From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Sep 16 2002 - 16:28:21 MDT
Harvey writes
> On Sunday, September 15, 2002, at 11:10 pm, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> > Any adult with the slightest interest in social developments
> > or politics soon becomes acquainted with a most curious
> > phenomenon: the almost platonic reality of the left-right
> > political spectrum. As soon as you know someone's views on
> > a relatively small number of issues, you can correctly infer
> > their views on almost all issues. Now what exactly determines
> > how someone comes to reside at a particular position on this
> > spectrum, and what are the deepest differences in values that
> > characterize the different views?
>
> I respectfully disagree that this phenomenon exists at all.
> The left-right continuum is totally inadequate to describe
> most political views.
> I also do not believe that it is possible to predict someone's
> viewpoints from a few measurements. This is simply another
> stereotype.
Yes, I am from time to time impressed with other, higher
dimensional schemes. Yet I'm surprised that you disbelieve
in the existence of the phenomenon at all, which I guess is
really your main point. Care to bet what Noam Chomsky thinks
about the 2nd amendment issue (assuming that he's not already
written about it)? One could lay very long odds that he
would have the same position on it that most Western leftists
do. It's quite similar on other issues, e.g., need one ask
what Charlton Heston thinks about whether taxation is too high?
This is a *real* phenomenon.
> I find that people who do believe in these stereotypes
> are constantly getting into fights and are constantly
> being accused of twisting other people's words.
But you also get into many fights, and are also accused
of twisting other people's words. True, one list member
may denounce another using all the familiar labels, but
I think that this occurs *only* when the accused party
has in fact shown that they are that conservative, or
that liberal. Otherwise we would see the most outraged
reactions: "I *am* NOT a liberal!!?? WHO told you that??",
(or vice-versa for conservative, or leftist, or libertarian,
or socialist, etc.)
> Why? Because they really don't listen or understand
> what other people are saying. They pigeon-hole people
> into their preconceived notions or stereotypes, and
> then proceed to argue against the stereotype in their
> head, regardless of what the other person might really
> believe.
This does sometimes occur. Once I started a thread that
I called "Censorship". It was a bad mistake (I should have
called it "On Censorship") because some people immediately
believed that I was making an accusation of "censorship!".
You can see why they thought so, given some of my earlier
views. But if they had just *read* my post carefully,
then they would have seen that it was all about *definitions*,
and whether or not censorship had occurred, and it even had
a self-congratulatory conclusion that at least on
Extropians we didn't have any censorship.
You're saying above that it's mostly miscommunication (it
seems to me---maybe you're not really saying that) that's
causing the fights. No, it's mostly genuine political
and philosophic differences. You're also saying that
bad communication is also responsible for the accusations
of people twisting other people's words. There I think
you're right. There is a tendency to read something in
the worst possible way.
> I think the truth is that we all discuss the roots "behind" these
> disagreements all the time. We just disagree on what these roots
> are. There are current threads about the roots of IQ, racism,
> terrorism, Luddism, religious belief, etc.
Yes, we do discuss the roots of those particular debates.
But I'm talking about something that you don't think
exists, evidently, i.e., the tremendous correlations
between beliefs. (On the other hand, perhaps you do
believe in those; you did imply that there was such a
thing as a *libertarian* position. Can you clarify?)
> Instead of saying that no one except you is willing to
> examine the root causes of things, it might be more
> accurate to say that no one except you believes in your
> particular set of root causes.
Harvey, I am tired of your always trying to speak for
the majority, and always relegate me to the minority.
(In this case, a minority of one!) That was a great
trick back in the days of the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks,
but this might be a behavior that you would be interested
in deleting from your repertoire.
Though it's true that on two or three occasions in the
past people didn't respond to my hints that we could
attempt to get past superficial political differences,
they've responded quite well so far. Also, frankly, I
don't yet believe in a particular set of root causes;
perhaps they're psychological as Marc Geddes is
conjecturing; perhaps they arise from other tastes
in people or behavior; maybe they are entirely due to
upbringing by parents or peer group; I don't know.
> > This is because, sadly, most people consciously or not view
> > their own position as "right" and all other positions as
> > misguided, or ignorant, evilly motivated, uninformed, or
> > even stupid. Admit it! Isn't that what you *truly* think
> > of those who are always on the other side of every issue
> > from you?
>
> This is the biggest problem with all communications today. People are
> so sure they are right that they can't imagine other people holding
> different beliefs. They always must invent some conspiracy theory to
> explain why everyone else is behaving so irrationally.
Yes, they don't want to face the fact that symmetries exist.
> To be honest, I think you are doing this now. You are trying
> to come up with a "reason" why no one else wants to discuss
> root issues with you. [Ahem. "No one"?] I think you are
> assuming that everyone perceives the same root issues as
> you do, and have some reason such as fear that prevents them from
> discussing.
Not at all! I can't think of a single reason that someone
would be afraid. It never occurred to me.
> > Is it *impossible* to unearth the unarticulated
> > assumptions that underlie each position?
>
> Not at all. I think every person would conclude that they have
> already done this.
Already one other person besides myself has admitted that
they can't always do it, and that it can be uncomfortable
when they do (or are presented with their assumptions).
> I think all our root assumptions would turn out to
> be different. I don't think we will all fall into
> a simple set of one or two belief systems.
Probably yes.
> I don't think we can be stereotyped into right or left
> or whatever. If we try to discuss these root assumptions,
> we find that we don't even agree on what they are. Then
> we disagree and argue. I think this happens all the time
> on this list and leads to the inevitable heated discussions.
Of course you are right. We certainly won't all agree on
what various conscious or unconscious assumptions might be,
and will probably debate them. I don't think that this is
necessarily a bad thing, and is probably more profitable
than debating whether George Bush is a goof-ball.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:05 MST