intellectual means to arrive at the truth and avoid falsehood.

Education is the best way of doing that. Intellectual vices are only tendencies to think in certain ways, and tendencies can be countered. Our intellectual vices are balanced by our intellectual virtues, by intellectual character traits such as open-mindedness, curiosity and rigour. The intellectual character is a mixture of intellectual virtues and vices, and the aims of education should include cultivating intellectual virtues and curtailing intellectual vices. The philosopher Jason Baehr talks about �educating for intellectual virtues�, and that is in principle the best way to deal with people such as Oliver. A 2010 report to the University College London Council about the Abdulmutallab case came to a similar conclusion. It recommended the �development of academic training for students to encourage and equip them not only to think critically but to challenge unacceptable views�. The challenge is to work out how to do that.

What if Oliver is too far gone and can�t change his ways even if he wanted to? Like other bad habits, intellectual bad habits can be too deeply entrenched to change. This means living with their consequences. Trying to reason with people who are obstinately closed-minded, dogmatic or prejudiced is unlikely to be effective. The only remedy in such cases is to try to mitigate the harm their vices do to themselves and to others.

Meanwhile, those who have the gall to deliver homilies about other peoples� intellectual vices � that includes me � need to accept that they too are likely very far from perfect. In this context, as in most others, a little bit of humility goes a long way. It�s one thing not to cave in to Oliver�s attempt to turn the tables on you, but he has a point at least to this extent: none of us can deny that intellectual vices of one sort or another are at play in at least some of our thinking. Being alive to this possibility is the mark of a healthy mind.

So, I'll take a cue from the author and start by admitting my failures, and trying to begin from a point of humility: I believe people have good reason to be pissed off at some of the posts I've been making in DnD. I have a tendency to reach for extreme solutions without considering the consequences. I often zero in on small problems while missing the big picture. I admit that my beliefs that we have a limited time left in which to make major changes in how we live, govern, and consume are based on climate, finance, and resource evidence that's still controversial.

Still, I offer this post and my opening mea culpa in the hopes of inspiring others not to simply dismiss the questions raised in this article, but to really dig into the nature of our dialogue in DnD and ask if we might unwittingly be contributing to an institutionalized set of intellectual vices.

Now, you can simply dismiss me and the article. I'm not sure what that says if you choose to do so.

I think in particular about a lot of posts and messages I have been seeing where people are upset about the balance of force between the Democratic and Republican parties in America. I and a few others contend that the liberals and progressives of this country should be acting more radically and with more intensity in the face of very strong Republican offense. Others say we are deluded.

In particular, I, almost alone, have advocated for accelerationism. This reading has really made me rake and winnow my thoughts and try to understand why I'm inclined to believe the things I do. I went back and read previous things I had written for DnD. Eleven years ago, I wrote a thread called "Faith, Reason, and the Millennial Party Shift," in which I claimed that the GOP had figured out a way around rational argument by simply substituting the methods of Christian faith for the methods of rational inquiry, and would learn how to create an entire GOP base completely immune to reason.

Three years ago, in the RNC convention thread, I posted this screed and it provides more evidence about where my weird accelerationism might come from. By 2012, I was getting angry and frustrated not just at the tribalism that felt like it was separating America into two halves: the responsible, compassionate type, which I associated with DnD posters, and the FYGM conservatives, but especially at the apathy and lethargy I believed I saw in America's political middle. I can see myself, three years ago, getting crazy about how in the hell we would ever create real change. Did I overstate how severe the problem of political apathy was? Am I still way too worried about what happens if we just continue with business as usual? Am I REALLY willing to commit myself to being killed by angry Republicans if I WERE to be part of a push to let Republicans win? Am I unduly panicking about how much danger this country and the entire world is in right now?

Well, I'd definitely be committing the intellectual vice of hypocrisy if I didn't ask myself those hard questions first before asking you to do the same yourself. When I go back and look, I can see the flaws in my thinking. What REALLY pisses me off though, is an internal thought loop I can't seem to break myself of: I cannot convince myself that the liberals and progressives of this country have an honest and clear view of the existential danger they are in, and I do not believe that they have a sufficiently solid or actionable plan to counteract Republican advances. I can't tell if this is an intellectual failing of my own or a thing I should be rationally concerned about.

I've been butthurt about being taunted and mocked, but I'm done with that poo poo. Someone challenged me to put my views out in the open and really check myself for intellectual vices. So, in humility, I submit this post, in the hopes that it might open (EDIT: not just my eyes, but) even one other person's eyes to their own intellectual vices, so that we all might have better and more virtuous discussion in DnD.

Quidam Viator fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Mar 17, 2015

# ? Mar 17, 2015 17:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 04:14

Radbot: Aug 12, 2009; Can't post for 3 years!

I don't really understand the ultimate point of that article. It seems to handwave away a lot of the problems with accusing others of closed-mindedness, etc. - Oliver "turning the tables" on you isn't valid because there are "good reasons" to believe that 9/11 happened the way the Commission said it did.

But that's an easy example - there's SO MUCH evidence that 9/11 was an actual terrorist attack that it's akin to denying the moon landings if you say it didn't. But what about climate change? Half the country thinks that not listening to Willie Soon is being closed-minded - and who are you to disagree with them?

# ? Mar 17, 2015 19:36

Quidam Viator: Jan 24, 2001; ask me about how voting Donald Trump was worth 400k and counting dead.

Radbot posted:

I don't really understand the ultimate point of that article. It seems to handwave away a lot of the problems with accusing others of closed-mindedness, etc. - Oliver "turning the tables" on you isn't valid because there are "good reasons" to believe that 9/11 happened the way the Commission said it did.

But that's an easy example - there's SO MUCH evidence that 9/11 was an actual terrorist attack that it's akin to denying the moon landings if you say it didn't. But what about climate change? Half the country thinks that not listening to Willie Soon is being closed-minded - and who are you to disagree with them?

I believe that the author is trying to get to the philosophical roots of why modern political discourse is so fractured and unworkable. His contention is that despite other theories about situationalism, what mood people are in, or any other factors, that we now live in a time where people are freer than ever before to develop really, REALLY bad intellectual habits, and have those confirmed by internet echo chambers.

Whereas political commentary was once led by public intellectuals, and people who had made it over all the hurdles to be acclaimed as authorities through peer review, now, any idiot can go pick and choose a set of data that justifies pre-arranged conclusions and use a circular defense to ward off any reasonable attempts to change his mind.

I've talked about my issues. In DnD, I think that you addressed a particular problem that I tend to agree with: namely, that whenever someone expresses a sense of urgency or a desire for faster change, we get an orthodox answer that we should just join in politics on a local level, and all just work our way up until everything is perfect. You and I seem to agree that this is a ridiculously dismissive response: we have limited time left before things blow up, and there is a fully-integrated, top-to-bottom system in this country specifically designed to quell dissent and crush rising opposition before any impact can be made.

So, you say there's SO much evidence that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. We also know that there is abundant evidence that Obama, despite his flaws, is not a Muslim, was born in Hawaii, legitimately won both of his elections, and is not going to run for a third term. THE POINT of this article is to look at the VERY LARGE number of Americans who believe every one of these false things religiously, and get to the bottom of HOW they are able to believe them and resist all reasonable efforts to change their mind, and finally turn the tables and accuse YOU of being the rear end in a top hat for thinking differently. The current state of American politics is strongly determined by this very practice!

You see, MY POINT is that this specific quest, the quest to understand how and why your opposition believes and acts as it does is utterly essential to fighting it, and that I don't think we're doing a good enough job. DnD is dismissive as poo poo of non-orthodox views, and aren't willing to step back and understand that the people they're arguing with have something they believe is evidence too! Now, being able to sort through poo poo like "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" and dismiss it is one thing. On the other hand, when they claim the GOP is incompetent, and I respond by saying they own 70% of state legislatures and 38 out of 50 governorships, that's a different piece of evidence. And it means that I may actually have good reason in that case to contend that that's not like Obama winning the last election by a few percentage points; the GOP is eating the DNCs lunch on the state and federal level.

We exist in an almost rules-free environment when it comes to expressing and justifying beliefs on the internet. This article is about trying to really dig into ways to create legitimacy and discover our own intellectual vices and correct them.

# ? Mar 17, 2015 20:13

a whole buncha crows: May 8, 2003; WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHO TO HATE, WE HATE OURSELVES.-SA USER NATION (AKA ME!)

This is just another propaganda piece in the suppression of free thinking freemen strong enough to see past the illusion.

# ? Mar 17, 2015 20:29

kaynorr: Dec 31, 2003

Quidam Viator posted:

THE POINT of this article is to look at the VERY LARGE number of Americans who believe every one of these false things religiously, and get to the bottom of HOW they are able to believe them and resist all reasonable efforts to change their mind, and finally turn the tables and accuse YOU of being the rear end in a top hat for thinking differently. The current state of American politics is strongly determined by this very practice!

This is going to possibly sound weird (and may very well be wrong), but I'm going to throw out there that if you want people to be more open-minded, they have to be more economically secure.

The truth is expensive. The act of searching for the truth is expensive, whether you measure it in the millions of dollars required to properly study even the simplest phenomenon, the mental discipline to painstakingly research your gut feelings about topics that every informed citizen should have an opinion about, or the emotional cost of rejecting the beliefs implanted by the role models of your youth. The closer you are to poverty, the less money/energy/willpower/what-have-you can be risked challenging what is fed to you just by living in the world. Meaning that whatever lands in your brain first and can latch on to an existing bias will probably win the day. First impressions are everything, confirmation bias is everything, and it can cost an order of magnitude more to dislodge a false belief than to implant a true one.

I do not think it is a coincidence that our most economically prosperious period also saw us as a nation most willing to challenge bullshit attitudes about race, gender, and sexuality.

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:00

Sinnlos: Sep 5, 2011; Ask me about believing in magical rainbow gold

I think you're a Bad Thinker OP

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:03

site: Apr 6, 2007; Trans pride, Worldwide
Bitch

Is there a teal deer for your op?

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:04

Sinnlos: Sep 5, 2011; Ask me about believing in magical rainbow gold

Here's a good thought: Latin has little appreciable use in modern society.

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:19

Quidam Viator: Jan 24, 2001; ask me about how voting Donald Trump was worth 400k and counting dead.

Nation posted:

This is just another propaganda piece in the suppression of free thinking freemen strong enough to see past the illusion.

*sigh*

kaynorr posted:

This is going to possibly sound weird (and may very well be wrong), but I'm going to throw out there that if you want people to be more open-minded, they have to be more economically secure.

The truth is expensive. The act of searching for the truth is expensive, whether you measure it in the millions of dollars required to properly study even the simplest phenomenon, the mental discipline to painstakingly research your gut feelings about topics that every informed citizen should have an opinion about, or the emotional cost of rejecting the beliefs implanted by the role models of your youth. The closer you are to poverty, the less money/energy/willpower/what-have-you can be risked challenging what is fed to you just by living in the world. Meaning that whatever lands in your brain first and can latch on to an existing bias will probably win the day. First impressions are everything, confirmation bias is everything, and it can cost an order of magnitude more to dislodge a false belief than to implant a true one.

I do not think it is a coincidence that our most economically prosperious period also saw us as a nation most willing to challenge bullshit attitudes about race, gender, and sexuality.

No, I think you're absolutely right. Stressors can push people into intellectual vices, despite their best intents. I think the current state of the economy, with 35 years of stagnant wages, is the proverbial slow heating of the boiling frog, and that it will take a lot of really difficult introspection to break the habits that pressure has formed.

Sinnlos posted:

I think you're a Bad Thinker OP

Well, I tried to come out with humility and acknowledge my own issues. You could be constructive and help point out specifics to me. Or you could just keep on with being a non-contributing shitposter.

site posted:

Is there a teal deer for your op?

What's a teal deer?

TL;DR? Basically that it's a valid thing to examine a person's intellectual habits and identify bad ideas coming from bad habits. Moreover, that every one of us should be engaged in an active questioning of our own politics, our choice of forums, and the evidence we believe is "incontrovertible", because we can become better, more virtuous thinkers that way. I would like to get better, and I would hope to find others who take that mission seriously. How's that?

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:22

paranoid randroid: Mar 4, 2007

Sounds like Oliver needs some order to exist in reality and feels threatened by the idea that things happen, frequently, for reasons that are out of anyone's control or even for no reason at all.

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:30

Wheeee: Mar 11, 2001; When a tree grows, it is soft and pliable. But when it's dry and hard, it dies.

Hardness and strength are death's companions. Flexibility and softness are the embodiment of life.

That which has become hard shall not triumph.

kaynorr posted:

This is going to possibly sound weird (and may very well be wrong), but I'm going to throw out there that if you want people to be more open-minded, they have to be more economically secure.

This pretty much answers the questions posed by the OP regarding political inactivity.

Yes, the rise of the Right in the global West has horrifying implications, yes, climate change is very likely going to devastate humanity several decades from now, and yes, increasing inequality combined with decreasing socioeconomic mobility is creating a sort of neo-feudalism.

But right now if I'm working full time for barely above poverty level wages, behind on my bills, with kids to take care of, I don't have the level of personal security required to even begin giving a poo poo about broader issues.

There's a reason nearly every revolution has been started by the bourgeois: Working class serfs are a paycheque or two away from relocating their address to a cardboard box, with all the stress and mental load that comes with living with no security.

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:32

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Quidam Viator posted:

You see, MY POINT is that this specific quest, the quest to understand how and why your opposition believes and acts as it does is utterly essential to fighting it, and that I don't think we're doing a good enough job. DnD is dismissive as poo poo of non-orthodox views, and aren't willing to step back and understand that the people they're arguing with have something they believe is evidence too! Now, being able to sort through poo poo like "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" and dismiss it is one thing. On the other hand, when they claim the GOP is incompetent, and I respond by saying they own 70% of state legislatures and 38 out of 50 governorships, that's a different piece of evidence. And it means that I may actually have good reason in that case to contend that that's not like Obama winning the last election by a few percentage points; the GOP is eating the DNCs lunch on the state and federal level.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq3pe1LWj6w

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:37

kaynorr: Dec 31, 2003

Wheeee posted:

But right now if I'm working full time for barely above poverty level wages, behind on my bills, with kids to take care of, I don't have the level of personal security required to even begin giving a poo poo about broader issues.

Amergin actually contributed something really useful in the USPol thread by throwing out a strawman regarding what being a stereotypical D&D "get off the fence and get involved" reaction would be. It had the usual hyperbole of course, but made the very real point that if the only people who are allowed to change the system are those who can afford to devote their life and career to politics, the only people you are going to get are those who can afford to do so (or those who are so fanatically driven that it's what they want more than a family, kids, or anything else). The democratic assumption is that there are so many of these people that the populace can be forced to pick among them and STILL get good leaders, but I think economic uncertainty makes that less and less likely every day.

Let's add one more thing to the list of ways that GMI would make our society better.

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:42

Vermain: Sep 5, 2006

Quidam Viator posted:

Whereas political commentary was once led by public intellectuals, and people who had made it over all the hurdles to be acclaimed as authorities through peer review, now, any idiot can go pick and choose a set of data that justifies pre-arranged conclusions and use a circular defense to ward off any reasonable attempts to change his mind.

Which particular time period was this? What was different about the political situation and public beliefs of that time period versus today's time period?

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:45

visceril: Feb 24, 2008

Hey buddy maybe you should Think about condensing your thoughts a bit before posting.

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:52

visceril: Feb 24, 2008

Also consider not posting

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:53

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

There ain't no loving quest, the oppo wants to win and loves power. Everyone loves power, its loving amazing. Individuals attempt to empower themselves by coalescing in communities which afford them accolades; some of these accolades take the form of actual power and wealth, others, of imagined wealth.

The importance ain't that everyone is out for more, its that proper institutions force individuals to abandon their priviledges and accept the burdens of responsibility.

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:53

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Vermain posted:

Which particular time period was this? What was different about the political situation and public beliefs of that time period versus today's time period?

oh lol i didn't even see that part hiding in all the rhetorical bushes

i too long for a return to our enlightened intellectual past, when only the most intelligent and respected scholars were permitted to drive political disc-

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:53

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

So is this the 9/11 conspiracy discussion thread?

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:54

visceril: Feb 24, 2008

Jet fuel can't melt massive OPs

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:54

Sophian: Jun 16, 2007; .
.
.
.
I'm nothing.

Interesting article. For my two cents, I would say that the key to challenging closed-minded thinking is to not engage it rationally but rather through building rapport and trust with the individual in question. Humanities' tribal nature that helped us band together as hunters and gatherers is what now holds us back as we stubbornly pick Right/Left, Republican/Democrat, etc. Any direct confrontation with the closed-minded will be viewed as an antagonistic action regardless of intent because they will view such interactions as being from an "Other". By engaging the social parts of a person's mind first, you are taking a backdoor past their mental defenses and moving from being seen as "Other" to being seen as "One of the Tribe". It is at that point that open and honest discussion can be had with the close-minded.

Daryl Davis is one of my personal heroes on this matter. The absolute balls it took to be a black man risking an interview with KKK leadership coupled with a godlike amount of compassion and tolerance to engage the members without hostility just blows my mind. And you can't argue with the results. The man has a closet full of KKK robes from former members who quit after he befriended them.

Also, as much as I hate to admit it, I was also once part of the Religious Right. I grew up deep in the Bible Belt born to a ultra-conservative fundamentalist family and homeschooled to boot. So to say I was entrenched in that ideology is an understatement. I have specific memories from that time of trying to explore opposing points of view and unfortunately the (as I percieved it) abrasive manner in which I first experienced things like feminism and socialism drove me away from exploring them fully. At that point I mistakenly regarded my limited knowledge of those concepts as being indicative of the whole and I went back to the comfortable echo chambers of my church groups and talk radio. It wasn't until my early twenties during a major existential crisis that I bothered to challenge my ideas again. That time around, helped in part by this forum and the maturation of the internet in general, I was able to get a much clearer picture of many topics regarding religion, gender issues, and politics. But who knows? If I hadn't read level-headed discussions on the flaws of conservative politics, would I have changed my political beliefs? If I hadn't read a critical analysis of the movie Aliens, would I have taken the road toward third-wave feminism? I'd like to think that I am smart enough that I would have done so eventually. But who knows?

Sophian fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Mar 17, 2015

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:55

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

What the hell do you actually want to talk about? Accelerationism or self-criticism of one's own ideas or how to convince others who are bad thinkers that they're bad thinkers, or just get them to change?

If it's the former, in simple terms, explain why the hell you think accelerationism will work. Useful tidbits here would be : Any times accelerationism has ever worked before, the mechanism of action whereby accelerationism would work.

If it's the latter, then do you want to talk about how to combat your own intellectual 'vices' (which has a weird moral tone to it, by the way), or other people's? The two things have very little to do with each other.

It is insanely difficult to tell what conversation you want to have here. It mostly just seems like frustration spilling out in rhetoric.

I don't really have any problems with the article, but it's pretty long-winded for stuff that's basically common sense. I don't think that the idea he's presenting--that Oliver believes what he does partially because he's a bad thinker--is in the least bit controversial. It is, instead, as he says, common sense and intuitive. The author makes this claim: "Usually, when philosophers try to explain why someone believes things (weird or otherwise), they focus on that person�s reasons rather than their character traits." but doesn't bother backing that up with any sort of evidence that this is true. It also is very, very unlikely that the author has done the necessary research to comment on what philosopher's 'usually' do; he gives a couple of examples. That's all. And then it turns out that he's actually taking a position in the middle, by acknowledging that situation plays an important role in decision-making, along with 'intellectual character.' Which is, again, common sense.

Teal Dear: The article is a mess and your OP is a mess.

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:56

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

i didn't read that wall of text, but i heard it's bad op. thoughts?

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:57

esto es malo: Aug 3, 2006; Don't want to end up a cartoon

In a cartoon graveyard

Quidam Viator posted:

I include, for your consideration, the text of this Aeon article about the self-examination of one's own intellectual vices and virtues:

So, I'll take a cue from the author and start by admitting my failures, and trying to begin from a point of humility: I believe people have good reason to be pissed off at some of the posts I've been making in DnD. I have a tendency to reach for extreme solutions without considering the consequences. I often zero in on small problems while missing the big picture. I admit that my beliefs that we have a limited time left in which to make major changes in how we live, govern, and consume are based on climate, finance, and resource evidence that's still controversial.

Still, I offer this post and my opening mea culpa in the hopes of inspiring others not to simply dismiss the questions raised in this article, but to really dig into the nature of our dialogue in DnD and ask if we might unwittingly be contributing to an institutionalized set of intellectual vices.

Now, you can simply dismiss me and the article. I'm not sure what that says if you choose to do so.

I think in particular about a lot of posts and messages I have been seeing where people are upset about the balance of force between the Democratic and Republican parties in America. I and a few others contend that the liberals and progressives of this country should be acting more radically and with more intensity in the face of very strong Republican offense. Others say we are deluded.

In particular, I, almost alone, have advocated for accelerationism. This reading has really made me rake and winnow my thoughts and try to understand why I'm inclined to believe the things I do. I went back and read previous things I had written for DnD. Eleven years ago, I wrote a thread called "Faith, Reason, and the Millennial Party Shift," in which I claimed that the GOP had figured out a way around rational argument by simply substituting the methods of Christian faith for the methods of rational inquiry, and would learn how to create an entire GOP base completely immune to reason.

Three years ago, in the RNC convention thread, I posted this screed and it provides more evidence about where my weird accelerationism might come from. By 2012, I was getting angry and frustrated not just at the tribalism that felt like it was separating America into two halves: the responsible, compassionate type, which I associated with DnD posters, and the FYGM conservatives, but especially at the apathy and lethargy I believed I saw in America's political middle. I can see myself, three years ago, getting crazy about how in the hell we would ever create real change. Did I overstate how severe the problem of political apathy was? Am I still way too worried about what happens if we just continue with business as usual? Am I REALLY willing to commit myself to being killed by angry Republicans if I WERE to be part of a push to let Republicans win? Am I unduly panicking about how much danger this country and the entire world is in right now?

Well, I'd definitely be committing the intellectual vice of hypocrisy if I didn't ask myself those hard questions first before asking you to do the same yourself. When I go back and look, I can see the flaws in my thinking. What REALLY pisses me off though, is an internal thought loop I can't seem to break myself of: I cannot convince myself that the liberals and progressives of this country have an honest and clear view of the existential danger they are in, and I do not believe that they have a sufficiently solid or actionable plan to counteract Republican advances. I can't tell if this is an intellectual failing of my own or a thing I should be rationally concerned about.

I've been butthurt about being taunted and mocked, but I'm done with that poo poo. Someone challenged me to put my views out in the open and really check myself for intellectual vices. So, in humility, I submit this post, in the hopes that it might open (EDIT: not just my eyes, but) even one other person's eyes to their own intellectual vices, so that we all might have better and more virtuous discussion in DnD.

tl;dr

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:59

Quidam Viator: Jan 24, 2001; ask me about how voting Donald Trump was worth 400k and counting dead.

Vermain posted:

Which particular time period was this? What was different about the political situation and public beliefs of that time period versus today's time period?

I'm thinking Walter Cronkite times. You had a three-channel media, and people still read the same newspapers. Vetted, legitimate information was stored in libraries. Access to non-mainstream ideas took real work, and people with weird, out-there ideas were isolated, rather than connected by the internet.

The media consolidation created more unified opinions and for better or for worse, tended to limit the diversity of opinions on world events. The fracturing caused by the explosion of options near the end of Vietnam, Nixon and Watergate, and finally, 24 hour news and the advent of the internet have massively democratized the information ecosystem.

I think it took away a comforting (if possibly misguided) sense that Americans had that old Walter Cronkite was delivering them news they could trust, and not feel fooled or lied to.

I could be wrong, but that's the impression I have gotted of the period.

# ? Mar 17, 2015 21:59

My Imaginary GF: Jul 17, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Sophian posted:

Interesting article. For my two cents, I would say that the key to challenging closed-minded thinking is to not engage it rationally but rather through building rapport and trust with the individual in question. Humanities' tribal nature that helped us band together as hunters and gatherers is what now holds us back as we stubbornly pick Right/Left, Republican/Democrat, etc. Any direct confrontation with the closed-minded will be viewed as an antagonistic action regardless of intent because they will view such interactions as being from an "Other". By engaging the social parts of a person's mind first, you are taking a backdoor past their mental defenses and moving from being seen as "Other" to being seen as "One of the Tribe". It is at that point that open and honest discussion can be had with the close-minded.

Daryl Davis is one of my personal heroes on this matter. The absolute balls it took to be a black man risking an interview with KKK leadership coupled with a godlike amount of compassion and tolerance to engage the members without hostility just blows my mind. And you can't argue with the results. The man has a closet full of KKK robes from former members who quit after he befriended them.

Also, as much as I hate to admit it, I was also once part of the Religious Right. I grew up deep in the Bible Belt born to a ultra-conservative fundamentalist family and homeschooled to boot. So to say I was entrenched in that ideology is an understatement. I have specific memories from that time of trying to explore opposing points of view and unfortunately the (as I percieved it) abrasive manner in which I first experienced things like feminism and socialism drove me away from exploring them fully. At that point I mistakenly regarded my limited knowledge of those concepts as being indicative of the whole and I went back to the comfortable echo chambers of my church groups and talk radio. It wasn't until my early twenties during a major existential crisis that I bothered to challenge my ideas again. That time around, helped in part by this forum and the maturation of the internet in general, I was able to get a much clearer picture of many topics regarding religion, gender issues, and politics. But who knows? If I hadn't read level-headed discussions on the flaws of conservative politics, would I have changed my political beliefs? If I hadn't read a critical analysis of the movie Aliens, would I have taken the road toward third-wave feminism? I'd like to think that I am smart enough that I would have done so eventually. But who know?

The key to changing minds is to force individuals to admit inappropriate opinions are inappropriate through whatever means necessary, be it bullying, violence, ostrication, isolation, imprisonment, or general throwing them to institutional wolves.

Some individuals respond to carot; some to stick; still others are too far gone for appropriate life.

Quidam Viator posted:

I'm thinking Walter Cronkite times. You had a three-channel media, and people still read the same newspapers. Vetted, legitimate information was stored in libraries. Access to non-mainstream ideas took real work, and people with weird, out-there ideas were isolated, rather than connected by the internet.

The media consolidation created more unified opinions and for better or for worse, tended to limit the diversity of opinions on world events. The fracturing caused by the explosion of options near the end of Vietnam, Nixon and Watergate, and finally, 24 hour news and the advent of the internet have massively democratized the information ecosystem.

I think it took away a comforting (if possibly misguided) sense that Americans had that old Walter Cronkite was delivering them news they could trust, and not feel fooled or lied to.

I could be wrong, but that's the impression I have gotted of the period.

You vomit wordsalad. Times are changing, control over narrative loosened, methodologies to improvd predictive analysis of the street are the future and why BM owns and you just bones, grandpa.

# ? Mar 17, 2015 22:00

Quidam Viator: Jan 24, 2001; ask me about how voting Donald Trump was worth 400k and counting dead.

Sophian posted:

Interesting article. For my two cents, I would say that the key to challenging closed-minded thinking is to not engage it rationally but rather through building rapport and trust with the individual in question. Humanities' tribal nature that helped us band together as hunters and gatherers is what now holds us back as we stubbornly pick Right/Left, Republican/Democrat, etc. Any direct confrontation with the closed-minded will be viewed as an antagonistic action regardless of intent because they will view such interactions as being from an "Other". By engaging the social parts of a person's mind first, you are taking a backdoor past their mental defenses and moving from being seen as "Other" to being seen as "One of the Tribe". It is at that point that open and honest discussion can be had with the close-minded.

Daryl Davis is one of my personal heroes on this matter. The absolute balls it took to be a black man risking an interview with KKK leadership coupled with a godlike amount of compassion and tolerance to engage the members without hostility just blows my mind. And you can't argue with the results. The man has a closet full of KKK robes from former members who quit after he befriended them.

Also, as much as I hate to admit it, I was also once part of the Religious Right. I grew up deep in the Bible Belt born to a ultra-conservative fundamentalist family and homeschooled to boot. So to say I was entrenched in that ideology is an understatement. I have specific memories from that time of trying to explore opposing points of view and unfortunately the (as I percieved it) abrasive manner in which I first experienced things like feminism and socialism drove me away from exploring them fully. At that point I mistakenly regarded my limited knowledge of those concepts as being indicative of the whole and I went back to the comfortable echo chambers of my church groups and talk radio. It wasn't until my early twenties during a major existential crisis that I bothered to challenge my ideas again. That time around, helped in part by this forum and the maturation of the internet in general, I was able to get a much clearer picture of many topics regarding religion, gender issues, and politics. But who knows? If I hadn't read level-headed discussions on the flaws of conservative politics, would I have changed my political beliefs? If I hadn't read a critical analysis of the movie Aliens, would I have taken the road toward third-wave feminism? I'd like to think that I am smart enough that I would have done so eventually. But who knows?

Thank you for a reasonable response. Here's to hoping that more people actively seek out common ground, and that those they move toward are willing to do what those KKK members did.

# ? Mar 17, 2015 22:02

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Quidam Viator posted:

I'm thinking Walter Cronkite times. You had a three-channel media, and people still read the same newspapers. Vetted, legitimate information was stored in libraries. Access to non-mainstream ideas took real work, and people with weird, out-there ideas were isolated, rather than connected by the internet.

The media consolidation created more unified opinions and for better or for worse, tended to limit the diversity of opinions on world events. The fracturing caused by the explosion of options near the end of Vietnam, Nixon and Watergate, and finally, 24 hour news and the advent of the internet have massively democratized the information ecosystem.

I think it took away a comforting (if possibly misguided) sense that Americans had that old Walter Cronkite was delivering them news they could trust, and not feel fooled or lied to.

I could be wrong, but that's the impression I have gotted of the period.

i think you're overly romanticizing the past. just because there are only a few authoritative sources of information doesn't mean that the information they produce is valid and useful

people did NOT read the same newspapers - it was common to have multiple competing newspapers in this era, each with its own established ideological bias

# ? Mar 17, 2015 22:03

Vermain: Sep 5, 2006

Quidam Viator posted:

I'm thinking Walter Cronkite times. You had a three-channel media, and people still read the same newspapers. Vetted, legitimate information was stored in libraries. Access to non-mainstream ideas took real work, and people with weird, out-there ideas were isolated, rather than connected by the internet.

Okay, but: what effect did this have on the actual course of politics in the United States of America? What were the beliefs and opinions of people in that period of time like compared to the beliefs and opinions of the people in this time period? Were they more informed? Less informed?

# ? Mar 17, 2015 22:03

paranoid randroid: Mar 4, 2007

Quidam Viator posted:

I could be wrong, but that's the impression I have gotted of the period.

You're mistaking the presence of broadcasting gatekeepers for the standard rather than the exception. Most cities had any number of newspapers in circulation and you could still happily wall yourself off in your ideological bubble by reading the Times rather than the Standard.

# ? Mar 17, 2015 22:03

visceril: Feb 24, 2008

Exugere verpa meum

# ? Mar 17, 2015 22:04

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Quidam Viator posted:

I'm thinking Walter Cronkite times. You had a three-channel media, and people still read the same newspapers. Vetted, legitimate information was stored in libraries. Access to non-mainstream ideas took real work, and people with weird, out-there ideas were isolated, rather than connected by the internet.

The media consolidation created more unified opinions and for better or for worse, tended to limit the diversity of opinions on world events. The fracturing caused by the explosion of options near the end of Vietnam, Nixon and Watergate, and finally, 24 hour news and the advent of the internet have massively democratized the information ecosystem.

I think it took away a comforting (if possibly misguided) sense that Americans had that old Walter Cronkite was delivering them news they could trust, and not feel fooled or lied to.

I could be wrong, but that's the impression I have gotted of the period.

Lol no people did not read "the same newspapers". Most cities if not most metro areas had several different competing papers, each often having a particular partisan bent to them. Your high-flyin' business man or guy with pretensions to being such might pay the substantial expense to have a national paper of record like the WSJ, Philadelphia Inquirer, New York Times, Washington Post or Los Angeles Times, or that one Chicago newspaper delivered out to his area daily, sure. But the average Joe? He'd pick from a good 4 or 5 papers in major metros or from 2 or 3, usually even more partisan, papers in smaller areas.

Also "vetted, legit info in libraries"? No not really. Then as now plenty of libraries happily stocked books that were barely research, and particularly in history and economics often flat out wrong, though those facts often weren't widely known until modern times, when more critical methods were used. And if you were in religious areas, you could easily expect to have nothing on things like evolution, or even on other religions.

# ? Mar 17, 2015 22:05

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Quidam Viator posted:

I'm thinking Walter Cronkite times. You had a three-channel media, and people still read the same newspapers. Vetted, legitimate information was stored in libraries. Access to non-mainstream ideas took real work, and people with weird, out-there ideas were isolated, rather than connected by the internet.

The media consolidation created more unified opinions and for better or for worse, tended to limit the diversity of opinions on world events. The fracturing caused by the explosion of options near the end of Vietnam, Nixon and Watergate, and finally, 24 hour news and the advent of the internet have massively democratized the information ecosystem.

I think it took away a comforting (if possibly misguided) sense that Americans had that old Walter Cronkite was delivering them news they could trust, and not feel fooled or lied to.

I could be wrong, but that's the impression I have gotted of the period.

Impressions are pretty worthless. Actual research is cool. Do you think that black Americans during that time period felt that they weren't getting lied to? Do you think that the fact that newspapers, magazines, etc. were vastly more diverse back then versus now should be taken into account? For gently caress's sake you had Murray Kempton writing for the Post every week. The media was less consolidated back then, not more. You did not have a three-channel media, you had tons more independent newspapers where people got their news.

# ? Mar 17, 2015 22:05

Woozy: Jan 3, 2006

Conspiracy theories are basically liberation politics for people who are stuck ideologically as liberal capitalists. You get to preserve the comforting national mythology by inventing a new story about the corrupting influence of "elites" who have infiltrated and co-opted institutions which would otherwise be working just fine, with the added benefit of these elites being so all powerful and inscrutable that you go right on doing nothing about it and never feel guilty.

# ? Mar 17, 2015 22:06

Quidam Viator: Jan 24, 2001; ask me about how voting Donald Trump was worth 400k and counting dead.

Volkerball posted:

i didn't read that wall of text, but i heard it's bad op. thoughts?

I guess I'm a loving relic from the old days when people would post whole articles in DnD, along with commentary, and debate and discussion would ensue. The snarky responses I'm getting seem to indicate that not only is the article that I found utter poo poo, but my writing is poo poo too. I mean, out of the responses, how many are one-liners?

If you read the whole thing, and feel no impulse to reflect on your own positions, the evidence you believe in, and your own intellectual habits, then I guess I underestimated the seriousness of this forum anymore. I found, in reading it, that I have been making some pretty serious intellectual errors, which were in that "wall of text", submitted in earnest to a forum I'd like to still respect.

Quidam Viator fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Mar 17, 2015

# ? Mar 17, 2015 22:07

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

if you're bludgeoning d&d with giant articles that say very little out of respect to a romanticised past discussion forum uh well there's your problem

# ? Mar 17, 2015 22:11

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Quidam Viator posted:

I guess I'm a loving relic from the old days when people would post whole articles in DnD, along with commentary, and debate and discussion would ensue. The snarky responses I'm getting seem to indicate that not only is the article that I found interesting poo poo, but my writing is poo poo too. I mean, out of the responses, how many are one-liners?

If you read the whole thing, and feel no impulse to reflect on your own positions, the evidence you believe in, and your own intellectual habits, then I guess I underestimated the seriousness of this forum anymore. I found, in reading it, that I have been making some pretty serious intellectual errors, which were in that "wall of text", submitted in earnest to a forum I'd like to still respect.

You're not a relic, you're a shoddy faked antique, trying to be sold to a museum as the real deal.

Yes 14 years ago this forum would have "seriously debated" this stuff but that's because most of us posting back then were college undergrads, teens, or even younger and the ideas were fresh then. I was like 11 then posting in Current Events and hell I'd probably think that article was mindblowing because I was a literal child.

# ? Mar 17, 2015 22:12

Vermain: Sep 5, 2006

I'm with Obdicut here in the sense that the article is mostly a series of truisms: people latch on to specific ideas or concepts and have a difficult time letting go on them (due to the integration of those beliefs as a part of their identity); "rationality" as a concept can be used to marginalize or ignore legitimate heterodox views; and challenging patently false or weak ideas with the goal of changing someone's mind is a Herculean task. What were you hoping people would discuss about it?

Vermain fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Mar 17, 2015

# ? Mar 17, 2015 22:13

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Quidam Viator posted:

If you read the whole thing, and feel no impulse to reflect on your own positions, the evidence you believe in, and your own intellectual habits, then I guess I underestimated the seriousness of this forum anymore. I found, in reading it, that I have been making some pretty serious intellectual errors, which were in that "wall of text", submitted in earnest to a forum I'd like to still respect.

The thing is that most people I know already do this poo poo. It's the basis of intellectual inquiry, self-doubt and self-criticism. It is not some amazing awakening to go "Hey, maybe I'm not always right, maybe I should re-examine my positions!" It's something that you should be doing all the time and anyone who studies stuff seriously already does this. You don't actually appear to be doing it even now, which is ironic. I mean, you just shat out a post about your 'impressions' about what media was like historically versus now without bothering to think it through or do any research. You also quoted an article that makes a claim about what 'most philosophers' do. Before ever making a claim about what 'most philosophers' do I would have to, y'know, actually read a statistically significant sample of philosophers (the creation of which set would be incredibly daunting intellectually challenging) and then do the complex task of analyzing how they feel about his particular subject--which is not something most philosophers directly address--how people form bad opinions. I do not believe that the author has done this work, because he gives no evidence of having done it and it would be an incredibly challenging task that would take years and goddamn years.

# ? Mar 17, 2015 22:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 04:14

Quidam Viator: Jan 24, 2001; ask me about how voting Donald Trump was worth 400k and counting dead.

So, Vermain asked me a question about my thoughts about media in the 50s and 60s. I answered. Everyone isn't just telling me I'm wrong, they're getting nasty about it. Is this just about making GBS threads on me at this point?

Seriously, I have like one person willing to comment on the possibility of finding common ground with others and helping them to overcome their intellectual vices, and everyone else just wants to drop one-liners and attack the messenger?

# ? Mar 17, 2015 22:17

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Bad Thinkers: On Accelerationism, Conspiracy Theory, and Intellectual Vices

«‹›2 »