From: Peter C. McCluskey (pcm@rahul.net)
Date: Tue Sep 24 2002 - 08:58:20 MDT
lcorbin@tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) writes:
>Well, perhaps *you* have indeed written about this a lot,
>and even on this list. However, *if* political discussions
>are going to take place, and emotions aroused, don't you
>think that it would be healthy for people to talk about
>the *real* reasons behind the disagreements, the real
>differences in values, or whatever, or at least try? It
>seems to me that it might be more pacific. E.g. "Ah, yes,
>that explains why you all always say *that*, and we always
>say *this*!" One big happy family.
None of the explanations I've come accross suggest that understanding
why you are not being objective will make you happier. Rationalizations
which put all the blame on the other side appear to be more likely to
make the person who adopts them happy.
>Also, are there URLs that you would suggest? Seems a little
>hard to google for, but I'll do that when I'm done with this
>note.
I found these increased my understanding:
http://hanson.gmu.edu/deceive.pdf
http://hanson.gmu.edu/showcare.pdf
But if your goal is beliefs that will make you happy, I recommend ignoring
these papers.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter McCluskey | Free Jon Johansen! http://www.rahul.net/pcm |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:15 MST