Arguing from compassion (2021)(centerforinquiry.org)
centerforinquiry.org
Arguing from compassion (2021)
https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/how-to-star-man-arguing-from-compassion/
235 コメント
I may be unlucky, but I have met a number of people who are not just selfish or tribal but actively sadistic. They would do something that does not benefit them if it meant discomfort and disadvantage for their outgroup. This is a little beyond just disinterest or lack of consideration, they actively prefer it. These are people who are constrained only by the rule of law, such as it is.
One of the companies I worked for seemingly attracted this type of personality. Of the people like this I've met (and been actually very cautious around), maybe 90% worked at that specific company.
One of the companies I worked for seemingly attracted this type of personality. Of the people like this I've met (and been actually very cautious around), maybe 90% worked at that specific company.
I've found this tends to come from life experience suggesting this is the only way to survive. It can be incredibly difficult to come at this from a place of compassion, but I've found that when I do - when I create real value in their lives through acts of community and cooperation - I can slowly open a door for them to see other ways. It takes time and a lot of compassion. But it's totally doable, and it can feel real good to see people build compassion from nothing.
Perhaps it didn't come across, but when I say they are sadistic I mean things like I wouldn't trust my pets around them.
One of them, and I will use this as an example and let it be, is the nephew of an insanely rich family, not as rich as some but quote wealthy and grew up privileged. One afternoon he was raging about the dog park near his condominium, and was describing his plan to scatter hard boiled eggs with needles inserted in them to discourage the dog owners from using it.
Sure, he needed help. Who knows, maybe his family, though affluent, was abusive. I had no interest in finding out.
One of them, and I will use this as an example and let it be, is the nephew of an insanely rich family, not as rich as some but quote wealthy and grew up privileged. One afternoon he was raging about the dog park near his condominium, and was describing his plan to scatter hard boiled eggs with needles inserted in them to discourage the dog owners from using it.
Sure, he needed help. Who knows, maybe his family, though affluent, was abusive. I had no interest in finding out.
"The cruelty is the point" is very real. Hurts my heart.
yeah :-( I see it as "I'm hurting so much, I want you to also hurt." or "I want you to know the pain I feel."
I think we underestimate how much other people are suffering (mostly because most cultures I know teach us not to cry) and feel our own pain, therefore inflicting pain on them to try to equalize it. I think an easier (and less pain-inducing) way is for us to just get better at sharing our suffering.
I think we underestimate how much other people are suffering (mostly because most cultures I know teach us not to cry) and feel our own pain, therefore inflicting pain on them to try to equalize it. I think an easier (and less pain-inducing) way is for us to just get better at sharing our suffering.
Can you say more about which company that is?
No. Though I've compared notes with friends and coworkers and they basically agree with the high rate observation...
Can you say which industry it is? Curious about that correlation too.
Hardware. But these people were product line managers, marketing, etc. A few were ex-sw-engineers. I didn't observe anything consistent except they had gathered at this place.
Interesting. Thanks.
>I've met a lot of people whose concern for others drops off sharply beyond their own family and friends.
This is why Hierocles the Stoic had the right idea when he pushed people to move one circle over. This is a far more practical goal than striving for a "just world".
Each one of us is as it were entirely encompassed by many circles, some smaller, others larger, the latter enclosing the former on the basis of their different and unequal dispositions relative to each other. The first and closest circle is the one which a person has drawn as though around a centre, his own mind. This circle encloses the body and anything taken for the sake of the body. For it is virtually the smallest circle, and almost touches the centre itself. Next, the second one further removed from the centre but enclosing the first circle; this contains parents, siblings, wife, and children. The third one has in it uncles and aunts, grandparents, nephews, nieces, and cousins. The next circle includes the other relatives, and this is followed by the circle of local residents, then the circle of fellow-tribes-men, next that of fellow-citizens, and then in the same way the circle of people from neighbouring towns, and the circle of fellow-countrymen. The outermost and largest circle, which encompasses all the rest, is that of the whole human race.
Once these have all been surveyed, it is the task of a well tempered man, in his proper treatment of each group, to draw the circles together somehow towards the centre, and to keep zealously transferring those from the enclosing circles into the enclosed ones ... It is incumbent on us to respect people from the third circle as if they were those from the second, and again to respect our other relatives as if they were those from the third circle. For although the greater distance in blood will remove some affection, we must still try hard to assimilate them. The right point will be reached if, through our own initiative, we reduce the distance of the relationship with each person.
This is why Hierocles the Stoic had the right idea when he pushed people to move one circle over. This is a far more practical goal than striving for a "just world".
Each one of us is as it were entirely encompassed by many circles, some smaller, others larger, the latter enclosing the former on the basis of their different and unequal dispositions relative to each other. The first and closest circle is the one which a person has drawn as though around a centre, his own mind. This circle encloses the body and anything taken for the sake of the body. For it is virtually the smallest circle, and almost touches the centre itself. Next, the second one further removed from the centre but enclosing the first circle; this contains parents, siblings, wife, and children. The third one has in it uncles and aunts, grandparents, nephews, nieces, and cousins. The next circle includes the other relatives, and this is followed by the circle of local residents, then the circle of fellow-tribes-men, next that of fellow-citizens, and then in the same way the circle of people from neighbouring towns, and the circle of fellow-countrymen. The outermost and largest circle, which encompasses all the rest, is that of the whole human race.
Once these have all been surveyed, it is the task of a well tempered man, in his proper treatment of each group, to draw the circles together somehow towards the centre, and to keep zealously transferring those from the enclosing circles into the enclosed ones ... It is incumbent on us to respect people from the third circle as if they were those from the second, and again to respect our other relatives as if they were those from the third circle. For although the greater distance in blood will remove some affection, we must still try hard to assimilate them. The right point will be reached if, through our own initiative, we reduce the distance of the relationship with each person.
> The outermost and largest circle, which encompasses all the rest, is that of the whole human race.
Interesting, I think there are at least a couple more outer rings which encompass non-human animals too. In western culture we’ve decided a smaller ring goes around pets (dogs, cats), and then maybe farm animals then sea creatures. Hopefully we can “draw these circles together” too.
Interesting, I think there are at least a couple more outer rings which encompass non-human animals too. In western culture we’ve decided a smaller ring goes around pets (dogs, cats), and then maybe farm animals then sea creatures. Hopefully we can “draw these circles together” too.
I think we can try to improve kinship and simultaneously strive for a more just world. They probably enhance each other.
The problem with nationalism is the effort stops once the circle encompasses 'your' people (or in the Ukraine/Russia conflict, forces those outside to accept they are on the inside).
The problem with nationalism is the effort stops once the circle encompasses 'your' people (or in the Ukraine/Russia conflict, forces those outside to accept they are on the inside).
I recently saw some discussion of the various bits of news out of Hungary to the effect that political leaders there want to go beyond Hungarian nationalism towards Hungarian racialism.
The GOP is quite enamored with where Hungary is going. Case in point: having Viktor Orbán speak at CPAC.
“ For example, right now there are lots of Russians who think it's fine to invade, kill and steal, not for safety, fairness or justice for everyone. They just want better for their tribe.”
I think is a way oversimplification of geopolitical situation in Ukraine and Russian motives.
Just my two cents
I think is a way oversimplification of geopolitical situation in Ukraine and Russian motives.
Just my two cents
Not by as much as you might think when your standards have been informed by more conventional models of state-led evil. Vranyo is a cultural disease whose impact cannot be overstated. I'll leave it to a Russian to explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1pOahq4TCk
Sure, but I'm not trying to capture the geopolitical situation there. It's only an example. Some people do think this way (for example displaying the Z as a tribal symbol) and that's enough reason to not just assume charitability or altruism on another's part.
IMO it's an oversimplification to do otherwise.
IMO it's an oversimplification to do otherwise.
> a way oversimplification
Indeed, not all but some of the attackers instead want to kill the men and rape the women in Ukraine -- rather than caring that much about their own tribe.
Some double digit percentage of the male population whether you are, starts doing that, if they have the chance.
It's reproduction, evolution, been going on for hundreds of thousands of years
"Star man"
Indeed, not all but some of the attackers instead want to kill the men and rape the women in Ukraine -- rather than caring that much about their own tribe.
Some double digit percentage of the male population whether you are, starts doing that, if they have the chance.
It's reproduction, evolution, been going on for hundreds of thousands of years
"Star man"
I believe they were specifically referring to the behavior of Russian soldiers who were reportedly sending valuable objects from Ukraine back to their relatives as well as executing civilians.
Oversimplification from which point of view? Russians, Ukrainians, or some outside observer?
I think OP means Russia’s actions are much better understood by their national interest and history, rather than by the individual barbarity of their troops. Russia should not be in Ukraine and should not be firing missiles into population centers, but they are. Their reasons for doing so appear more complicated than mere evil.
To be explicit, if you count conflicts from Napoleon on up to WWII, from Russia’s perspective they have fought defense wars on the north european plains once every ~33 years. Their greatest existential threat is a united europe, who frequently meddle in its affairs and approach further by way of NATO expansion despite in some cases explicitly promising otherwise. Ukraine, a previous warsaw pact country, is a prospective NATO member who not only represents a convenient corridor into Russia but also controls a large stretch of coast (Russia wants this) and has massive plains for food production and tank conveyance.
Under this interpretation, Russia seeks to resist expansion of a european alliance composed of several former enemies and retain access to key strategic locations outside its borders. Russia’s motives are much more tangible under this perspective, and who knows maybe there’s a solution we’re not seeing from that perspective than one that places outsized emphasis on individual atrocities. It’s a war, after all, and doesn’t appear to be stopping despite the upset faces of spectators.
To be explicit, if you count conflicts from Napoleon on up to WWII, from Russia’s perspective they have fought defense wars on the north european plains once every ~33 years. Their greatest existential threat is a united europe, who frequently meddle in its affairs and approach further by way of NATO expansion despite in some cases explicitly promising otherwise. Ukraine, a previous warsaw pact country, is a prospective NATO member who not only represents a convenient corridor into Russia but also controls a large stretch of coast (Russia wants this) and has massive plains for food production and tank conveyance.
Under this interpretation, Russia seeks to resist expansion of a european alliance composed of several former enemies and retain access to key strategic locations outside its borders. Russia’s motives are much more tangible under this perspective, and who knows maybe there’s a solution we’re not seeing from that perspective than one that places outsized emphasis on individual atrocities. It’s a war, after all, and doesn’t appear to be stopping despite the upset faces of spectators.
You make a reasoned argument why Russia might want to invade Ukraine while ignoring Russia's actual actions. Russia keeps changing it's stated 'reasons', with Russian's themselves saying the silent part you ignore out loud. They say Ukraine is not a real country, Ukrainians are not a separate people from Russians, and that because Ukraine tried to go it's own way it must be folded back into mother Russia and along with Belarus create a new slavic union. Ukrainian is being removed from the schools in Russian conquered land. Ukrainian books are being removed. Russia has human trafficked 2 million people from Ukraine to Russia at this point. None of that is to protect Russia from NATO. Why do you cover Russia's visible actions with a pretty pretense? Russia has said it is fine with Finland joining NATO, greatly expanding NATO on Russia's border. Your argument makes no sense outside the theoretical paragraphs in which you write it.
[deleted]
> Why do you cover Russia's visible actions with a pretty pretense?
Some of Russia’s individual politicians and news outlets no doubt have genuine nationalistic motivations surrounding Ukraine, but it is not clear to me that these are the predominant motives for spending Russian lives and risking Russian security by engaging their forces in an armed conflict. The rhetoric and actions you cite is probably believed and condoned by an increasingly nonzero percentage of the population, but I’m personally not convinced these are much more than pretexts useful to the state in providing political cover to what is ultimately a sovereign chess move (prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, demotivate it and others from future attempts). Russia benefited massively by their previous USSR-era relationship with the surrounding baltic states, and Putin, a former USSR man, has said [1] that the breakup of the warsaw pact was one of Russia’s greatest geopolitical tragedies. I believe his greatest defensive focus is on re-establishing a buffer zone between it and western powers, and likely it’s longer term goals include acquisition of warm water ports and influence over the oil trade.
This does, of course, not justify any of Russia’s actions on a moral basis. I expect many Russian officials will be tried and convicted of war crimes. It merely provides a basis by which european leaders/armchair presidents (me) can ground Russia’s actions and plot countermoves.
> Russia has said it is fine with Finland joining NATO, greatly expanding NATO on Russia's border.
Not even a year ago Russia implied a military consequence if Finland was to join NATO [2]. A few months after this statement was given Russia invaded Ukraine, though this ironically emboldened Finlanders into being majority in favor of joining NATO.
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Revenge-Geography-Coming-Conflicts-Ag... (can’t find a source for the exact quote, but cited in chapter 2).
[2]: https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-warns-nato-against-incl...
Some of Russia’s individual politicians and news outlets no doubt have genuine nationalistic motivations surrounding Ukraine, but it is not clear to me that these are the predominant motives for spending Russian lives and risking Russian security by engaging their forces in an armed conflict. The rhetoric and actions you cite is probably believed and condoned by an increasingly nonzero percentage of the population, but I’m personally not convinced these are much more than pretexts useful to the state in providing political cover to what is ultimately a sovereign chess move (prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, demotivate it and others from future attempts). Russia benefited massively by their previous USSR-era relationship with the surrounding baltic states, and Putin, a former USSR man, has said [1] that the breakup of the warsaw pact was one of Russia’s greatest geopolitical tragedies. I believe his greatest defensive focus is on re-establishing a buffer zone between it and western powers, and likely it’s longer term goals include acquisition of warm water ports and influence over the oil trade.
This does, of course, not justify any of Russia’s actions on a moral basis. I expect many Russian officials will be tried and convicted of war crimes. It merely provides a basis by which european leaders/armchair presidents (me) can ground Russia’s actions and plot countermoves.
> Russia has said it is fine with Finland joining NATO, greatly expanding NATO on Russia's border.
Not even a year ago Russia implied a military consequence if Finland was to join NATO [2]. A few months after this statement was given Russia invaded Ukraine, though this ironically emboldened Finlanders into being majority in favor of joining NATO.
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Revenge-Geography-Coming-Conflicts-Ag... (can’t find a source for the exact quote, but cited in chapter 2).
[2]: https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-warns-nato-against-incl...
You starmanning an entire invasion force makes my point perfectly.
About people justifying/supporting his actions to defend their own interests? I don't think it really matters, unless you're realistically expecting Russia's population to revolt.
[deleted]
Your response in no way explains why you choose only NATO expansion as a cause (and thus pushing the blame on the west) but ignore Russia's many comments that they are protecting ethnic Russian speakers (which does not make NATO the ones ultimately responsible for forcing Russia to take action) and denazifying the country. Why is that? Are we not to take Putin at his word but instead your tea reading skills? Why does your simplification take all responsibility for a war waged without a specific NATO triggering action by a non-NATO leader and place it on NATO?
Sounds like pushing a narrative of western/NATO blame for a war Putin chose on his terms/his time, without any specific NATO trigger event forcing Putin's hand at this time.
Those individual politicians and state media are mouthpieces for authoritarian Putin, but you respond as if Russian politicians have their own agency and Russian media are CNN and not so controlled that they face imprisonment if they call the current war a war.
BTW Russia no longer keeps up the pretense that what occured in the eastern occupied territories was spontaneous, but admits in obituaries online that soldiers killed in the current conflict are being 'honored' for their service in the '2014 Ukraine' operation and '2014 Maiden' operation. What prompted that Russian sponsored uprising? Ukraine coming closer to the EU, then at the last minute having their corrupt politicians trying to switch to a Russian economic block, nothing to with NATO. Also, autonomy for Russian speakers.
So 2014 actual Russian military involvement in taking control of 10% of Ukraine? Not in response to NATO but to Russia losing their Ukrainian puppet leader.
Verbally stated current reasons, only partially related to NATO. Just as much stemming from a desire to continue the 2014 actual conflict (in the guise of protecting/freeing ethnic Russian lands) which was not related to NATO.
You also ignore Russian aggression in Transistria (A war, that Russia supported, that Russia sent troops to maintain post conflict) where again NATO was not raised as the issue, but ethnic Russians = Russian interest.
Russia calls Ukraine Little Russia. Russia says Ukraine is not a real country, does not have a real culture. Russia says anywhere Russians live is Russia. But your response is 'NATO' because your reading of the tea leaves indicates it.
Your argument is nothing but whitewashing an authoritarian rulers decision to go to war.
If you enjoy Putin quotes here's a good one...
"Don't believe those who try to frighten you with Russia and who scream that other regions will follow after Crimea," said Putin on Tuesday, going some way to allaying those fears. "We do not want a partition of Ukraine. We do not need this." The Guardian March 18 2014. Notice this was after the 2008 NATO application from Ukraine. Putin does not say 'Unless Ukraine continues down a path towards NATO alignment'.
Sounds like pushing a narrative of western/NATO blame for a war Putin chose on his terms/his time, without any specific NATO trigger event forcing Putin's hand at this time.
Those individual politicians and state media are mouthpieces for authoritarian Putin, but you respond as if Russian politicians have their own agency and Russian media are CNN and not so controlled that they face imprisonment if they call the current war a war.
BTW Russia no longer keeps up the pretense that what occured in the eastern occupied territories was spontaneous, but admits in obituaries online that soldiers killed in the current conflict are being 'honored' for their service in the '2014 Ukraine' operation and '2014 Maiden' operation. What prompted that Russian sponsored uprising? Ukraine coming closer to the EU, then at the last minute having their corrupt politicians trying to switch to a Russian economic block, nothing to with NATO. Also, autonomy for Russian speakers.
So 2014 actual Russian military involvement in taking control of 10% of Ukraine? Not in response to NATO but to Russia losing their Ukrainian puppet leader.
Verbally stated current reasons, only partially related to NATO. Just as much stemming from a desire to continue the 2014 actual conflict (in the guise of protecting/freeing ethnic Russian lands) which was not related to NATO.
You also ignore Russian aggression in Transistria (A war, that Russia supported, that Russia sent troops to maintain post conflict) where again NATO was not raised as the issue, but ethnic Russians = Russian interest.
Russia calls Ukraine Little Russia. Russia says Ukraine is not a real country, does not have a real culture. Russia says anywhere Russians live is Russia. But your response is 'NATO' because your reading of the tea leaves indicates it.
Your argument is nothing but whitewashing an authoritarian rulers decision to go to war.
If you enjoy Putin quotes here's a good one...
"Don't believe those who try to frighten you with Russia and who scream that other regions will follow after Crimea," said Putin on Tuesday, going some way to allaying those fears. "We do not want a partition of Ukraine. We do not need this." The Guardian March 18 2014. Notice this was after the 2008 NATO application from Ukraine. Putin does not say 'Unless Ukraine continues down a path towards NATO alignment'.
> Sounds like pushing a narrative of western/NATO blame for a war Putin chose on his terms/his time, without any specific NATO trigger event forcing Putin's hand at this time.
Henry A. Kissinger is pushing the same narrative. Would you call HAK poorly informed on the matter?
Henry A. Kissinger is pushing the same narrative. Would you call HAK poorly informed on the matter?
I would say that Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer have strong biases in favor of "Great Power" theory, which at its basis denies smaller, weaker countries in the "area of influence" of a great power any kind of autonomy. Mearsheimer has spent much of his career developing and extolling great power politics and, well, Henry Kissinger is Henry Kissinger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_diplomacy).
One notes that Russia is a great power only because of its nuclear arsenal; that is, in fact, what separates the great powers from weak countries that have any independence only at the pleasure of the nearest great power. That should concern you if you are fan of nuclear non-proliferation, by the way.
One notes that Russia is a great power only because of its nuclear arsenal; that is, in fact, what separates the great powers from weak countries that have any independence only at the pleasure of the nearest great power. That should concern you if you are fan of nuclear non-proliferation, by the way.
> I would say that Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer have strong biases in favor [...]
I would take Kissinger's view on the topic seriously, same way I'd take Knuth's opinion on typesetting seriously - to make analogy. The fact that I might agree or not should not cloud my judgement or yours.
Calling Kissinger biased is smokescreen: everybody is biased.
I would take Kissinger's view on the topic seriously, same way I'd take Knuth's opinion on typesetting seriously - to make analogy. The fact that I might agree or not should not cloud my judgement or yours.
Calling Kissinger biased is smokescreen: everybody is biased.
I do take Kissinger and Mearsheimer's views seriously, and I did not call Kissinger or Mearsheimer "biased". Instead, I attempted to address my understanding of the reasoning behind their statements (Mearsheimer certainly; I believe the same to be true of Kissinger). That reasoning led to many of the successes and not a few of the failures during the Cold War; it is worth taking seriously.
I disagree with the Great Power reasoning mostly because it is explicitly amoral and moral standing is important (at least from a morale viewpoint :-) if nothing else). That's completely unimportant. On the other hand, all of the honest-to-gosh International Relations people I've heard from (at least those under 70) also disagree with it, for a variety of reasons, and I take that seriously too.
I further believe your last sentence is a gratuitous misreading of what I wrote.
I disagree with the Great Power reasoning mostly because it is explicitly amoral and moral standing is important (at least from a morale viewpoint :-) if nothing else). That's completely unimportant. On the other hand, all of the honest-to-gosh International Relations people I've heard from (at least those under 70) also disagree with it, for a variety of reasons, and I take that seriously too.
I further believe your last sentence is a gratuitous misreading of what I wrote.
ROTMetro was making a moral statement about Russian aggression. Henry Kissinger can be as omniscient as God himself and that still wouldn't be a counter to a moral claim.
Never underestimate Kissinger's inability to consider what Mearsheimer calls 'the moral dimension'. That's more than a bias. That he holds an ammoral, great-power world view to back up his psychopathically immoral actions over the years should surprise no one - millions of needless deaths can arguably be laid at his feet.
Maybe keep those limitations in mind if you intend to defer to him on Ukraine/Russia.
Never underestimate Kissinger's inability to consider what Mearsheimer calls 'the moral dimension'. That's more than a bias. That he holds an ammoral, great-power world view to back up his psychopathically immoral actions over the years should surprise no one - millions of needless deaths can arguably be laid at his feet.
Maybe keep those limitations in mind if you intend to defer to him on Ukraine/Russia.
[deleted]
Are you personally involved in this war somehow?
> why you choose only NATO expansion as a cause (and thus pushing the blame on the west)
Firstly we disagree here on the blame being on the west. The blame is not on the west for expanding NATO, the blame is on Putin for choosing to attack yet another sovereign nation for its own national policy goals. Since you also accuse me of "whitewashing an authoritarian ruler's decision" I'll also state explicitly I think Putin is a callous, paranoid relic of the cold war and should be removed from power for this and his many other stains on the world. He should not be in Ukraine, Ukraine is morally rigeous in fighting back, and I expect more countries will join NATO as a result of Putin's actions. The only reason I'm focusing on Russia's rational basis for invading is because we'll be doomed to keep repeating this same dance with Russia until we incapacitate it (I don't really want to die via thermonuclar warhead) or find some other solution grounded in the actual concerns that seem to motivate their behavior.
> Sounds like pushing a narrative of western/NATO blame for a war Putin chose on his terms/his time
I want to see Putin fail miserably and face justice. He is not justified, only paranoid and warped. He will continue to act this way until NATO finds a way to make him stop, which won't be by frowning intensely at him and hitting him with sanctions. Russia's power comes from things like its oil & gas exports, and nationally it wants things like a warm water ports (i.e. one that doesn't freeze 1/3 of the year) which it currents gets by leasing Sevastapol from Ukraine. It furthermore wants these things on its own terms, and does not want a NATO-aligned Ukraine suddenly deciding that it cannot access them. Why do you think Putin was so anxious to specifically annex Crimea?
It's not really a secret btw that NATO wants Ukraine to join [1] (section 69), and Ukraine is of great strategic interest to Russia for the reasons I've outlined in my above comments and many more. Certainly we can at least agree on that, morals of Russia outright imposing its will on Ukraine aside. Obviously it's wrong, but Russia doesn't care if it's wrong.
> But your response is 'NATO' because your reading of the tea leaves indicates it.
Because geography dictates it. Ukraine provides easy and wide passage to Russia and provides a place for NATO (US) to install military equipment, bases, anti-missile systems (yes I know what you're going to say, but yes Putin has bitched incessantly about these [2] despite being nominally "defensive"). Ukraine hosts one of Russia's only viable warm-water ports. Ukraine joining NATO means that Putin can no longer bully smaller states into serving its needs and instead would need to risk a war against an alliance of nuclear powers if it wants to achieve policy by other means. NATO controlling Ukraine means that NATO has actual leverage over Russia beyond sanctions, which Russia does not want.
I think allowing Ukraine to join NATO and deploying a peacekeeping force would either force Putin to back down or escalate us to a nuclear war if Putin decides Ukraine is strategically worth a first strike. No idea honestly, maybe it stays conventional and then Russia leaves with its tail tucked between its legs. Maybe China, who does not seem to be a fan of Russia's maneuvering, does not get involved. Maybe it does, and Ukraine's civilian casualties pale in comparison to what could follow.
My hope is that NATO can find a peaceful solution. There could be a diplomatic solution involving giving Russia Crimea as a condition to Ukraine joining NATO, which might avoid full-scale conflict and kick the can down the road for when Putin decides it cannot trust NATO to honor its word. Likely there are far better solutions that leverage geopolitical realities I have not thought of, as I am not a politician, historian, military expert, or geographer. Or the world can strongly condemn them in the media and send Ukrainians guns, because that seems to be working so well.
> Russia's many comments that they are protecting ethnic Russian speakers
This is a pretext to justify entry into conflicts that benefit Russia's national interests. I don't think we disagree there based on the rest of your paragaphs so I won't bother justifying that statement, merely confirm we're on the same page. This is especially true...
> in the guise of protecting/freeing ethnic Russian lands
...for Ukraine. I am incredibly skeptical that Putin gives a shit about any group of Russians unless he has a national interest in doing so.
> Those individual politicians and state media are mouthpieces for authoritarian Putin, but you respond as if Russian politicians have their own agency and Russian media are CNN and not so controlled that they face imprisonment if they call the current war a war.
They no doubt do what Putin wants when ordered but have their own thoughts and opinions. Some, like the oligarchs who own Russia's business interests privatized after the collapse of the USSR, likely do have the power to influence Putin by force and every account I've read of this dynamic asserts that Putin's relationship them is akin to a neo-feudalistic court more than god commanding his disciples. Not really sure why you reacted so strongly to my original "some", but I guess more clarification on my personal stance since you think I'm a Putin apologist.
Did I forget to stress that I hate Putin and will celebrate when he is no longer in power?
[1]: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm
[2]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/12/putin-russia-us-missile...
Firstly we disagree here on the blame being on the west. The blame is not on the west for expanding NATO, the blame is on Putin for choosing to attack yet another sovereign nation for its own national policy goals. Since you also accuse me of "whitewashing an authoritarian ruler's decision" I'll also state explicitly I think Putin is a callous, paranoid relic of the cold war and should be removed from power for this and his many other stains on the world. He should not be in Ukraine, Ukraine is morally rigeous in fighting back, and I expect more countries will join NATO as a result of Putin's actions. The only reason I'm focusing on Russia's rational basis for invading is because we'll be doomed to keep repeating this same dance with Russia until we incapacitate it (I don't really want to die via thermonuclar warhead) or find some other solution grounded in the actual concerns that seem to motivate their behavior.
> Sounds like pushing a narrative of western/NATO blame for a war Putin chose on his terms/his time
I want to see Putin fail miserably and face justice. He is not justified, only paranoid and warped. He will continue to act this way until NATO finds a way to make him stop, which won't be by frowning intensely at him and hitting him with sanctions. Russia's power comes from things like its oil & gas exports, and nationally it wants things like a warm water ports (i.e. one that doesn't freeze 1/3 of the year) which it currents gets by leasing Sevastapol from Ukraine. It furthermore wants these things on its own terms, and does not want a NATO-aligned Ukraine suddenly deciding that it cannot access them. Why do you think Putin was so anxious to specifically annex Crimea?
It's not really a secret btw that NATO wants Ukraine to join [1] (section 69), and Ukraine is of great strategic interest to Russia for the reasons I've outlined in my above comments and many more. Certainly we can at least agree on that, morals of Russia outright imposing its will on Ukraine aside. Obviously it's wrong, but Russia doesn't care if it's wrong.
> But your response is 'NATO' because your reading of the tea leaves indicates it.
Because geography dictates it. Ukraine provides easy and wide passage to Russia and provides a place for NATO (US) to install military equipment, bases, anti-missile systems (yes I know what you're going to say, but yes Putin has bitched incessantly about these [2] despite being nominally "defensive"). Ukraine hosts one of Russia's only viable warm-water ports. Ukraine joining NATO means that Putin can no longer bully smaller states into serving its needs and instead would need to risk a war against an alliance of nuclear powers if it wants to achieve policy by other means. NATO controlling Ukraine means that NATO has actual leverage over Russia beyond sanctions, which Russia does not want.
I think allowing Ukraine to join NATO and deploying a peacekeeping force would either force Putin to back down or escalate us to a nuclear war if Putin decides Ukraine is strategically worth a first strike. No idea honestly, maybe it stays conventional and then Russia leaves with its tail tucked between its legs. Maybe China, who does not seem to be a fan of Russia's maneuvering, does not get involved. Maybe it does, and Ukraine's civilian casualties pale in comparison to what could follow.
My hope is that NATO can find a peaceful solution. There could be a diplomatic solution involving giving Russia Crimea as a condition to Ukraine joining NATO, which might avoid full-scale conflict and kick the can down the road for when Putin decides it cannot trust NATO to honor its word. Likely there are far better solutions that leverage geopolitical realities I have not thought of, as I am not a politician, historian, military expert, or geographer. Or the world can strongly condemn them in the media and send Ukrainians guns, because that seems to be working so well.
> Russia's many comments that they are protecting ethnic Russian speakers
This is a pretext to justify entry into conflicts that benefit Russia's national interests. I don't think we disagree there based on the rest of your paragaphs so I won't bother justifying that statement, merely confirm we're on the same page. This is especially true...
> in the guise of protecting/freeing ethnic Russian lands
...for Ukraine. I am incredibly skeptical that Putin gives a shit about any group of Russians unless he has a national interest in doing so.
> Those individual politicians and state media are mouthpieces for authoritarian Putin, but you respond as if Russian politicians have their own agency and Russian media are CNN and not so controlled that they face imprisonment if they call the current war a war.
They no doubt do what Putin wants when ordered but have their own thoughts and opinions. Some, like the oligarchs who own Russia's business interests privatized after the collapse of the USSR, likely do have the power to influence Putin by force and every account I've read of this dynamic asserts that Putin's relationship them is akin to a neo-feudalistic court more than god commanding his disciples. Not really sure why you reacted so strongly to my original "some", but I guess more clarification on my personal stance since you think I'm a Putin apologist.
Did I forget to stress that I hate Putin and will celebrate when he is no longer in power?
[1]: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm
[2]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/12/putin-russia-us-missile...
Not because of your follow up stance, but in general, I'm sorry for projecting something onto you. I apologize for trying to attribute any motivation to you, and responding to your thoughts in anything but a constructive discussion. Thank you for explaining yourself even after my emotional vomit. Thank you for posting your additional reasoned thoughts. My shame at judgemental posts both today and yesterday just reminds me why I don't go to social media other than HN and need to stay away from non-technical discussions.
No worries, I personally don’t think you should feel any shame for expressing yourself and if it means anything understand why you saw my original post and thought me framing Putin/Russia’s actions as something rational was offensive. I primarily post on this website for challenging discussions, and your comments really made me work to develop my own understanding of the issue and I thank you for that. No hard feelings, and I really respect you personally for choosing to make this comment. I hope any stress I might have caused is forgiven, and hope you continue to post on HN :)
> firing missiles into population centers, but they are. Their reasons for doing so appear more complicated than mere evil.
From what I heard, they do this because their whole way of fighting was designed around land wars with neighbors which is where huge quantities of artillary and "dumb" rockets are cheap enough to transport by land but have to flatten large areas to be effective. In contrast, the US fights mostly overseas so they want more mobile weapons which also means more efficiently targetted. And now we have a convenient "moral" idea that precision weapons are good and broad-desctruction weapons are "bad". That moral just happens to favor the west, today. It wasn't like that back in WWI and WWII so back then, westeners didn't care about such morality - they wouldn't be able to place themselves on top.
Whenever people start making moral judgements based on ideas like war crimes, human rights, or terrorism, I feel they're blinded by the fact that these concepts conveniently favor western countries and their capabilities so it suits us to think they're what makes a country "good".
From what I heard, they do this because their whole way of fighting was designed around land wars with neighbors which is where huge quantities of artillary and "dumb" rockets are cheap enough to transport by land but have to flatten large areas to be effective. In contrast, the US fights mostly overseas so they want more mobile weapons which also means more efficiently targetted. And now we have a convenient "moral" idea that precision weapons are good and broad-desctruction weapons are "bad". That moral just happens to favor the west, today. It wasn't like that back in WWI and WWII so back then, westeners didn't care about such morality - they wouldn't be able to place themselves on top.
Whenever people start making moral judgements based on ideas like war crimes, human rights, or terrorism, I feel they're blinded by the fact that these concepts conveniently favor western countries and their capabilities so it suits us to think they're what makes a country "good".
First, Russia has precision cruise missiles so that is NO excuse for their leadership, nor for you excusing them.
Second, of course bombing civilians was immoral during the great wars. The fact that they're TARGETTING population centres at all is evil, regardless of technology, antagonist or time on history.
Third, if people in Western countries did subsequently develop a distaste for such immorality, that's to their credit. It doesn't make them hypocrites, it puts them further down the road of human development than those who didn't.
Fourth, it's not only Westerners that value human rights, deplore war crimes and terrorism and those that do are often the first to publicly criticise their own countries records and hypocrisies. The fact they can do that made their countries "better", it's what helps make them "good" today.
You almost seem to dislike modernity.
Second, of course bombing civilians was immoral during the great wars. The fact that they're TARGETTING population centres at all is evil, regardless of technology, antagonist or time on history.
Third, if people in Western countries did subsequently develop a distaste for such immorality, that's to their credit. It doesn't make them hypocrites, it puts them further down the road of human development than those who didn't.
Fourth, it's not only Westerners that value human rights, deplore war crimes and terrorism and those that do are often the first to publicly criticise their own countries records and hypocrisies. The fact they can do that made their countries "better", it's what helps make them "good" today.
You almost seem to dislike modernity.
The problem being that until the invasion NATO was falling apart because Western Europeans didn’t see Russia as a threat. Even Ukraine didn’t believe Russia would invade. So… Putin has made the Russian position worse. He will have a very heavily armed Ukraine on his western flank, with or without NATO backing. Behind them he will have a newly rearmed Germany.
> To be explicit, if you count conflicts from Napoleon on up to WWII, from Russia’s perspective they have fought defense wars on the north european plains once every ~33 years.
Between Napoleon and the present day Russia has only been invaded twice. By countries trying to liberate themselves in WW1 from the Russian Empire, and by Germany and others in WW2 (also partially a liberation, e.g. Romania tried to liberate the territories which Russia annexed at the start of the war).
> Their greatest existential threat is a united europe, who frequently meddle in its affairs.
Russia has constantly tried to annex everybody (even Putin jokes about this) and you cry about "meddling". Nobody would be meddling in Russian affairs if Russia was broken up like Austria (the previous Jail of Nations).
Between Napoleon and the present day Russia has only been invaded twice. By countries trying to liberate themselves in WW1 from the Russian Empire, and by Germany and others in WW2 (also partially a liberation, e.g. Romania tried to liberate the territories which Russia annexed at the start of the war).
> Their greatest existential threat is a united europe, who frequently meddle in its affairs.
Russia has constantly tried to annex everybody (even Putin jokes about this) and you cry about "meddling". Nobody would be meddling in Russian affairs if Russia was broken up like Austria (the previous Jail of Nations).
People always conveniently forget that time the US invaded the USSR.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/yes-it-true-1918-amer...
And wasn't that Romanian land given to the USSR by Germany in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? So the Nazis were "liberating" land they had already agreed to give to someone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...
These are two minor points. They both, though, serve to show that you're lacking a grounding in the very history you're trying to swat aside.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/yes-it-true-1918-amer...
And wasn't that Romanian land given to the USSR by Germany in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? So the Nazis were "liberating" land they had already agreed to give to someone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...
These are two minor points. They both, though, serve to show that you're lacking a grounding in the very history you're trying to swat aside.
> Their greatest existential threat [against Russia] is a united europe.
No, it's Putin. He's an existential threat to the people in Russia.
Whilst NATO is not and he knows it. (Except for replying if Putin starts firing nukes.)
> if you count conflicts from Napoleon on up to WWII, from Russia’s perspective they have fought defense wars
That's not how people think. "Let's attack Ukraine because Napoleon ..."
I doubt you seriously believe in those things yourself, and the other things you wrote.
No, it's Putin. He's an existential threat to the people in Russia.
Whilst NATO is not and he knows it. (Except for replying if Putin starts firing nukes.)
> if you count conflicts from Napoleon on up to WWII, from Russia’s perspective they have fought defense wars
That's not how people think. "Let's attack Ukraine because Napoleon ..."
I doubt you seriously believe in those things yourself, and the other things you wrote.
"Their greatest existential threat is a united europe, who frequently meddle in its affairs and approach further by way of NATO expansion despite in some cases explicitly promising otherwise."
This is a lie. 'not one inch eastward' never referred to NATO expansion to other countries. At least according to the man who received it, Gorbachev.
If interference in a neighbours affairs and then threatening the very existence of that neighbour are undesirable then I'm sure you'll agree there is no more apt example of the silliness of starmanning some Russians who support its present expansionist actions.
You can seek all the interpretations your want. The example wa to illustrate my point that there's no rhetorical solution to find between an imperialist wanting some land and the sovereign nation holding it. Not between the adversarial geopolitical leaders and not between victims' families and war criminals.
This is a lie. 'not one inch eastward' never referred to NATO expansion to other countries. At least according to the man who received it, Gorbachev.
If interference in a neighbours affairs and then threatening the very existence of that neighbour are undesirable then I'm sure you'll agree there is no more apt example of the silliness of starmanning some Russians who support its present expansionist actions.
You can seek all the interpretations your want. The example wa to illustrate my point that there's no rhetorical solution to find between an imperialist wanting some land and the sovereign nation holding it. Not between the adversarial geopolitical leaders and not between victims' families and war criminals.
Yeah. Hurt people hurt people.
Many people have a spirit of benevolence, but many other people have endured trauma and deeply believe that the next generation must be hazed too.
Many people have a spirit of benevolence, but many other people have endured trauma and deeply believe that the next generation must be hazed too.
Yet in that hazing there is blowback. I think society needs therapy.
Yes, that probably explains the majority of violence that occurs in the world.
There also exist a set of people that are born with wiring that if not specifically counteracted can have them act in violent and antisocial ways, without trauma needing to have occurred.
There also exist a set of people that are born with wiring that if not specifically counteracted can have them act in violent and antisocial ways, without trauma needing to have occurred.
In a grossly, over-simplified nutshell, aren't people saying this of Clarence Thomas?
"you’ll be hard-pressed to find someone who wouldn’t want a safer,
fairer, more just world for everyone if they could get it"
As an optimist and humanist, a shocking revelation for me was hearing of the "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" in South Africa. (I think via a talk by Chomsky or Zizek)
Many atrocities were committed by both sides during the Apartheid era. Enough said.
Years later the Government of National Unity wanted to heal the country, to bury festering resentments and feuds. Perpetrators and victims were brought together under supervision to talk openly and work toward forgiveness. It's a great idea in principle. Although the commission is widely considered successful, a strange thing occurred, something that we also buried at the Nuremberg trials.
A quite small but significant group were not merely unrepentant, they used the commission as a platform to attack and abuse their victims again. "I'm really glad I tortured your children, let me tell you about how they screamed", and so on.
Sure, always aim to "star man" in debate, but one must be hard enough underneath to expect occasionally to be shot out of the sky, not by an uncharitable or entrenched interlocutor but by an plain old evil asshole. They exist. They're not "psychopaths" or even "trolls", but get a thrill out of acting so as to add chaos and pain to the world.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commi...
As an optimist and humanist, a shocking revelation for me was hearing of the "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" in South Africa. (I think via a talk by Chomsky or Zizek)
Many atrocities were committed by both sides during the Apartheid era. Enough said.
Years later the Government of National Unity wanted to heal the country, to bury festering resentments and feuds. Perpetrators and victims were brought together under supervision to talk openly and work toward forgiveness. It's a great idea in principle. Although the commission is widely considered successful, a strange thing occurred, something that we also buried at the Nuremberg trials.
A quite small but significant group were not merely unrepentant, they used the commission as a platform to attack and abuse their victims again. "I'm really glad I tortured your children, let me tell you about how they screamed", and so on.
Sure, always aim to "star man" in debate, but one must be hard enough underneath to expect occasionally to be shot out of the sky, not by an uncharitable or entrenched interlocutor but by an plain old evil asshole. They exist. They're not "psychopaths" or even "trolls", but get a thrill out of acting so as to add chaos and pain to the world.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commi...
"A quite small but significant group were not merely unrepentant, they used the commission as a platform to attack and abuse their victims again."
It's interesting. Do you have a source for further reading?
It's interesting. Do you have a source for further reading?
It was very probably Zizek who talked about this. And definitely a
talk rather than words I read. Sorry I can't be more helpful. For the
Nuremberg angle then see Adam Curtis's "Pandora's Box" in which the
trial of Eichmann is centre stage of one episode. Eichmann effectively
cannot comprehend there was anything morally questionable about the
'final solution' and instead of apologies or reflection he repeatedly
doubles down and hammers home his reasonable justification for the
slaughter.
You are 100% correct. That quote is garbage. What it's really saying is - "ask around, I'll wager you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who won't pretend to want a safer, fairer, more just world for everyone. In reality, when you explain what fair and just actually means, they will secretly reverse course at the first opportunity".
Just look at the foreign policy of every country in power. Look at the willingness of any power group to give up that power without intense military or financial pressure. Let's see - slavery, wars of conquest, ecological destruction, finding black men automatically guilty, rape, child abuse, monopolies, wealth concentration, regressive California property tax policy, etc.
Just look at the foreign policy of every country in power. Look at the willingness of any power group to give up that power without intense military or financial pressure. Let's see - slavery, wars of conquest, ecological destruction, finding black men automatically guilty, rape, child abuse, monopolies, wealth concentration, regressive California property tax policy, etc.
I think you are being overly negative. Being more concerned with problems we are most familiar with is natural and not at all a "character flaw". Caring more about people we personally know than strangers isn't any kind of moral failure. The world is full of suffering and problems, and it is simply impossible to give the same level of concern to all. So we focus on our inner circles. It isn't a "deep tribal impulse..satisfied only at the exclusion of others". It is simply that the world is very big with very big problems and no one, not even the kindest, most caring individual among us, can give equal weight to all problems and all suffering.
I think you're straw-manning. Decreasing degrees of concern for those farther removed isn't a problem until you reach zero concern or empathy for people you don't know/don't look like or don't share a language or god with. That is how you justify taking their freedom, raping or killing their defenders and stealing their land.
Letting it get to that point, so as to put your tribe first is selfishness and IMO a deep character flaw. A flaw in so many of us that the idea of star-manning is, in so many cases, naive.
Letting it get to that point, so as to put your tribe first is selfishness and IMO a deep character flaw. A flaw in so many of us that the idea of star-manning is, in so many cases, naive.
Reading this article, it seems entirely about taking initiative changing your own approach, without an explicit expectation. Asking someone else to star-man is expecting them to change for you, without showing any compassion or respect for their humanity or opinion. It presents a clear assumption that their approach to life is wrong, and so they should adopt yours. You're creating a setting where they cannot agree with you without also accepting inferiority and invalidating their entire life perspective. You leave no room for incremental growth or self reflection.
I think the article is fluffy, pointless BS, but . . .
Just like steel manning, star manning is supposed to be an approach you can take to show respect, not something people force you to submit to.
Just like steel manning, star manning is supposed to be an approach you can take to show respect, not something people force you to submit to.
> "If you doubt this, ask around. I wager you’ll be hard-pressed to find someone who wouldn’t want a safer, fairer, more just world for everyone if they could get it."
I wonder if more people actually want others to see our humanity than us to see the humanity of others. I would strongly bet on that actually.
I think a lot of people whose concern for others drops off sharply beyond their own family and friends believe that others don't have concern for them. It can become a preemptive indifference: they don't care about me, why should I care about them.
What I want to work on and help people realize is that I care about you, even if I don't know you. And the work I do to get there is often me realizing how much people care about me. Maybe this is what he's getting at with the starman concept, to flip ourselves from thinking others are trying to hurt us and reacting to them with hatred or indifference, to believing they actually care about us.
And I agree that many people may not want to do this, so I'm mostly just trying to do it for myself. I wonder if his argument would have come off differently if instead of telling people what they should do, he said these are the tools he employs and how they work in his life.
I wonder if more people actually want others to see our humanity than us to see the humanity of others. I would strongly bet on that actually.
I think a lot of people whose concern for others drops off sharply beyond their own family and friends believe that others don't have concern for them. It can become a preemptive indifference: they don't care about me, why should I care about them.
What I want to work on and help people realize is that I care about you, even if I don't know you. And the work I do to get there is often me realizing how much people care about me. Maybe this is what he's getting at with the starman concept, to flip ourselves from thinking others are trying to hurt us and reacting to them with hatred or indifference, to believing they actually care about us.
And I agree that many people may not want to do this, so I'm mostly just trying to do it for myself. I wonder if his argument would have come off differently if instead of telling people what they should do, he said these are the tools he employs and how they work in his life.
That's true, but at the same time, calling a Russian soldier a selfish bastard isn't going to stop him from invading Ukraine. Presumably, your goal is to motivate somewhat neutral people to support Ukraine or condemn Russia. In that case, the only thing you can do is to refute rationalizations used to justify the invasion.
My point isn't to build support for either side (it was just an example), nor is it to accuse Russian soldiers of selfishness. It's to say that we can't just assume his (or anyone's) motivation is not selfish, or that there must be a middle ground we will surely find through improvement to our rhetorical approach.
As my friends from college (sample set of 10) got older I noticed where people split conservative or liberal (US centric sorry). My liberal friends are generally concerned for everyone in society and how they'll get screwed over or not.
My conservative friends are very concerned about anyone they know, and very worried about how they can't backstop them because of supporting the whole of society. 2 of them would fly / drive across the country at a moments notice to help me out for weeks. But they aren't concerned with people outside that circle. Of the 2 I had deep conversations with, they both were more focused on setting up social circles to support everyone else such as churches, local community, family, which to them is the fallback, not the government.
That's about as far as I got.
My conservative friends are very concerned about anyone they know, and very worried about how they can't backstop them because of supporting the whole of society. 2 of them would fly / drive across the country at a moments notice to help me out for weeks. But they aren't concerned with people outside that circle. Of the 2 I had deep conversations with, they both were more focused on setting up social circles to support everyone else such as churches, local community, family, which to them is the fallback, not the government.
That's about as far as I got.
> a kind of platinum rule to improve upon the golden one
When I read this, I scoffed a little bit. A better idea than one proposed two thousand years ago? Say it isn't so! Why haven't we thought of this before?
I think you hooked rightly on the Ukraine and Russia conflict. Sometimes, there is not a "best version" of someone.
The author seems to reject that outright, saying we need to recognize our opponents humanity in order to effectively argue, with the premise that there's something good in there to tease out.
On what basis can the author say that there's something good inside? Their "humanity"? That reasoning is rather circular...
When I read this, I scoffed a little bit. A better idea than one proposed two thousand years ago? Say it isn't so! Why haven't we thought of this before?
I think you hooked rightly on the Ukraine and Russia conflict. Sometimes, there is not a "best version" of someone.
The author seems to reject that outright, saying we need to recognize our opponents humanity in order to effectively argue, with the premise that there's something good in there to tease out.
On what basis can the author say that there's something good inside? Their "humanity"? That reasoning is rather circular...
This kind of discussion is when I think the "real person inside" intuitive model of human psychology really breaks down. Philosophers have been arguing (circularly?) for thousands of years over the "true nature" of humans without any definitive answers.
Another model of human mminds that I find much more useful is as a complicated feedback system. A priori, these dynamical systems can have many different equilibria regions in their phase space, but none of the equilibria or attractors are anything like a "true characterization" of these systems. They are simply regions of related behavior that these systems can get temporarily or permanently stuck in.
For human psychology, this model simply says that humans can get into all kinds of "attractor" mindsets, e.g. self-sacrificing, defensive, fearful, etc. These mindsets have extrinsics such as sadistic behavior, altruism, consistent procrastination, etc. They also have intrinsics, such as feeling constant angst, holistic safety, or over-arching pessimism.
Under this model, at least, it makes sense that people may 100% in a vengeful mindset while at the same time recognizing that to also be a mind-region that feels pretty crappy. We can also then cognate about ways of moving ourselves our others toward other attractors that are "better" in some way.
In Control Theory, the question then becomes about what set of inputs we have available to tweak these mind-environment systems?
Another model of human mminds that I find much more useful is as a complicated feedback system. A priori, these dynamical systems can have many different equilibria regions in their phase space, but none of the equilibria or attractors are anything like a "true characterization" of these systems. They are simply regions of related behavior that these systems can get temporarily or permanently stuck in.
For human psychology, this model simply says that humans can get into all kinds of "attractor" mindsets, e.g. self-sacrificing, defensive, fearful, etc. These mindsets have extrinsics such as sadistic behavior, altruism, consistent procrastination, etc. They also have intrinsics, such as feeling constant angst, holistic safety, or over-arching pessimism.
Under this model, at least, it makes sense that people may 100% in a vengeful mindset while at the same time recognizing that to also be a mind-region that feels pretty crappy. We can also then cognate about ways of moving ourselves our others toward other attractors that are "better" in some way.
In Control Theory, the question then becomes about what set of inputs we have available to tweak these mind-environment systems?
> When I read this, I scoffed a little bit.
I did as well, and then paused because I've said to myself that I've come up with something like this before (facepalm emoji).
> On what basis can the author say that there's something good inside? Their "humanity"?
I can't speak for him, however when I do this, it's not about knowing for sure there's something good inside someone, it's choosing to believe that there is. I don't know if I will ever know someone's deepest intentions, and I have seen that when I believe they have bad intentions towards me, I can feel sad, angry, afraid, lonely, and more. However, when I believe they have good intentions towards me, I can feel grateful, safe, free, hopeful, etc. Given that I may never know how they're feeling, I therefore think I can choose what to believe, and by choosing to believe they have good intentions, I feel better.
Secondly, if I believe they have bad intentions, I often treat them poorly—ignore them, distrust them, attack them, etc. If I believe they have good intentions, I often treat them kindly—appreciate them, help them, show them how much I care, etc. So if I choose to believe they have good intentions, they may also be more likely to believe that I have good intentions for them based on my actions.
This logic may fall apart if one believes that we can know for certain another's deepest intentions, I just currently believe we cannot.
I did as well, and then paused because I've said to myself that I've come up with something like this before (facepalm emoji).
> On what basis can the author say that there's something good inside? Their "humanity"?
I can't speak for him, however when I do this, it's not about knowing for sure there's something good inside someone, it's choosing to believe that there is. I don't know if I will ever know someone's deepest intentions, and I have seen that when I believe they have bad intentions towards me, I can feel sad, angry, afraid, lonely, and more. However, when I believe they have good intentions towards me, I can feel grateful, safe, free, hopeful, etc. Given that I may never know how they're feeling, I therefore think I can choose what to believe, and by choosing to believe they have good intentions, I feel better.
Secondly, if I believe they have bad intentions, I often treat them poorly—ignore them, distrust them, attack them, etc. If I believe they have good intentions, I often treat them kindly—appreciate them, help them, show them how much I care, etc. So if I choose to believe they have good intentions, they may also be more likely to believe that I have good intentions for them based on my actions.
This logic may fall apart if one believes that we can know for certain another's deepest intentions, I just currently believe we cannot.
Side remark maybe, but I prefer "benevolence" over "humanity" in this context.
The former is (1) less etymologically confusing (ekhem...) and (2) applicable to other species.
The former is (1) less etymologically confusing (ekhem...) and (2) applicable to other species.
Even when individuals act with charity and compassion, they act according to their beliefs, interests, and needs. As Reinhold Niebuhr described in Moral Man and Immoral Society, a group of individuals acting according to shared interests, even when doing so compassionately, will inevitably come into conflict with other groups, socially or militaristically, when those interests conflict.
> right now there are lots of Russians who think it's fine to invade, kill and steal, ...
It's not even that the Russians who think this are especially evil people, or irrational people, or people who are unlike us in any fundamental way.
The reason they think this way, and that you do not, is because they believe different myths than you do.
Let's say your worldview is defined by Ivan Ilyin [0]. You don't consider other people or ethics at all. The only thing that matters in the world is God. And God is displeased that the perfect Russia that He created has been spoiled.
The only way to heal the world and make God happy is to restore a certain kind of utopian Russia. That pure and perfect Russia is united in territory and belief, so it can't tolerate any division or fragmentation within itself.
Agents of the devil in the West are deviously dismantling and disintegrating that pure and perfect Russia, piece by piece. Westerners are carving off pieces of territory like Ukraine, and dividing Russian people with seditious Western ideas like democracy and gender fluidity and a free press.
So it's a supernatural struggle between good and evil. An existential battle like that means there's no room for this messy business of parliaments and voting, or compromising with different perspectives.
We need one strong leader, a true and pure leader, to inherit the mantle of past great leaders like Stalin and Peter the Great. He will be God's instrument to make the hard decisions and lead the nation in glorious struggle. This divinely inspired leader will create unity in the world by restoring and reuniting Russia itself.
----
Where do you even begin to have a conversation when you don't share the most basic of beliefs or values? There is no common ground in wanting a safer, fairer, more just world. We have our own foundational myths that we rarely acknowledge or interrogate, and our myths don't intersect with Russia's myths at all.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Ilyin
It's not even that the Russians who think this are especially evil people, or irrational people, or people who are unlike us in any fundamental way.
The reason they think this way, and that you do not, is because they believe different myths than you do.
Let's say your worldview is defined by Ivan Ilyin [0]. You don't consider other people or ethics at all. The only thing that matters in the world is God. And God is displeased that the perfect Russia that He created has been spoiled.
The only way to heal the world and make God happy is to restore a certain kind of utopian Russia. That pure and perfect Russia is united in territory and belief, so it can't tolerate any division or fragmentation within itself.
Agents of the devil in the West are deviously dismantling and disintegrating that pure and perfect Russia, piece by piece. Westerners are carving off pieces of territory like Ukraine, and dividing Russian people with seditious Western ideas like democracy and gender fluidity and a free press.
So it's a supernatural struggle between good and evil. An existential battle like that means there's no room for this messy business of parliaments and voting, or compromising with different perspectives.
We need one strong leader, a true and pure leader, to inherit the mantle of past great leaders like Stalin and Peter the Great. He will be God's instrument to make the hard decisions and lead the nation in glorious struggle. This divinely inspired leader will create unity in the world by restoring and reuniting Russia itself.
----
Where do you even begin to have a conversation when you don't share the most basic of beliefs or values? There is no common ground in wanting a safer, fairer, more just world. We have our own foundational myths that we rarely acknowledge or interrogate, and our myths don't intersect with Russia's myths at all.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Ilyin
"Where do you even begin to have a conversation when you don't share the most basic of beliefs or values?"
We can share it with the tens of thousands of educated Russian opposing the 'special operation', with the thousands of Russians in jail for protesting. Even with the silent millions who doubt all the bullshit they hear but perhaps aren't going to die on a hill over it. They all grew up with the same foundational myths as the irredentists, they just chose to look further.
It's a mistake to essentialise a country as diverse as Russia but we can agree that it's also a mistake to assume almost everyone wants the best for everyone else.
We can share it with the tens of thousands of educated Russian opposing the 'special operation', with the thousands of Russians in jail for protesting. Even with the silent millions who doubt all the bullshit they hear but perhaps aren't going to die on a hill over it. They all grew up with the same foundational myths as the irredentists, they just chose to look further.
It's a mistake to essentialise a country as diverse as Russia but we can agree that it's also a mistake to assume almost everyone wants the best for everyone else.
I watched a security video recently of 3 random people in a convenience store. The store clerk has some kind of medical issue, passes out and falls down.
The 3 random people decide that now they can rob the store with impunity, take a bunch of stuff, and then leave the clerk on the floor. Eventually someone else came in and helped the clerk, but it wasn't like those 3 people were part of some psychopath convention. They just independently decided that getting about $20 worth of free stuff was a better option than calling 911 or checking on the man.
The 3 random people decide that now they can rob the store with impunity, take a bunch of stuff, and then leave the clerk on the floor. Eventually someone else came in and helped the clerk, but it wasn't like those 3 people were part of some psychopath convention. They just independently decided that getting about $20 worth of free stuff was a better option than calling 911 or checking on the man.
This is a really good idea for people who are thoughtful and genuinely want to learn the truth. There problems with it in practice.
Some people have made their political ideology the foundation that they build their ego on. Any disagreement is intolerable. Others are not thoughtful enough to understand that there can be genuine disagreement in the world of both thought and action which needs to be tolerated.
These people will ruin any concept of starmanning that catches hold by using it as a passive-aggressive cudgel ("I'm sure you are a good person and therefore you will immediately cease your opposition and accept my arguments!", "I'm sure you want to be a good person and therefore can't really believe these things you are saying, which are only for bad people!", "Why are you resisting when I'm starmanning you, you must be Hitler 2.0").
But without labelling it, I do endorse the technique. Almost everyone wants the world to get better.
Some people have made their political ideology the foundation that they build their ego on. Any disagreement is intolerable. Others are not thoughtful enough to understand that there can be genuine disagreement in the world of both thought and action which needs to be tolerated.
These people will ruin any concept of starmanning that catches hold by using it as a passive-aggressive cudgel ("I'm sure you are a good person and therefore you will immediately cease your opposition and accept my arguments!", "I'm sure you want to be a good person and therefore can't really believe these things you are saying, which are only for bad people!", "Why are you resisting when I'm starmanning you, you must be Hitler 2.0").
But without labelling it, I do endorse the technique. Almost everyone wants the world to get better.
I have inadvertently been "starman"-ing people my entire life. I usually refer to it as "benefit of the doubt". I have not encountered any problems with it in practice other than that sometimes I end up talking in circles when the other person doesnt really have a strong central point to their argument (or it is just not clicking for me no matter how hard I try to understand)
I think if such practices became mainstream, then people would begin to realize the difficulties involved in having a coherent conversation about a point of disagreement. The passive-aggressive cudgels you mention would fall flat because it is instantly noticeable as not fitting the necessary patterns for coherent conversation.
No one needs to accept or reject the other. the point of an argument is to educate each other, answer questions, and allow each other to fit both opinions into their own world view (ex. what are the limits / specifics to your belief?). Maybe someone changes their mind during that conversation, maybe they dont. maybe someone needs to let the new information ferment in their minds and life for a bit before it clicks. that is part of giving someone benefit of the doubt
maybe you are talking to someone who is venting, or in the middle of a mental episode (i mean that literally, not derogatorily), or was unfortunately born a narcissistic manipulator and cant help themselves. It doesnt matter, they cannot "win" the conversation - no one can - and the more people that realize this truth about conversations in general, the better the world will become
I think if such practices became mainstream, then people would begin to realize the difficulties involved in having a coherent conversation about a point of disagreement. The passive-aggressive cudgels you mention would fall flat because it is instantly noticeable as not fitting the necessary patterns for coherent conversation.
No one needs to accept or reject the other. the point of an argument is to educate each other, answer questions, and allow each other to fit both opinions into their own world view (ex. what are the limits / specifics to your belief?). Maybe someone changes their mind during that conversation, maybe they dont. maybe someone needs to let the new information ferment in their minds and life for a bit before it clicks. that is part of giving someone benefit of the doubt
maybe you are talking to someone who is venting, or in the middle of a mental episode (i mean that literally, not derogatorily), or was unfortunately born a narcissistic manipulator and cant help themselves. It doesnt matter, they cannot "win" the conversation - no one can - and the more people that realize this truth about conversations in general, the better the world will become
> I have not encountered any problems with it in practice other than that sometimes I end up talking in circles
This is why I stopped giving people benefit of the doubt. With every uncharitable action of theirs, I tried to understand their perspective, explain mine, and discover a ground truth. Yet, they are not interested in finding the truth. They are interested in doing what they believe is to be true, regardless of whether it is true or not. They are not interested in getting educated. They have already decided that they are educated and I am wrong, just because we have different ideas. My strategy of giving benefit of the doubt in such a case turns out to be nothing but a waste of time.
Therefore, I've changed my strategy. If they don't respond well to my giving benefit of the doubt, I'll confront them directly. If they insist, then they'll become an out-group to me. Starmanning no more.
This is why I stopped giving people benefit of the doubt. With every uncharitable action of theirs, I tried to understand their perspective, explain mine, and discover a ground truth. Yet, they are not interested in finding the truth. They are interested in doing what they believe is to be true, regardless of whether it is true or not. They are not interested in getting educated. They have already decided that they are educated and I am wrong, just because we have different ideas. My strategy of giving benefit of the doubt in such a case turns out to be nothing but a waste of time.
Therefore, I've changed my strategy. If they don't respond well to my giving benefit of the doubt, I'll confront them directly. If they insist, then they'll become an out-group to me. Starmanning no more.
I understand that frustration, but there are layers to benefit of the doubt. Sometimes giving BotD involves changing the conversation topic because an understanding is not going to be reached on the current one. the best way to think about it is that the other person exists over a period of time, and maybe right now with you they are not their best self - for whatever reason.
I dont enjoy casting people into out-groups, but I understand its appeal and necessity for some people. However, I dont give BotD for the other persons benefit. I do it for my own peace of mind and because I find it yields better conversations overall. Sometimes conversations go nowhere, or people deliberately try to manipulate. Those conversations yield nothing, but that's okay. No one owes me anything, afterall. there's always the future.
I find the best way to keep people open to changing their minds about something either now or in the future is to make them feel like they are free to support whatever they want. Then I act as a source of information and act as a safe zone for thought-exploration.
People do not enjoy feeling hunted. and that goes for educated people hunting uneducated people in order to teach them something or else be out-casted. I think a response of "fuck you, go ahead and outcast me" to that would be pretty normal.
I would much prefer in-grouping people with proper differentiation. "so and so is a great cook!" instead of "so and so doesnt understand climate change and couldnt hold a rational conversation with me about it that one time so I dont associate with them anymore and if they die then good riddance". People want to be validated. Sometimes finding something to validate someone on rather than attack them on the points of disagreement can help reshape their identity. they might never agree with you, but maybe you can move them towards ignoring the topic entirely within their lives in favor of other things that are better aligned with the good of society.
I dont enjoy casting people into out-groups, but I understand its appeal and necessity for some people. However, I dont give BotD for the other persons benefit. I do it for my own peace of mind and because I find it yields better conversations overall. Sometimes conversations go nowhere, or people deliberately try to manipulate. Those conversations yield nothing, but that's okay. No one owes me anything, afterall. there's always the future.
I find the best way to keep people open to changing their minds about something either now or in the future is to make them feel like they are free to support whatever they want. Then I act as a source of information and act as a safe zone for thought-exploration.
People do not enjoy feeling hunted. and that goes for educated people hunting uneducated people in order to teach them something or else be out-casted. I think a response of "fuck you, go ahead and outcast me" to that would be pretty normal.
I would much prefer in-grouping people with proper differentiation. "so and so is a great cook!" instead of "so and so doesnt understand climate change and couldnt hold a rational conversation with me about it that one time so I dont associate with them anymore and if they die then good riddance". People want to be validated. Sometimes finding something to validate someone on rather than attack them on the points of disagreement can help reshape their identity. they might never agree with you, but maybe you can move them towards ignoring the topic entirely within their lives in favor of other things that are better aligned with the good of society.
I agree with most of these points. I don't want to give the impression that I want people to agree with me and that I will turn against them if they don't. I value and embrace differences. It's my goal to actively seek what I'm wrong about, so that I improve.
The types I'm talking about are the ones who are not willing to cooperate. I act as a team player, yet they have their own agenda against the team's. What's worse is they act as if they are willing to cooperate, to benefit from BotD. I don't know whether they do so consciously to manipulate people or because of their insecurities. It doesn't matter. If they are not willing to cooperate after being treated with the best of intentions, then those good intentions are better invested to where they are valued.
The types I'm talking about are the ones who are not willing to cooperate. I act as a team player, yet they have their own agenda against the team's. What's worse is they act as if they are willing to cooperate, to benefit from BotD. I don't know whether they do so consciously to manipulate people or because of their insecurities. It doesn't matter. If they are not willing to cooperate after being treated with the best of intentions, then those good intentions are better invested to where they are valued.
> But without labelling it, I do endorse the technique. Almost everyone wants the world to get better.
It is interesting to see how labeling a technique like this and assigning it a sense of moral superiority seems to invite the exact abuse you describe.
I’ve noticed this with the recent popularity of “steelmanning”; Many of the explicitly-labeled steelman arguments I’ve read lately are actually just strawman arguments, but the author tries to preempt criticism by labeling it a steelman and pretending it is the most robust counter argument that could exist. Often these false steelman arguments arise when the author doesn’t understand the topic as well as they think they do but they believe that “steelmanning” automatically makes them an expert on the counter arguments.
It is interesting to see how labeling a technique like this and assigning it a sense of moral superiority seems to invite the exact abuse you describe.
I’ve noticed this with the recent popularity of “steelmanning”; Many of the explicitly-labeled steelman arguments I’ve read lately are actually just strawman arguments, but the author tries to preempt criticism by labeling it a steelman and pretending it is the most robust counter argument that could exist. Often these false steelman arguments arise when the author doesn’t understand the topic as well as they think they do but they believe that “steelmanning” automatically makes them an expert on the counter arguments.
If it isn't labelled explicitly, by and large the cudgel people can't tell when it is happening, can't mimic it & don't know how to attack. The reason they cudgel is because they can't use empathy - if they could they would, it is a more powerful tool. Plus the cudgel hurts both parties.
It sounds stupid, but I believe it. The flow of a lot of arguments make sense if you assume neither side understands practical empathy (not a comment on objectives, just they can't hold 2x perspectives in mind at once so a lot of the conversation is invisible to them).
It sounds stupid, but I believe it. The flow of a lot of arguments make sense if you assume neither side understands practical empathy (not a comment on objectives, just they can't hold 2x perspectives in mind at once so a lot of the conversation is invisible to them).
I've become convinced that (most?) people only possess "visual empathy" - that is, they can only empathize with what they can see. I think it explains why arguments on the internet often seem to have manipulative strawmanning sociopaths on both sides.
I remember seeing somewhere that societal empathy didn't strongly exist as a cultural trait until people started reading stories where they put themselves in other people's shoes. I guess communal storytelling wasn't enough to change a persons mindset. It was in the context of historical greeks were all sociopaths and narcissists and quite different from the average person today.
Many people confuse expressive with empathy.
>Many of the explicitly-labeled steelman arguments I’ve read lately are actually just strawman arguments, but the author tries to preempt criticism by labeling it a steelman and pretending it is the most robust counter argument that could exist.
Just means that they have limited imagination, no?
I'd hesitate to label anything as steelmanning even if I believed that was what I was doing.
Somebody else coming up with a slightly better argument than my labeled steelman would undermine my entire point.
That said, successfully presenting an opponents steelman argument as well or better than they would and then countering it is very effective.
Just means that they have limited imagination, no?
I'd hesitate to label anything as steelmanning even if I believed that was what I was doing.
Somebody else coming up with a slightly better argument than my labeled steelman would undermine my entire point.
That said, successfully presenting an opponents steelman argument as well or better than they would and then countering it is very effective.
> Just means that they have limited imagination, no?
Limited enough to not imagine the possibility there's something they don't know.
Explicitly labeled steelman is just "argument from arrogance", and that's one reason people often react badly to it. Some times the arrogant person does know better than everybody else, but statistically those two are negatively correlated.
Limited enough to not imagine the possibility there's something they don't know.
Explicitly labeled steelman is just "argument from arrogance", and that's one reason people often react badly to it. Some times the arrogant person does know better than everybody else, but statistically those two are negatively correlated.
I’ve always found steelmanning to be stupid. If you want to discuss something with me you should actually discuss my argument not the argument you replace it with that you think is better and I think is worse.
But haven’t you now just asked the other person to steelman for you instead? While being unwilling to do so yourself?
The purpose of dialogue is to explore differences in thinking and possibly emerge with a new shared understanding.
To me, steelmanning is offering the other person the courtesy of the same thing you just insisted they “should” do if they want to have a discussion with you.
The purpose of dialogue is to explore differences in thinking and possibly emerge with a new shared understanding.
To me, steelmanning is offering the other person the courtesy of the same thing you just insisted they “should” do if they want to have a discussion with you.
I think a lot of this conversation is getting tied up in knots around some new terminology.
For years, a big part of my process for evaluating a new idea was to ask questions and mentally argue for and against various propositions. This might force me to read or think a bit more, but that process almost inherently tries to find the strongest (by whatever values constitute 'strong' to me) version of a point of view.
Is it foolproof? No, I find new arguments and facts.
But I do generally find it easier to see where other people are coming from in a discussion because I can usually reference back to my own interior dialogue to see where the idea at least could have come from (whether it did or not).
Is that steelmanning? I have no earthly idea, but it works for me.
For years, a big part of my process for evaluating a new idea was to ask questions and mentally argue for and against various propositions. This might force me to read or think a bit more, but that process almost inherently tries to find the strongest (by whatever values constitute 'strong' to me) version of a point of view.
Is it foolproof? No, I find new arguments and facts.
But I do generally find it easier to see where other people are coming from in a discussion because I can usually reference back to my own interior dialogue to see where the idea at least could have come from (whether it did or not).
Is that steelmanning? I have no earthly idea, but it works for me.
I’m speculating here, but I think the new terminology has started to emerge so people can encourage others to engage in a similar good faith exchange of ideas, and what was pretty common in years past gotten so rare that it needs a name now.
It seems the hard part is convincing people that this kind of dialogue is important.
It seems the hard part is convincing people that this kind of dialogue is important.
I see it more as a way of pre-empting predictable retorts in a constrained time and space. If your retort is not obvious then fine, we discuss your argument.
However, if I say A and I know 90% of people counter A with B then I'll say A and counter with steelmanned B and then counter that all at once so we can quickly jump to C.
C would either be a less predictable counter or no counter at all.
However, if I say A and I know 90% of people counter A with B then I'll say A and counter with steelmanned B and then counter that all at once so we can quickly jump to C.
C would either be a less predictable counter or no counter at all.
If you actually address B when I either say B or was inclined to say B then sure. But I’ve seen way too much of “that argument is weak, the better argument is X which fails because Y” meanwhile Y fails to refute the original argument making it quite unclear that X is actually a better argument.
>If you actually address B when I either say B or was inclined to say B then sure
Thats kind of the whole point of steelmanning.
Thats kind of the whole point of steelmanning.
It’s not though. At least according to every description of steelmanning I read you’re supposed to replace an argument you encounter with the best possible argument. But the best possible argument might be different enough that arguments which address it don’t address the original argument. Which is my whole problem with the practice. If you only make minor improvements to what I say that makes the arguments responding to my claims identical to the arguments responding to the new claim then I have no problems. But people in practice steelman arguments in ways that change the responses too them. At some point, if you aren’t actually addressing my claims we aren’t actually having a conversation.
I think the main disconnect here is the replcaing the argument point. You are supposed to take the best version of the argument presented, not replace it with the best possible argument. Of course anyone doing the latter is going to often be too far off course to move the conversation along.
To me steelmanning is more of a better version of restating the others point in order to verify you understand their point. The best steelmanning is often proceeded by that. (do I understand the other parties meaning, and what is the strongest version of that meaning.)
Most often though I just find that steelmanning is just ignoring fallacies in otherwise decent efforts at conversational debate. In order to not devolve into back and forth "thats a fallacy!".
To me steelmanning is more of a better version of restating the others point in order to verify you understand their point. The best steelmanning is often proceeded by that. (do I understand the other parties meaning, and what is the strongest version of that meaning.)
Most often though I just find that steelmanning is just ignoring fallacies in otherwise decent efforts at conversational debate. In order to not devolve into back and forth "thats a fallacy!".
> But the best possible argument might be different enough that arguments which address it don’t address the original argument.
In which case the responsibility is on the steelmanner to demonstrate conclusively why the best possible argument differs from the original argument by discussing what makes the original argument weak. You can't just address it with 'it's weak.'
In which case the responsibility is on the steelmanner to demonstrate conclusively why the best possible argument differs from the original argument by discussing what makes the original argument weak. You can't just address it with 'it's weak.'
>But the best possible argument might be different enough that arguments which address it don’t address the original argument.
They might, yes. The point is to try not that you will necessarily always succeed.
This is why I said above that trying to do it but not labeling it is the best approach coz hey, maybe your steelman game sucks.
They might, yes. The point is to try not that you will necessarily always succeed.
This is why I said above that trying to do it but not labeling it is the best approach coz hey, maybe your steelman game sucks.
Steelmanning is when your interlocutor agrees with your description of their argument.
What a beautifully concise definition.
Unfortunately this is true, even with non-political topics. Some people will treat sincere questions trying to understand their point of view as attacks and keep escalating/trying to make it personal.
In the end there isn’t a lot you can do about it, except learn when to cut bait and move on. I agree with you that it’s still worth trying.
In the end there isn’t a lot you can do about it, except learn when to cut bait and move on. I agree with you that it’s still worth trying.
The other thing I've found is that in those cases, the toxicity of their reaction will (at least slightly) move the opinions of at least some people watching the conversation.
So I tend to cut bait and move on at the point where it starts to upset me rather than the point at which the conversation itself is obviously futile.
However my tolerance before I start to actually be upset is relatively high - most people would be significantly better served by bailing out earlier and I've seen too many people burning out of having such conversations entirely because of not doing that and I miss their perspective so would prefer they set boundaries that work for them.
(in case you can't tell, I like being covering fire and it very definitely earns me more friends I am glad to have than enemies I would have preferred not to have)
So I tend to cut bait and move on at the point where it starts to upset me rather than the point at which the conversation itself is obviously futile.
However my tolerance before I start to actually be upset is relatively high - most people would be significantly better served by bailing out earlier and I've seen too many people burning out of having such conversations entirely because of not doing that and I miss their perspective so would prefer they set boundaries that work for them.
(in case you can't tell, I like being covering fire and it very definitely earns me more friends I am glad to have than enemies I would have preferred not to have)
Just walk away. Unless you are in politics or sales you aren’t forced to convince stupid people of anything. Don’t cast pearls before swine.
The only reason I don't walk away instantly is that very occasionally someone does engage in good faith and it's an opportunity for me and maybe them to learn something, and that makes the rest (for the most part) worthwhile.
The collective consciousness of a society only changes through open dialogue. Leaving it up to the politicians is a good way for such dialogue to be inherently political.
There are plenty of issues of basic human decency that can only be changed by talking to the people around you. Stopping entirely can only entrench people in their beliefs and validates the narrative that there are “sides”, and that the other side doesn’t listen.
Referring to an entire group of people as swine is case in point.
Politicians have their place, but so too the common conversation on the street.
There are plenty of issues of basic human decency that can only be changed by talking to the people around you. Stopping entirely can only entrench people in their beliefs and validates the narrative that there are “sides”, and that the other side doesn’t listen.
Referring to an entire group of people as swine is case in point.
Politicians have their place, but so too the common conversation on the street.
When swine have the ability to vote, everyone is in politics regardless if they want to be or not. Just ignoring them has major consequences.
Nah, fuck this "everything is politics" attitude. Politics is everywhere because you make it everywhere. It's a big part of the reason why discourse is as fucked up as it is. Every discussion/encounter has to be won/lost based on your ideology.
Viewing everything as win-loss is bad, but politics does inform or creep into the majority of things.
Especially if you aren't part of the majority.
Especially if you aren't part of the majority.
This is why companies need a HR hiring process that filters out candidates who haven't yet developed the level of maturity needed to listen to contrary perspectives without taking such conversations emotionally.
Such unfiltered workplaces inevitably become toxic.
Such unfiltered workplaces inevitably become toxic.
> This is why companies need a HR hiring process that filters out candidates who haven't yet developed the level of maturity needed to listen to contrary perspectives without taking such conversations emotionally.
The problem is that listening is a lot less flashy and glamorous than violent self-promotion. As long as the people who are in positions of power have got there by violent self-promotion, they will, from intentional or unintentional self-interest, bias the hiring process towards people like them.
The problem is that listening is a lot less flashy and glamorous than violent self-promotion. As long as the people who are in positions of power have got there by violent self-promotion, they will, from intentional or unintentional self-interest, bias the hiring process towards people like them.
How would you evaluate this in a fair, consistent way?
I understand what you're saying, but it's ironic considering that espousing anything but leftist viewpoints in most tech companies today will instantly brand you as a hostile.
Those (most) companies do not filter out immature people who are incapable of hearing contrary opinions.
It's a very common problem, particularly in tech, which has a very young employee base.
It's a very common problem, particularly in tech, which has a very young employee base.
>Some people have made their political ideology the foundation that they build their ego on[...]
This remind me about the idea of "holy wars" in "The denial of death" of Ernest Becker.
“Since the main task of human life is to become heroic and transcend death, every culture must provide its members with an intricate symbolic system that is covertly religious. This means that ideological conflicts between cultures are essentially battles between immortality projects, holy wars.”
Also something along the lines of preferring to annihilate the other before they risk to be symbolically annihilated, like if we prefer the physical death before than the death of the symbolic. For both the other (when is an ideological opponent) and ourselves. We may be physically death, but symbolically immortal.
This remind me about the idea of "holy wars" in "The denial of death" of Ernest Becker.
“Since the main task of human life is to become heroic and transcend death, every culture must provide its members with an intricate symbolic system that is covertly religious. This means that ideological conflicts between cultures are essentially battles between immortality projects, holy wars.”
Also something along the lines of preferring to annihilate the other before they risk to be symbolically annihilated, like if we prefer the physical death before than the death of the symbolic. For both the other (when is an ideological opponent) and ourselves. We may be physically death, but symbolically immortal.
A post I made elsewhere, which seems pertinent here:
Politics and Hermit Crabs
Hermit Crabs wear a shell for protection. If they get separated from their shell, they get frantic and often die if they can't find a replacement. They don't like it when people mess with their shell.
Imagine coming up with a brilliant, powerful political argument. You can smash the shell right off your opponent. Will they thank you for it? There is a real human psychological need behind people's beliefs. There is lived experience behind these beliefs.
It can feel like a real attack when that lived experience is invalidated. People retract into their shell, or attack right back. If their shell is actually busted, they probably won't stick around and find out what else you plan on doing to them; they'll run off and they may find an even worse shell.
So what then? Just accept that they will wear a terrible shell forever? I think that you have to accept their current situation. You don't have to accept it forever, but you have to see them where they are now. You can't change their shell, and you shouldn't expect them to change to a shell that matches yours any time soon, but if you don't drive them away, then maybe they can accept that your shell is valid, and find value in your point of view.
And to be clear, you don't have to do this for everyone, and you sure don't have to do it on social media. You may not be able to accept anyone's terrible shell right now. That's fine. But remember that we all picked up our shells from our environment; we carry our history around with us.
Politics and Hermit Crabs
Hermit Crabs wear a shell for protection. If they get separated from their shell, they get frantic and often die if they can't find a replacement. They don't like it when people mess with their shell.
Imagine coming up with a brilliant, powerful political argument. You can smash the shell right off your opponent. Will they thank you for it? There is a real human psychological need behind people's beliefs. There is lived experience behind these beliefs.
It can feel like a real attack when that lived experience is invalidated. People retract into their shell, or attack right back. If their shell is actually busted, they probably won't stick around and find out what else you plan on doing to them; they'll run off and they may find an even worse shell.
So what then? Just accept that they will wear a terrible shell forever? I think that you have to accept their current situation. You don't have to accept it forever, but you have to see them where they are now. You can't change their shell, and you shouldn't expect them to change to a shell that matches yours any time soon, but if you don't drive them away, then maybe they can accept that your shell is valid, and find value in your point of view.
And to be clear, you don't have to do this for everyone, and you sure don't have to do it on social media. You may not be able to accept anyone's terrible shell right now. That's fine. But remember that we all picked up our shells from our environment; we carry our history around with us.
I am loving this, gonna steal it.
I'm really impressed by this idea. I've never heard of the idea of "star-manning" an argument before, I presume the author invented it, it's good food for thought.
There's another interesting term in here - "ideological capture" - seems like this refers to the state where a person or organization is supporting policy based on ideology or group identity rather than what policy would yield the best outcomes for all of the people involved.
I don't think star-manning is a replacement for steel-manning. More like there are situations where no matter how well you steel-man someone's argument, they're not going to listen, because you don't like each other (or each other's views). Maybe the place where this idea is most applicable is when someone else is in an adversarial mode, it's really the person themselves that you need to "star-man" to establish that common ground is possible and get them into a cooperative mode.
There's another interesting term in here - "ideological capture" - seems like this refers to the state where a person or organization is supporting policy based on ideology or group identity rather than what policy would yield the best outcomes for all of the people involved.
I don't think star-manning is a replacement for steel-manning. More like there are situations where no matter how well you steel-man someone's argument, they're not going to listen, because you don't like each other (or each other's views). Maybe the place where this idea is most applicable is when someone else is in an adversarial mode, it's really the person themselves that you need to "star-man" to establish that common ground is possible and get them into a cooperative mode.
I still think steelmanning is the right path to addressing conflict.
Even in very tense settings, it’s hard for people to be disagreeable about you accurately relaying their view — maybe even better than they did themselves. That makes people feel listened to and understood, which are powerful motivators in human psychology.
I won’t pretend I always do this, but I’ve certainly had the best success inquiring about their position until I can steelman it and only then addressing why I disagree.
As Chris Voss would say, you don’t want them to say “you’re right”, you want them to say “that’s right”.
Even in very tense settings, it’s hard for people to be disagreeable about you accurately relaying their view — maybe even better than they did themselves. That makes people feel listened to and understood, which are powerful motivators in human psychology.
I won’t pretend I always do this, but I’ve certainly had the best success inquiring about their position until I can steelman it and only then addressing why I disagree.
As Chris Voss would say, you don’t want them to say “you’re right”, you want them to say “that’s right”.
I see a few folks in these comments essentially saying "If only everyone else would do this!" This rather misses the point. You don't empathize with your opposition for their sake; you do it for your own sake. You do it because you might learn something. You do it because it helps to build relationships, like (say) the famous friendship between the late justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia. You even do it because your argument will be more effective. But the bottom line is that you do it because it's better for your own mental health if you try to think of the people around you as good.
You're right that this has unilateral benefits, but it's even better if something like this becomes encoded in social norms. For example, there are online communities where it's simply expected that you'll assume good faith and basic decency from the people you're arguing with. To do otherwise would be a serious faux pas. There are also online communities where everything immediately devolves into flamewars in which everyone is shouting and no-one is listening, and that is considered normal and inevitable. And then of course there's a whole spectrum in-between. I can tell you from experience: the places with nicer discourse norms are more pleasant and the discussions tend to be much more interesting and productive. (Compare HN with, say, most of Twitter.)
Unfortunatly, like NVC, arguing from compassion is really hard to fake.
You may force yourself to practice it, and you will improve. But as soon as you get heat up in the moment, it will all go away.
What really helps you to progress is to work on yourself (whatever is your favorite tool, therapy, meditation, etc).
Because it will improve the compassion you feel (for others, but more importantly, for yourself: a lot of the debate is going on inside), and giving a compassionate shape to your words will then be more natural, fluid, and therefore, will be less likely to melt away in a real life debate.
But trying to sound compassionate when you are angry doesn't work very well. And it requires a huge amount of energy to maintain (ask any politician :)).
This is one of those areas where "fake it until you make it" shows its limits.
However, it does improve the quality of your exchanges a lot on the long run, and for me, it's really worth it.
I'm not saying don't try to fake it, but rather, understand where the ceiling is.
You may force yourself to practice it, and you will improve. But as soon as you get heat up in the moment, it will all go away.
What really helps you to progress is to work on yourself (whatever is your favorite tool, therapy, meditation, etc).
Because it will improve the compassion you feel (for others, but more importantly, for yourself: a lot of the debate is going on inside), and giving a compassionate shape to your words will then be more natural, fluid, and therefore, will be less likely to melt away in a real life debate.
But trying to sound compassionate when you are angry doesn't work very well. And it requires a huge amount of energy to maintain (ask any politician :)).
This is one of those areas where "fake it until you make it" shows its limits.
However, it does improve the quality of your exchanges a lot on the long run, and for me, it's really worth it.
I'm not saying don't try to fake it, but rather, understand where the ceiling is.
> But trying to sound compassionate when you are angry doesn't work very well. And it requires a huge amount of energy to maintain (ask any politician :)).
But that's a good and self-reinforcing thing! If you are spending all your energy on compassion, then you are not spending your energy on talking angrily, and so are inadvertently lulled into listening, or at least not over-talking. If one can't be genuinely compassionate yet, then at least falling into a neutral non-attacking position is a good thing.
But that's a good and self-reinforcing thing! If you are spending all your energy on compassion, then you are not spending your energy on talking angrily, and so are inadvertently lulled into listening, or at least not over-talking. If one can't be genuinely compassionate yet, then at least falling into a neutral non-attacking position is a good thing.
I wish.
Nowever it's not uncommon to build frustration that way. Let's disregard the fact it's a highway to unhappiness. One day, one may not have enough energy to keep this frustration at bay, then anger will flow.
Anger is a funny thing, it can lend you temporarilly a lot of energy (that you pay back with interest later). So even if you didn't have any for compassion, suddenly, you might find you have a lot for destruction.
Now don't get me wrong, I think trying and failing at compassion is a worthy action, even when resulting with destruction.
In fact, some meditation technics are mostly that: you try to be compassionate, or in the moment, or just observing. You fail. You try again. For years.
Nowever it's not uncommon to build frustration that way. Let's disregard the fact it's a highway to unhappiness. One day, one may not have enough energy to keep this frustration at bay, then anger will flow.
Anger is a funny thing, it can lend you temporarilly a lot of energy (that you pay back with interest later). So even if you didn't have any for compassion, suddenly, you might find you have a lot for destruction.
Now don't get me wrong, I think trying and failing at compassion is a worthy action, even when resulting with destruction.
In fact, some meditation technics are mostly that: you try to be compassionate, or in the moment, or just observing. You fail. You try again. For years.
> Unfortunatly, like NVC, arguing from compassion is really hard to fake.
Agreed.
> What really helps you to progress is to work on yourself (whatever is your favorite tool, therapy, meditation, etc).
This, however, is very consistent with NVC. Not just with NVC but with most communications books - especially those involving difficult issues. These books focus more on figuring out what's inside of you than in the actual verbal communication. If you're upset/angry, the goal is to understand what is causing you to be angry and how you got there - why would you get angry and someone else wouldn't?
Agreed.
> What really helps you to progress is to work on yourself (whatever is your favorite tool, therapy, meditation, etc).
This, however, is very consistent with NVC. Not just with NVC but with most communications books - especially those involving difficult issues. These books focus more on figuring out what's inside of you than in the actual verbal communication. If you're upset/angry, the goal is to understand what is causing you to be angry and how you got there - why would you get angry and someone else wouldn't?
Indeed it's a better way to put it than my comment: it's not as important to note than faking it is hard, rather that really understanding it is something that goes deeper than an exchange of words.
However, I would say that it's ok to start with just the words. There is a first step to everything.
However, I would say that it's ok to start with just the words. There is a first step to everything.
I'd argue that often what's inside of us (at least in side of me) is a lot of verbal communication. Maybe you mean the verbal communication we do with others, yet I just wanted to say I think the language we use with ourselves is often the language we use with others. I've found that yes, working on how I talk to myself has helped how I talk to others. For example, I'm not an idiot when I make a mistake, I'm angry at a specific behavior I did.
So I try to pay attention to how I speak to myself and how I speak to others, trying to learn from both. E.g., I just said "gosh, how stupid are you" to someone (or thought it), wait, how often do I say that to myself?
So I try to pay attention to how I speak to myself and how I speak to others, trying to learn from both. E.g., I just said "gosh, how stupid are you" to someone (or thought it), wait, how often do I say that to myself?
I think this is something you get almost for free when talking to someone you know in a real-world face-to-face conversation. You get full-bandwidth communication with a real human, and it's impossible to ignore their humanity. When you step back from having a conversation with a person you know, to having an argument with a person you don't know, the humanity diminishes - they become just a character on the other side of the room. When you step back from reality altogether, and argue with people online, the humanity is absent entirely (and indeed, the thing you are interacting with might not be human).
I conclude that a healthy debate can only take place in the real world and a prerequisite is getting to know the person first.
I conclude that a healthy debate can only take place in the real world and a prerequisite is getting to know the person first.
Steelmanning / starmanning are viable ONLY IF the other part is really arguing in good faith.
Assuming good faith is not always effective: it's completely vulnerable to various forms of trolling including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."
Trolls love making people waste their time refuting bullshit.
Choose wisely who to argue with.
Assuming good faith is not always effective: it's completely vulnerable to various forms of trolling including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."
Trolls love making people waste their time refuting bullshit.
Choose wisely who to argue with.
>Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity
The audience are the other readers, not the other commenter. It's enough to convince them. If valid arguments are not enough for them then that's their problem.
The audience are the other readers, not the other commenter. It's enough to convince them. If valid arguments are not enough for them then that's their problem.
The vast majority of conversations about politics have negative value.
> Anyone who has spent time arguing on social media has heard of the straw man fallacy.
I think the main issue is the folly of arguing on social media. It is a setup for dehumanizing and vilifying the other.
I think most arguments on social media are about snark and signaling to your own tribe how smart you are more than actually trying to understand the truth or convince people holding a different view.
Conversations among friends over a beer are much more likely to enlightening and possibly persuasive.
I think the main issue is the folly of arguing on social media. It is a setup for dehumanizing and vilifying the other.
I think most arguments on social media are about snark and signaling to your own tribe how smart you are more than actually trying to understand the truth or convince people holding a different view.
Conversations among friends over a beer are much more likely to enlightening and possibly persuasive.
The lines between real life and social media are blurring. You hear more and more commonly about people cutting all ties with old friends or even family members about relatively simple things. It’s a more accepted thing to do now – complete ostracism of those who we disagree with – instead of trying to find common ground.
It often turns out the person who got cut off was a giant asshole who 100% deserved it. You might not have sufficient visibility into the experience of the person who cut someone off to judge their actions fairly.
You see this a lot in people whose kids have cut off contact. From their perspective, the cutting off was sudden and shocking. From their kid's perspective, it was the last-ditch effort to reclaim autonomy and preserve sanity after a lifetime of abuse and endless attempts to set boundaries and seek change. An outside observer is missing key details.
You see this a lot in people whose kids have cut off contact. From their perspective, the cutting off was sudden and shocking. From their kid's perspective, it was the last-ditch effort to reclaim autonomy and preserve sanity after a lifetime of abuse and endless attempts to set boundaries and seek change. An outside observer is missing key details.
I believe that the percieved threshold of “giant asshole who 100% deserved it” is lowering.
Whether the social stability that came with people putting up with or excusing more abuse and general toxicity was worth more than the dynamism that comes from more people feeling free to build supportive circles is something society is likely to wrestle with over the coming decades.
Anecdotally, every person I know who's cut off people who were harmful to them has found more fulfillment even if things are harder for them. Like chosen family, chosen struggle seems to be easier to live with than a struggle that thrives on disempowerment.
The threshold was high because people didn't believe they had a choice before.
Anecdotally, every person I know who's cut off people who were harmful to them has found more fulfillment even if things are harder for them. Like chosen family, chosen struggle seems to be easier to live with than a struggle that thrives on disempowerment.
The threshold was high because people didn't believe they had a choice before.
Of course, you could be right. However, an alternative explanation is:
1. The threshold of what constitutes “abuse and general toxicity” has lowered significantly, giving people social tacit permission to ostracize others for lesser and lesser perceived offenses.
2. People always think that discarding something is good, and that they are better off without it, immediately after having discarded it. People naturally want to be able to blame all their problems on a single source, and after they have gotten rid of it, they quite obviously believe their lives to be better in every way. Of course, the worse the thing they discarded was, the more correct they are in their belief, but if they are entirely correct can not be known until much later.
1. The threshold of what constitutes “abuse and general toxicity” has lowered significantly, giving people social tacit permission to ostracize others for lesser and lesser perceived offenses.
2. People always think that discarding something is good, and that they are better off without it, immediately after having discarded it. People naturally want to be able to blame all their problems on a single source, and after they have gotten rid of it, they quite obviously believe their lives to be better in every way. Of course, the worse the thing they discarded was, the more correct they are in their belief, but if they are entirely correct can not be known until much later.
1 is fine if the threshold was too high. People are ultimately free to associate with whoever consents to that association without justifying it to outside observers, or to the confused newly disassociated.
2 might be the case, but people can certainly have a sense that something is wrong. It could turn out they made the wrong call in trying to resolve that feeling, but my ancedata tells me this is vanishingly rare.
I get the feeling my anecdata samples a larger portion of the people who pruned their connections to make room for growth, while your anecdata samples a larger portion of people who were cut off. I've already heard quite a bit from the latter and don't find their defenses compelling, so I'm still not convinced this is a serious problem.
2 might be the case, but people can certainly have a sense that something is wrong. It could turn out they made the wrong call in trying to resolve that feeling, but my ancedata tells me this is vanishingly rare.
I get the feeling my anecdata samples a larger portion of the people who pruned their connections to make room for growth, while your anecdata samples a larger portion of people who were cut off. I've already heard quite a bit from the latter and don't find their defenses compelling, so I'm still not convinced this is a serious problem.
> People are ultimately free to associate with whoever consents to that association without justifying it to outside observers, or to the confused newly disassociated.
Nobody contests that. But freedom was never the issue. The issue was a possible problem with people more and more readily abandoning dialogue for ostracism (with accompanying demonization, etc. as justification) as a normal thing to do on disagreement.
> I get the feeling my anecdata samples a larger portion of the people who pruned their connections to make room for growth, while your anecdata samples a larger portion of people who were cut off.
Both our sample sizes are very small, so we probably can’t draw any definitive conclusions either way. I was highlighting that ostracism seemed to me to become more common, and if this is true, it would point to either a rise in the existence of terrible irredeemable people, or a socially lowered threshold for abandoning conversation for demonization. Per the reasons described in the article, I tend to believe in the latter, not the former.
Nobody contests that. But freedom was never the issue. The issue was a possible problem with people more and more readily abandoning dialogue for ostracism (with accompanying demonization, etc. as justification) as a normal thing to do on disagreement.
> I get the feeling my anecdata samples a larger portion of the people who pruned their connections to make room for growth, while your anecdata samples a larger portion of people who were cut off.
Both our sample sizes are very small, so we probably can’t draw any definitive conclusions either way. I was highlighting that ostracism seemed to me to become more common, and if this is true, it would point to either a rise in the existence of terrible irredeemable people, or a socially lowered threshold for abandoning conversation for demonization. Per the reasons described in the article, I tend to believe in the latter, not the former.
>> "Both our sample sizes are very small, so we probably can’t draw any definitive conclusions either way. I was highlighting that ostracism seemed to me to become more common, and if this is true, it would point to either a rise in the existence of terrible irredeemable people, or a socially lowered threshold for abandoning conversation for demonization."
Third option: those people were always there, but more people are realizing they can set and enforce boundaries. You no longer have to just ignore the relative who sexually harasses children, or the relative who's sliding deeper into conspiracy theories and fringe rhetoric that leads to material harm to them and people they care about.
Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away. If you can't convince people around you to support doing something, parting ways is increasingly a socially acceptable option. Most people can't summon up a #MeToo to deal with their problems, and negative peace[0] has been the order of business for so long most people don't even realize it, so cutting people off is often the only option other than status quo.
It seems like your concern is that this movement is lopsided in favor of people giving up on solving these problems rather than sticking with someone who is reachable. That hasn't been my observation, and like I said upthread, I haven't found the evidence in favor of this view persuasive. Most excommunications I witness (or have participated in) followed a long, sometimes lifetime, campaign of patience and persistence. Often a mental health crisis brought on by not forcing the boundaries precedes the no contact situation.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_and_conflict_studies#Con...
Third option: those people were always there, but more people are realizing they can set and enforce boundaries. You no longer have to just ignore the relative who sexually harasses children, or the relative who's sliding deeper into conspiracy theories and fringe rhetoric that leads to material harm to them and people they care about.
Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away. If you can't convince people around you to support doing something, parting ways is increasingly a socially acceptable option. Most people can't summon up a #MeToo to deal with their problems, and negative peace[0] has been the order of business for so long most people don't even realize it, so cutting people off is often the only option other than status quo.
It seems like your concern is that this movement is lopsided in favor of people giving up on solving these problems rather than sticking with someone who is reachable. That hasn't been my observation, and like I said upthread, I haven't found the evidence in favor of this view persuasive. Most excommunications I witness (or have participated in) followed a long, sometimes lifetime, campaign of patience and persistence. Often a mental health crisis brought on by not forcing the boundaries precedes the no contact situation.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_and_conflict_studies#Con...
> Third option: those people were always there, but more people are realizing they can set and enforce boundaries.
This is certainly possible, but why, then, are they realizing this now (in the last five years)? This option lacks a cause for it to be happening now. But the reasons I proposed, a lack of tolerance of differing opinions, do have a quite obvious potential underlying cause, namely a hardening political climate and polarization.
It’s possible that both are true, of course. I.e. a hardening political climate with accompanying ostracism and demonization of any disagreement has also made it socially acceptable to ostracise really irredeemable people in situations where it was not previously feasible.
This is certainly possible, but why, then, are they realizing this now (in the last five years)? This option lacks a cause for it to be happening now. But the reasons I proposed, a lack of tolerance of differing opinions, do have a quite obvious potential underlying cause, namely a hardening political climate and polarization.
It’s possible that both are true, of course. I.e. a hardening political climate with accompanying ostracism and demonization of any disagreement has also made it socially acceptable to ostracise really irredeemable people in situations where it was not previously feasible.
I'm not sure where you got your five year number from. I ignored it because it seemed arbitrary. This certainly didn't start 5 years ago. It amped up with one major political party going fully mask off after the 2016 election, but it's gone on for as long as the internet allowed people from vastly different lived experiences to connect and compare notes.
I am now collapsing this subthread and moving on since this doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Good luck!
I am now collapsing this subthread and moving on since this doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Good luck!
I simply think that I started seeing more and more of people at least talking about ostracism as if it were a primary go-to since about then. I now also think that you are probably also right; people for whom ostracism is the only option left now have an easier time doing it.
Perhaps dependencies are being reduced. “Cutting off” is harder when you depend, or might need to depend on someone, assuming they have something of use for you.
But did something happen to make people vastly less dependent in, say, the last five years?
> most arguments on social media are...
... detached from any real trust system.
"Social media" is not social. As a business, it is the monetisation of strife.
As an exchange of ideas, social media is (as you say) mostly people flinging words at one another.
To be "social", participants in social media would need to manifest commitment to real solutions and people would be accountable for their words and deeds. This is how human society works. There are social consequences in real social exchange. It is a trust system.
I propose that the reason why we hear of people's long-time friendships and family ties collapsing is because those social ties have simply become weak. The pretext for the rupture doesn't much matter.
> To star-man is to not only engage with the most charitable version of your opponent’s argument, but also with the most charitable version of your opponent, by acknowledging their good intentions and your shared desires despite your disagreements.
This is an excellent approach. But it depends on the trust system of real society.
... detached from any real trust system.
"Social media" is not social. As a business, it is the monetisation of strife.
As an exchange of ideas, social media is (as you say) mostly people flinging words at one another.
To be "social", participants in social media would need to manifest commitment to real solutions and people would be accountable for their words and deeds. This is how human society works. There are social consequences in real social exchange. It is a trust system.
I propose that the reason why we hear of people's long-time friendships and family ties collapsing is because those social ties have simply become weak. The pretext for the rupture doesn't much matter.
> To star-man is to not only engage with the most charitable version of your opponent’s argument, but also with the most charitable version of your opponent, by acknowledging their good intentions and your shared desires despite your disagreements.
This is an excellent approach. But it depends on the trust system of real society.
It's also the case that that social trust and those social ties have been weakened, intentionally over the last four or five decades, to produce a "post-political" system of governance.
Margaret Thatcher famously said, "There's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families." It wasn't true when she said it, but thanks to her and the other architects of neoliberalism, it is true now.
Margaret Thatcher famously said, "There's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families." It wasn't true when she said it, but thanks to her and the other architects of neoliberalism, it is true now.
"There is no such thing as society. There are the plutocrats, and a large human economic sacrifice zone for the plutocrats to exploit."
It's a grim, reductionist view of society as a construct for wealth, and general happiness only if the latter does not impede the acculumation of the former.
It's a grim, reductionist view of society as a construct for wealth, and general happiness only if the latter does not impede the acculumation of the former.
I think an underlying mega conflict in online communication is sharing more than we want to share, or at least it has been one plaguing me over the years.
I don't think social media communication has to be dehumanizing, I think it comes into how much do I share about how I'm actually feeling and my actual identity on the internet where hundreds if not thousands or millions of people might see it? And yet it can be soooo easy to share on the internet, from our phone or computer, just talking/typing into the screen, at almost any time and any place?
So then I do think it can come into "how do I pretend to be cool and superhuman...so that people don't know too much about me?"
In a conversation with a friend over a beer, one might open up about why they hate inflation because they think they might lose their job and they're afraid if they lose their job, their wive and kids might leave them. I bet that's the real underlying reason for that person, yet on the internet, that same person might say that evil bankers are trying to destroy us with inflation because who admits to being afraid they're going to lose their life on the internet, with their name attached?
I don't think social media communication has to be dehumanizing, I think it comes into how much do I share about how I'm actually feeling and my actual identity on the internet where hundreds if not thousands or millions of people might see it? And yet it can be soooo easy to share on the internet, from our phone or computer, just talking/typing into the screen, at almost any time and any place?
So then I do think it can come into "how do I pretend to be cool and superhuman...so that people don't know too much about me?"
In a conversation with a friend over a beer, one might open up about why they hate inflation because they think they might lose their job and they're afraid if they lose their job, their wive and kids might leave them. I bet that's the real underlying reason for that person, yet on the internet, that same person might say that evil bankers are trying to destroy us with inflation because who admits to being afraid they're going to lose their life on the internet, with their name attached?
> the main issue is the folly of arguing on social media
This approach could be used in meatspace, too. And, like it or not, our lives are increasingly being spent online.
This approach could be used in meatspace, too. And, like it or not, our lives are increasingly being spent online.
I think, from anecdotal personal experience, that a lot of people harbor deep seated emotions of anger, fear, and hostility. This makes it really difficult to communicate with them, as defensiveness and distrust are often a part of their reaction- and they sometimes lash out with personal attacks, whicb can beentally exhausting and discouraging.
Even with close family members, it is difficult for me to be able to explain my ideas without encountering a barrier in their reaction where they refuse to consider what I have to say.
I think, and this is just my theory, that a lot of people have traumas (sometimes ones they themselves don't realize relate to their associations with the subject being discussed) that make it hard to communicate and they may not know how to approach considering their view might be wrong, or even not wrong but just not the only valid way to look at an issue.
It's extraordinarily difficult to approach certain topics without also encouraging people to confront their biases and encourage them to question things they regard as absolutes- as I mentioned, even with close family members, it's very hard to communicate and have discussions.
It's not an easy thing for them to do, granted, and there is also very little incentive for someone to introspect on why they feel the way they do about something, even less for them to acknowledge there are alternate ways of approaching topics- even hypothetically.
Even with close family members, it is difficult for me to be able to explain my ideas without encountering a barrier in their reaction where they refuse to consider what I have to say.
I think, and this is just my theory, that a lot of people have traumas (sometimes ones they themselves don't realize relate to their associations with the subject being discussed) that make it hard to communicate and they may not know how to approach considering their view might be wrong, or even not wrong but just not the only valid way to look at an issue.
It's extraordinarily difficult to approach certain topics without also encouraging people to confront their biases and encourage them to question things they regard as absolutes- as I mentioned, even with close family members, it's very hard to communicate and have discussions.
It's not an easy thing for them to do, granted, and there is also very little incentive for someone to introspect on why they feel the way they do about something, even less for them to acknowledge there are alternate ways of approaching topics- even hypothetically.
I think I hear you, in that often sometimes these conversations bring up very deep foundational conflicts?
What I've seen is that sometimes the simplest of arguments, when both sides continue opening up, can reveal some existential conflicts within us. I think one of the main conflicts we fight is actually opening up too much and showing too much of our humanity (or our perceived inhumanity).
So yeah, some of these conflicts might go deeper than we want and nudge/force us to confront things we've been trying to avoid. It's something I fear in resolving conflict with people, I like to keep going and sometimes people will say to me "that's enough!" and cut it off, and I think it may relate to them pushing up against those biases/conflicts as you've mentioned.
What I've seen is that sometimes the simplest of arguments, when both sides continue opening up, can reveal some existential conflicts within us. I think one of the main conflicts we fight is actually opening up too much and showing too much of our humanity (or our perceived inhumanity).
So yeah, some of these conflicts might go deeper than we want and nudge/force us to confront things we've been trying to avoid. It's something I fear in resolving conflict with people, I like to keep going and sometimes people will say to me "that's enough!" and cut it off, and I think it may relate to them pushing up against those biases/conflicts as you've mentioned.
This is how I've operated for most of my adult life. It is generally not received well. It seems to be taken as weakness. It just happened yesterday, on this very forum.
I do it anyway, because I'm clean-shaven, and need to look at myself, every morning.
I've never thought it needed a name, although the Bowie reference is nice.
I do it anyway, because I'm clean-shaven, and need to look at myself, every morning.
I've never thought it needed a name, although the Bowie reference is nice.
It can be incredibly draining. I think it's important to also have boundaries and know how to "pick your battles". Some people are unwilling or unable to open themselves up by being sincere, having a genuine discussion can leave people feeling vulnerable and there's a level of trust and willingness to take a risk necessary to truly have a deep discussion about certain topics.
Sometimes it's just not possible. Some people have impenetrable barriers they will defend with no regard for how they do so and the way it affects others.
That being said I like to think of it like I'm reaching out to someone, and often they don't reach back, in a majority of cases they don't want that contact. Those times when someone does, though, brings me great hope.
Sometimes it's just not possible. Some people have impenetrable barriers they will defend with no regard for how they do so and the way it affects others.
That being said I like to think of it like I'm reaching out to someone, and often they don't reach back, in a majority of cases they don't want that contact. Those times when someone does, though, brings me great hope.
Absolutely. In yesterday's thread, for example, the other party had a specific agenda, and wouldn't budge, so I let them have it. I did give them a couple of chances, nevertheless.
It is annoying, though, when folks cast a willingness to recognize all sides of an argument as being "biased," because it does not agree with their side.
I also don't like being called a liar, which is what they did, I assume, because they were unable to comprehend being able to recognize all sides of an issue (I was raised amongst diplomats, so I got that kind of thinking since I was a wee sprog).
It is annoying, though, when folks cast a willingness to recognize all sides of an argument as being "biased," because it does not agree with their side.
I also don't like being called a liar, which is what they did, I assume, because they were unable to comprehend being able to recognize all sides of an issue (I was raised amongst diplomats, so I got that kind of thinking since I was a wee sprog).
> I do it anyway, because I'm clean-shaven, and need to look at myself, every morning.
I really appreciate this point. I do this not necessarily to win the argument or change how the other person is thinking/feeling, I do it mostly because I feel better when I do it. Believing someone is out to get me can cause me a lot of fear. Believing they don't care about me can cause me a lot of loneliness. Believing they're trying their best and are swamped with suffering? I actually feel relieved and maybe even grateful that they may have tried so hard to help me.
Will I ever know their deepest intentions? Probably not, but I sure feel a lot better when I believe they have good intentions for me.
Glad to see you comment on here, you're one of the few names I recognize on HN and appreciate what you said and what you often say, thank you.
I really appreciate this point. I do this not necessarily to win the argument or change how the other person is thinking/feeling, I do it mostly because I feel better when I do it. Believing someone is out to get me can cause me a lot of fear. Believing they don't care about me can cause me a lot of loneliness. Believing they're trying their best and are swamped with suffering? I actually feel relieved and maybe even grateful that they may have tried so hard to help me.
Will I ever know their deepest intentions? Probably not, but I sure feel a lot better when I believe they have good intentions for me.
Glad to see you comment on here, you're one of the few names I recognize on HN and appreciate what you said and what you often say, thank you.
That's really nice!
Thanks so much!
I'm a "reformed troll," so I make an effort to be positive. I feel that I owe some amends.
Thanks so much!
I'm a "reformed troll," so I make an effort to be positive. I feel that I owe some amends.
:-) (goodness, I notice there are almost no emojis or even emoticons on HN, I wonder how that impacts the humanity of discussion here)
Haha, we all have our reasons, I'm just glad you're doing what you're doing.
Haha, we all have our reasons, I'm just glad you're doing what you're doing.
I think it's helpful to think in terms of merely trying to explain my point of view and share my knowledge. I'm usually looking for conversation, not argument.
Then I don't need to worry so much about winning or making points. It's easier to be kind, compassionate, etc when engaging from that space.
Then I don't need to worry so much about winning or making points. It's easier to be kind, compassionate, etc when engaging from that space.
Yes! I want to share what's happening with me and receive what's happening with them. When I read this article, I think I took away that it was mostly about hearing what's happening with others, and I think it's missing that piece of us sharing what's happening with us first.
Of course one should be compassionate and understanding of others, except towards those who are violent, or advocates for violence, or hate, or those who expressly support those who do, or indirectly, or by inaction allow them to exist.
…say the people advocating for ostracism and demonization of their opponents. I agree with this article; there is entirely too much of that kind of behavior going on, and not enough of its opposite.
…say the people advocating for ostracism and demonization of their opponents. I agree with this article; there is entirely too much of that kind of behavior going on, and not enough of its opposite.
> or by inaction allow them to exist.
So basically anyone who is not as passionate about some random issue as you are. This is a problem, you can’t even ask to talk about something else without becoming the enemy.
So basically anyone who is not as passionate about some random issue as you are. This is a problem, you can’t even ask to talk about something else without becoming the enemy.
I want to believe. And in interpersonal interactions, with regular people, in meatspace, it's probably good advice.
But in a larger context, we live in a post-truth world, a hyperreality. Sartre noted the use of bad faith to create a false reality as early as 1944:
> “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Since the late 1970s or so, it's gotten worse, as hyper-reality has become a mainstream tool of governance worldwide [1] [2]. People don't just disagree about the interpretation of facts and ideas about what should be done about them, but about the facts themselves. And this disagreement about facts is fostered by powerful interests, some cooperating, some competing, for profit and political reasons, the latter of which is mainly about making coordinated and effective opposition movements impossible in multiple ways.
Lana Wachowski, via the character Morpheus: “The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
I'd like to think that starmanning would be a tool for making people ready to be unplugged. But the truth is, people will fight to protect the system, especially when they've been convinced that they benefit from it.
[1]: https://www.academia.edu/33103253/Hyper_Normalisation_contex...
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thLgkQBFTPw
But in a larger context, we live in a post-truth world, a hyperreality. Sartre noted the use of bad faith to create a false reality as early as 1944:
> “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Since the late 1970s or so, it's gotten worse, as hyper-reality has become a mainstream tool of governance worldwide [1] [2]. People don't just disagree about the interpretation of facts and ideas about what should be done about them, but about the facts themselves. And this disagreement about facts is fostered by powerful interests, some cooperating, some competing, for profit and political reasons, the latter of which is mainly about making coordinated and effective opposition movements impossible in multiple ways.
Lana Wachowski, via the character Morpheus: “The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
I'd like to think that starmanning would be a tool for making people ready to be unplugged. But the truth is, people will fight to protect the system, especially when they've been convinced that they benefit from it.
[1]: https://www.academia.edu/33103253/Hyper_Normalisation_contex...
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thLgkQBFTPw
> But in a larger context, we live in a post-truth world, a hyperreality. Sartre noted the use of bad faith to create a false reality as early as 1944:
I'm not sure how the current world is any more post-truth than the one 30 or 60 years ago.
I'm not sure how the current world is any more post-truth than the one 30 or 60 years ago.
I think Michael Brooks put it more nicely than Morpheus:
Be kind to people, but ruthless to systems.
Be kind to people, but ruthless to systems.
Quite hard to do with people that self-identify as parts of a system.
(IFAIK, that's the GP's point.)
Somehow the world is full of those people. Attack the system and you are attacking them.
(IFAIK, that's the GP's point.)
Somehow the world is full of those people. Attack the system and you are attacking them.
Rest in power, Michael Brooks.
I invited the author on Twitter to participate here on HN, and he said:
> Haha that’s a lot of commentary to field, but if you’re in there with everyone you can tell them I’m happy to take questions or have deeper discussions in a livestream or something like that.
https://twitter.com/StrangelEdweird/status/15515497699311697...
> I also see a few people misunderstanding/misinterpreting #starmanning as being a replacement for steel-manning. It’s meant as an addendum. Steel-manning is about the argument; star-manning is about the arguer.
> And there are no exceptions to it. Everyone can be star-manned.
https://twitter.com/StrangelEdweird/status/15515500388574494...
> Haha that’s a lot of commentary to field, but if you’re in there with everyone you can tell them I’m happy to take questions or have deeper discussions in a livestream or something like that.
https://twitter.com/StrangelEdweird/status/15515497699311697...
> I also see a few people misunderstanding/misinterpreting #starmanning as being a replacement for steel-manning. It’s meant as an addendum. Steel-manning is about the argument; star-manning is about the arguer.
> And there are no exceptions to it. Everyone can be star-manned.
https://twitter.com/StrangelEdweird/status/15515500388574494...
Summary: Focus first on figuring out the common goal that you are both trying to achieve. From there you can try to discuss the differences in approaches to that goal that you have come up with and steel man the other side.
This seems like a great approach to gain a better understanding of the big picture context, avoid arguing, and have a productive discussion.
What is missing from this essay for me is the acknowledgement that people often do want different things because they do have different values. I think this approach though would make it easier to recognize differences in values and separate out values from facts.
This seems like a great approach to gain a better understanding of the big picture context, avoid arguing, and have a productive discussion.
What is missing from this essay for me is the acknowledgement that people often do want different things because they do have different values. I think this approach though would make it easier to recognize differences in values and separate out values from facts.
I don't think this is a good summary. My understanding of the idea is to steel-man the opponent's argument and then also add a codicil that describes what compassionate values they have that lead them to that point of view.
Yes, I agree your summary is more accurate of what is written in the article. I think the emphasis of mine is an improvement on what is suggested here. Shifting from arguing towards conversation produces better outcomes in my experience.
For the folks here who are active on Twitter, the author is definitely worth a follow, especially if you’re trying to build a reprieve from the normal vitriolic Twitter experience.
https://mobile.twitter.com/StrangelEdweird
He also has half a dozen articles for NewsWeek that readers may find interesting: https://www.newsweek.com/authors/angel-eduardo
https://mobile.twitter.com/StrangelEdweird
He also has half a dozen articles for NewsWeek that readers may find interesting: https://www.newsweek.com/authors/angel-eduardo
Another possibility: instead of assuming anything, ask questions to clarify where the speaker/writer is coming from. In my experience, people who are arguing in good faith will be glad to go along (as long as you're truly questioning and not badgering or cross-examining). People who are arguing in bad faith will resist, evade, try to turn things around etc. The difference is usually apparent as soon as you ask the first question.
[deleted]
> To star-man is to not only engage with the most charitable version of your opponent’s argument, but also with the most charitable version of your opponent, by acknowledging their good intentions and your shared desires despite your disagreements.
This is all to the good, but it is unfortunate that we need to reinvent this wheel. Thinkers like Plato and JS Mill have made exactly the same point, and other good points besides.
We have a rich literature in how to think and how to argue, and we would do well to pay more attention to it.
This is all to the good, but it is unfortunate that we need to reinvent this wheel. Thinkers like Plato and JS Mill have made exactly the same point, and other good points besides.
We have a rich literature in how to think and how to argue, and we would do well to pay more attention to it.
> If you’re still unconvinced—if you’re reflexively rejecting this notion outright, you have to ask yourself: Why? Why wouldn’t you want to acknowledge your interlocutor’s humanity, your mutual quest for safety, security, and satisfaction? How would compassion for your opponent affect your pursuits? I worry about the answers to those questions, and so should you.
I think because I want to recognize my humanity first, before I recognize the other person's humanity.
I think this is the fundamental missing piece in the argument: to recognize our own humanity. I think we take it for a given and yet how many of us are afraid to show our humanity to others? How we feel? What we're thinking? Especially in conflict. We don't say how we're shouting at them because we love them and are afraid they will leave us. We don't say we are against abortions because we tried all our lives to have a child biologically and were unable to and thus feel jealous of those who can but choose to abort—or conversely, for allowing women to choose because we grew up in a family where our parents resented us for being born and ruining their lives.
I really like the idea of humanizing the other person, I think what is more helpful to me feeling well and to resolving conflict in my life is to make sure that I first humanize myself and show that humanity to others.
I think because I want to recognize my humanity first, before I recognize the other person's humanity.
I think this is the fundamental missing piece in the argument: to recognize our own humanity. I think we take it for a given and yet how many of us are afraid to show our humanity to others? How we feel? What we're thinking? Especially in conflict. We don't say how we're shouting at them because we love them and are afraid they will leave us. We don't say we are against abortions because we tried all our lives to have a child biologically and were unable to and thus feel jealous of those who can but choose to abort—or conversely, for allowing women to choose because we grew up in a family where our parents resented us for being born and ruining their lives.
I really like the idea of humanizing the other person, I think what is more helpful to me feeling well and to resolving conflict in my life is to make sure that I first humanize myself and show that humanity to others.
I think this is especially worth considering and practicing in this particular forum. It often feels like one of the signals of an authoritative, respectable comment on HN is how effectively the commenter distances themselves from their own humanity.
We easily and consistently dismiss any argument that shows emotion, are in fact proud of doing so. It creates a dynamic where we're trying to outdo each other's inhumanity, flex how cold and logical we can be in pursuit of a goal or argument. But without the humanity beneath, without the emotion to motivate us, there is no point to anything, no reason to prefer any outcome to any other.
We easily and consistently dismiss any argument that shows emotion, are in fact proud of doing so. It creates a dynamic where we're trying to outdo each other's inhumanity, flex how cold and logical we can be in pursuit of a goal or argument. But without the humanity beneath, without the emotion to motivate us, there is no point to anything, no reason to prefer any outcome to any other.
I'm sitting here in awe and deep gratitude (oh emotion). Thank you for saying this.
I remember reading a book about transformational leadership by Bob Quinn, a professor at the University of Michigan, and talking about how many people in academia pressured him to not use the first person perspective in his book and how he proceeded to use it anyway.
I love the community here and worry so often that if I type something, it will be perceived as too emotional, too flowery, too subjective, etc, so even I, a person who has dedicated the last 10 years of his professional life to communicating emotion, balks to express how I'm feeling here.
edit: oh, and I studied electrical engineering at a very good school for a few years and did well at it, and maybe I feel the need to say that because I think sometimes people think emotions are soft and fluffy and think people who believe in emotions may not come from the "hard sciences" (understanding the near infinite combinations of emotional interactions seems to be a pretty hard science to me).
I remember reading a book about transformational leadership by Bob Quinn, a professor at the University of Michigan, and talking about how many people in academia pressured him to not use the first person perspective in his book and how he proceeded to use it anyway.
I love the community here and worry so often that if I type something, it will be perceived as too emotional, too flowery, too subjective, etc, so even I, a person who has dedicated the last 10 years of his professional life to communicating emotion, balks to express how I'm feeling here.
edit: oh, and I studied electrical engineering at a very good school for a few years and did well at it, and maybe I feel the need to say that because I think sometimes people think emotions are soft and fluffy and think people who believe in emotions may not come from the "hard sciences" (understanding the near infinite combinations of emotional interactions seems to be a pretty hard science to me).
> No doubt some cynics will bristle at the seeming naïveté of calling for civility towards monsters. I understand their skepticism. Many of our beliefs feel more like identities, and to disagree with those is to negate our very existence. The thought of extending charity to those looking to erase us seems masochistic, even suicidal. But this perception of existential threat is an illusion. Yes, there are monsters in the world, but they’re so few in number that you’re unlikely to actually encounter one.
I'm definitely not a cynic, but this really understates the power of the threat that bad ideas can have to peoples existence. That threat is higher based on your specific intersectionality.
My socio-economic position personally lets "this perception of existential threat is an illusion" ring true the vast majority of the time. When I was below the poverty line however, the ideas of someone in a position of power about poor people threatened my ability to better my existence.
I quite like the idea of "optimism isn't naieve, it's the refusal to accept the present as the future". I believe this is a healthy way of seeing things as long as one doesn't bury their head in the sand about current realities that can be much more depressing than the bright future you can envision.
I'm definitely not a cynic, but this really understates the power of the threat that bad ideas can have to peoples existence. That threat is higher based on your specific intersectionality.
My socio-economic position personally lets "this perception of existential threat is an illusion" ring true the vast majority of the time. When I was below the poverty line however, the ideas of someone in a position of power about poor people threatened my ability to better my existence.
I quite like the idea of "optimism isn't naieve, it's the refusal to accept the present as the future". I believe this is a healthy way of seeing things as long as one doesn't bury their head in the sand about current realities that can be much more depressing than the bright future you can envision.
[deleted]
I would go along with the general idea that human beings in general are good, it's a conclusion one easily picks up when having traveled. Most of us want peace, health and reasonable wealth.
Anyway, social media is an entirely different story. It simply isn't designed to have reasonable conversations at length. It's fast, superficial, cult-like, where division is richly rewarded and reason is not. There's no debate tactic you can come up with that changes this as this presumes good faith.
Social media in itself is bad at this but combined with the backdrop of a polarized political landscape, you have a perfect storm making almost any discussion impossible, star-man or not.
Anyway, social media is an entirely different story. It simply isn't designed to have reasonable conversations at length. It's fast, superficial, cult-like, where division is richly rewarded and reason is not. There's no debate tactic you can come up with that changes this as this presumes good faith.
Social media in itself is bad at this but combined with the backdrop of a polarized political landscape, you have a perfect storm making almost any discussion impossible, star-man or not.
Related:
Titanium man: "Taking the core of one’s argument and rearticulating it at a higher level of nuance, sophistication, abstraction, and complexity. The argument is buttressed with more perspectives, contexts, and variables" https://greenteaji108.medium.com/from-the-steelman-to-the-ti...
Franklin Covey said it succinctly in 1989, "seek first to understand, then to be understood". He called it The Habit of Empathic Communication.
I find you gain tremendous credibility by helping the other person improve their argument, even if you disagree with their final conclusions.
If you can change their mind in a way they appreciate, and neutral but informative ways, they are much more open to changing their mind in other ways.
If you can change their mind in a way they appreciate, and neutral but informative ways, they are much more open to changing their mind in other ways.
I fail to see how praising the opponent differs from an ad hominem fallacy except in tone: addressing the interlocutor instead of the issue still fails to address the issue.
> I fail to see how praising the opponent differs from an ad hominem fallacy except in tone: addressing the interlocutor instead of the issue still fails to address the issue.
The ad hominem fallacy is meant to end discussion by attacking the interlocutor. This approach is meant to facilitate discussion by fostering a positive relationship with the interlocutor; the positive relationship is a means, not the end.
The ad hominem fallacy is meant to end discussion by attacking the interlocutor. This approach is meant to facilitate discussion by fostering a positive relationship with the interlocutor; the positive relationship is a means, not the end.
> addressing the interlocutor instead of the issue still fails to address the issue.
Logically, you are correct. Realistically, with a lot of people, failing to address the interlocutor will result in a failure to address the issue.
The "Let's keep personalities and egos out of this" methodology works in a rather narrow domain.
Logically, you are correct. Realistically, with a lot of people, failing to address the interlocutor will result in a failure to address the issue.
The "Let's keep personalities and egos out of this" methodology works in a rather narrow domain.
Doesn't this require understanding from both sides? Most online discourses are not like this, hence both sides are incentivized to just straw man it.
>If someone posits, for example, that universal basic income (UBI) could ameliorate the loss of jobs due to automation, a straw man would be, “So you want people to sit at home all day and collect free money?”
I don't see how this is a strawman. UBI literally lets people receive free money even if they sit at home all day. At some level, a UBI proponent has to "want" this outcome. If you think that UBI wouldn't cause people to leave the workforce, that's a separate argument.
I don't see how this is a strawman. UBI literally lets people receive free money even if they sit at home all day. At some level, a UBI proponent has to "want" this outcome. If you think that UBI wouldn't cause people to leave the workforce, that's a separate argument.
> I don't see how this is a strawman.
Because it is an absurd mischaracterisation of the benefits people see in UBI and most proposals for it.
> UBI literally lets people receive free money even if they sit at home all day.
See this is where nuance starts showing the straw. There is an important and significant difference between "you want UBI so you can sit at home and do nothing" and "even if you did nothing UBI would still cover you." One of the differences is intent. If you want UBI because you are lazy, is a very different situation from, you wanted UBI for good reasons but ended up using it while unemployed.
> At some level, a UBI proponent has to "want" this outcome.
Some proponents of UBI do not want it to cover rent + food + bills. So no, some proponents do not want that. Some just want to simplify goverment aid into a single payment. Some want the residuals of automation to be shared by all. In either case it would hardly cover for people to be sitting at home doing nothing.
Because it is an absurd mischaracterisation of the benefits people see in UBI and most proposals for it.
> UBI literally lets people receive free money even if they sit at home all day.
See this is where nuance starts showing the straw. There is an important and significant difference between "you want UBI so you can sit at home and do nothing" and "even if you did nothing UBI would still cover you." One of the differences is intent. If you want UBI because you are lazy, is a very different situation from, you wanted UBI for good reasons but ended up using it while unemployed.
> At some level, a UBI proponent has to "want" this outcome.
Some proponents of UBI do not want it to cover rent + food + bills. So no, some proponents do not want that. Some just want to simplify goverment aid into a single payment. Some want the residuals of automation to be shared by all. In either case it would hardly cover for people to be sitting at home doing nothing.
>There is an important and significant difference between "you want UBI so you can sit at home and do nothing" and "even if you did nothing UBI would still cover you."
I would agree if that were what the author's example, but it wasn't. The author's statement wasn't a direct attack on the UBI proponent.
>Some proponents of UBI do not want it to cover rent + food + bills. So no, some proponents do not want that.
If you're proposing UBI as protecting people from automation like the author is, it necessarily has to cover all basic expenses. By far the most popular UBI proposal in the US proposes $12000 a year, which is definitely enough for you to find a spare room in Kansas and play videogames all day.
I would agree if that were what the author's example, but it wasn't. The author's statement wasn't a direct attack on the UBI proponent.
>Some proponents of UBI do not want it to cover rent + food + bills. So no, some proponents do not want that.
If you're proposing UBI as protecting people from automation like the author is, it necessarily has to cover all basic expenses. By far the most popular UBI proposal in the US proposes $12000 a year, which is definitely enough for you to find a spare room in Kansas and play videogames all day.
> The author's statement wasn't a direct attack on the UBI proponent.
I think it was though. It's hard to read "ySo you want people to sit at home all day and collect free money" as anything but free leeching, lazy, people who don't deserve the money (obviously heavily reading between the lines).
While your version "UBI literally lets people receive free money even if they sit at home all day." has several advatanges, by using passive voice and saying "even" you take a huge chunk of UBI receivers and make the "abuse" of the system not malicious.
That's kind of the point of the article. Sometimes tone alone can bridge the gap between a mean, angry, unfair reading of an argument or a positive, best version, good intentioned reading. Yours doesn't go as far as being super fair on what many UBI people want, but it is certainly more charitable than the strawmanned version.
> By far the most popular UBI proposal in the US proposes
Arguing with someone over the benefits of UBI and trying to understand where they come from does not requiere knowledge of the currently proposed version of it. I want universal healthcare but could not give you intricate examples of the working of the multi-insurance service in France vs the fully public system in England.
The 12k proposal in the US I am sure is based on some analysis of cost of living, and tech business growth and what not. But it might not be universal. UBI proponents in general want to simplify goverment aid, help lessen the problems of automation and prepare society for post scarcity. These three groups sometimes have very different aims, goals and even starting points they just all happen to want UBI.
I think it was though. It's hard to read "ySo you want people to sit at home all day and collect free money" as anything but free leeching, lazy, people who don't deserve the money (obviously heavily reading between the lines).
While your version "UBI literally lets people receive free money even if they sit at home all day." has several advatanges, by using passive voice and saying "even" you take a huge chunk of UBI receivers and make the "abuse" of the system not malicious.
That's kind of the point of the article. Sometimes tone alone can bridge the gap between a mean, angry, unfair reading of an argument or a positive, best version, good intentioned reading. Yours doesn't go as far as being super fair on what many UBI people want, but it is certainly more charitable than the strawmanned version.
> By far the most popular UBI proposal in the US proposes
Arguing with someone over the benefits of UBI and trying to understand where they come from does not requiere knowledge of the currently proposed version of it. I want universal healthcare but could not give you intricate examples of the working of the multi-insurance service in France vs the fully public system in England.
The 12k proposal in the US I am sure is based on some analysis of cost of living, and tech business growth and what not. But it might not be universal. UBI proponents in general want to simplify goverment aid, help lessen the problems of automation and prepare society for post scarcity. These three groups sometimes have very different aims, goals and even starting points they just all happen to want UBI.
>It's hard to read "ySo you want people to sit at home all day and collect free money" as anything but free leeching, lazy, people who don't deserve the money (obviously heavily reading between the lines).
It's hard to read because everyone has their own implicit assumptions. The anti-UBI advocate thinks it's an universal assumption that giving people free money makes them lazy. They're genuinely perplexed by UBI advocates, motivating them to ask "So you want people to sit at home all day and collect free money?" From your perspective, this question must be an implicit accusation of laziness even when they may think it's a genuine question.
It's hard to read because everyone has their own implicit assumptions. The anti-UBI advocate thinks it's an universal assumption that giving people free money makes them lazy. They're genuinely perplexed by UBI advocates, motivating them to ask "So you want people to sit at home all day and collect free money?" From your perspective, this question must be an implicit accusation of laziness even when they may think it's a genuine question.
It's a strawman because one doesn't have to want people to sit at home all day in order to advocate UBI.
An advocate might disagree (rightly or wrongly) that UBI will necessarily lead to people sitting at home all day.
An advocate might agree that some people sitting at home all day is a possible undesirable outcome of UBI, but might be willing to tolerate that risk in order to achieve some other outcome that they consider more important. that doesn't mean they want that outcome; just that they are willing to tolerate it if it happens, as long as the expected benefits are also possible.
An advocate might even agree that some people sitting at home all day is a necessary and undesirable consequence, but be willing to tolerate it, in order to achieve another desirable outcome.
All of these positions are logically possible for a rational person to hold, so long as they don't know them to be wrong. None of them require that person to desire people to sit at home all day.
Therefore we cannot conclude from UBI advocacy that the advocate desires people to sit at home all day, which means that claiming they must is a strawman.
An advocate might disagree (rightly or wrongly) that UBI will necessarily lead to people sitting at home all day.
An advocate might agree that some people sitting at home all day is a possible undesirable outcome of UBI, but might be willing to tolerate that risk in order to achieve some other outcome that they consider more important. that doesn't mean they want that outcome; just that they are willing to tolerate it if it happens, as long as the expected benefits are also possible.
An advocate might even agree that some people sitting at home all day is a necessary and undesirable consequence, but be willing to tolerate it, in order to achieve another desirable outcome.
All of these positions are logically possible for a rational person to hold, so long as they don't know them to be wrong. None of them require that person to desire people to sit at home all day.
Therefore we cannot conclude from UBI advocacy that the advocate desires people to sit at home all day, which means that claiming they must is a strawman.
>None of them require that person to desire people to sit at home all day.
I think this is a strawman to the anti-UBI camp's question.
"So you want people to sit at home all day and collect free money?"
If that was phrased as a assertion, then I'd agree with you that it's undeniably a strawman. It may be a disingenuous question, but if you're starmaning them it's not difficult that understand why someone would ask such a question in good faith. The asker thinks that it's a universal assumption that giving people free money will cause them to not work, so they're genuinely perplexed a proposal to give people free money.
I think this is a strawman to the anti-UBI camp's question.
"So you want people to sit at home all day and collect free money?"
If that was phrased as a assertion, then I'd agree with you that it's undeniably a strawman. It may be a disingenuous question, but if you're starmaning them it's not difficult that understand why someone would ask such a question in good faith. The asker thinks that it's a universal assumption that giving people free money will cause them to not work, so they're genuinely perplexed a proposal to give people free money.
Fair enough.
There's a significant difference between "so you want people to sit at home all day and collect free money", and "so you want the people who sit at home all day to collect free money".
The former is a clear misrepresentation of the views of most UBI proponents. The latter is an accurate part of their views, albeit a loaded/(mis)leading statement.
The former is a clear misrepresentation of the views of most UBI proponents. The latter is an accurate part of their views, albeit a loaded/(mis)leading statement.
It is technically a strawman because the interlocutor never said that--so you are arguing with something that wasn't said. If you phrased it, "While I have considered the possible advantages of your point, I, by contrast, am against UBI because it will obviously incentivize idleness," that would be both correct and not a logical fallacy.
The poster is splitting hairs, of course.
The poster is splitting hairs, of course.
Wanting UBI can be purely driven by a desire of a better world and belief that people will contribute more to society on average given space and resources to think and catch their breath.
Just because a minority might "sit at home all day and collect free money" doesn't mean the UBI proponent wants it on any level.
Projecting this want onto the proponent as part of their argument makes it a strawman.
Just because a minority might "sit at home all day and collect free money" doesn't mean the UBI proponent wants it on any level.
Projecting this want onto the proponent as part of their argument makes it a strawman.
[deleted]
>UBI literally lets people receive free money even if they sit at home all day.
So it's no different from a business investment then.
So it's no different from a business investment then.
at some point there's a conflict on what compassion is or the trade-offs involved with placing emphasis in some sort of compassion for some given target demographic
Is it really necessary all this verbosity to convey ideas? I feel like all this sugarcoat is just to excesively protect people's feelings, a tendency that is spreading everywhere lately.
To just convey ideas? Of course it's not necessary.
To convince someone to change their world view? This is nowhere near _enough_, just a small start.
They were not talking about couching every fact or snippet taught in physics class getting couched in all this extra "sugarcoating". They were talking about the kind of conversations that almost never go well at all - they're trying to improve the odds of an interaction convincing someone to change their polarized viewpoint from 0.01% to 0.03%.
For that use-case, obviously there's value in exploring different techniques, given the typical technique (scream at them and then block them) doesn't work well at all at actually changing their mind.
They were not talking about couching every fact or snippet taught in physics class getting couched in all this extra "sugarcoating". They were talking about the kind of conversations that almost never go well at all - they're trying to improve the odds of an interaction convincing someone to change their polarized viewpoint from 0.01% to 0.03%.
For that use-case, obviously there's value in exploring different techniques, given the typical technique (scream at them and then block them) doesn't work well at all at actually changing their mind.
No matter how soft and gentle your touch is, when you are trying to change someone else's values, if they are not up to accept other point of views, it will go bad. All this sugarcoat could be interpreted as you trying to patronize them, seeing them as intelectually inferior or who knows what other negative connotation they can infer.
Agreed that patting someone on the head and telling them they're a good boy despite their nazi views isn't the right move, though that's pretty clearly a strawman of what's being suggested here.
> feel like all this sugarcoat is just to excesively protect people's feelings, a tendency that is spreading everywhere lately.
The most rational thing someone can do is accept the reality that acknowledging feelings and emotion are a pre-requisite to problem solving.
The most rational thing someone can do is accept the reality that acknowledging feelings and emotion are a pre-requisite to problem solving.
It makes sense to me.
Often, I see people arguing straw or steel with either their limited view of the oponents position or with the basic asumption that their oponent is an idiot or malicious.
Often, I see people arguing straw or steel with either their limited view of the oponents position or with the basic asumption that their oponent is an idiot or malicious.
A phrase I have to issue here on occasion is, "they didn't misunderstand you, they just disagree."
One does not exclude the other.
how much value can you place on a disagreement based on a misunderstanding, though? i don't think that's the relevant case.
I think a big part of this topic discussion is that there's a LOT of value in those- that many disagreements are simply down to having a different understanding about context and facts, and that giving the other person the benefit of the doubt can help people navigate those. It actually seems like one of the most relevant cases to me.
Understood.
And agreed about the nature of many disagreements coming down to context and facts. My comment is aimed at people who seem to insist that other posters don't understand their context or have all the facts, when they actually do and yet continue to disagree.
And agreed about the nature of many disagreements coming down to context and facts. My comment is aimed at people who seem to insist that other posters don't understand their context or have all the facts, when they actually do and yet continue to disagree.
[deleted]
Economics, sociology and psychology all tend to say very little with very many words to the extent that the message gets lost and people don't even know what they are discussing.
You see it to a lesser extent in software and math too though - just look at any mathematical article on wikipedia. The "dynamic programming" article is a good one for this.
I'm not sure this is a new problem.
You see it to a lesser extent in software and math too though - just look at any mathematical article on wikipedia. The "dynamic programming" article is a good one for this.
I'm not sure this is a new problem.
I agree your premise in a limited context: non fiction books.
Non fiction books often pad out very little info into an entire tome simply because that’s one of the few ways you can make money from your idea.
But this doesn’t apply just to economics. The most egregious of this are books about programming languages and architecture if you ask me.
In philosophy and elsewhere, a good author might write a lot but still be concise. That’s just because they have a lot to say. Or they need more examples.
This article wasn’t even that verbose. I don’t see how what he said related to star man though, but that’s a different topic.
Non fiction books often pad out very little info into an entire tome simply because that’s one of the few ways you can make money from your idea.
But this doesn’t apply just to economics. The most egregious of this are books about programming languages and architecture if you ask me.
In philosophy and elsewhere, a good author might write a lot but still be concise. That’s just because they have a lot to say. Or they need more examples.
This article wasn’t even that verbose. I don’t see how what he said related to star man though, but that’s a different topic.
I don't know much about sociology and psychology, but I can say that I'm surprised by this characterization of economics. I'm sure you know what you're talking about, but it's my impression that economics is a subject with a lot of depth, and also tries to communicate its ideas to laypeople with concise approximations like "P=MC"
Sometimes, when discussing controversial or polarizing ideas, you do need extra signaling to convey that you're taking them seriously. It would be nice to live in a world wherein this could be taken for granted, and someday perhaps we will. Alas, not in these times.
Verbosity?
By the lingo, I assume the author is at least tangentially associated with the online rationalism thing, Slate Star Codex and Yudkowsky and effective altruism and all that.
By their standards, this is a damn haiku.
By the lingo, I assume the author is at least tangentially associated with the online rationalism thing, Slate Star Codex and Yudkowsky and effective altruism and all that.
By their standards, this is a damn haiku.
> Yes, Nazis and white supremacists represent a particularly deranged set of ideas, but with compassion it is possible to tease the humanity out of even them. If Daryl Davis can convert Klansmen, surely you can find common ground with someone on the other end of the political spectrum.
> ...The key (...) is the recognition that (...) most of us are not as opposed to one another as we think. Our discourse is rife with belligerence and bile, and our platforms are designed to stoke polarization.
Spoken like someone who hasn't dealt with Nazis and other authoritarian and/or moralistic political radicals before, as well as a false equivalency.
The problem with Nazis, white supremacist and tankies is not that they are personally evil, or that we find their ideas morally abhorrent.
The problem is that their ideologies require an enemy, an underclass etc., and that the way they want to achieve good things by eradicating a scapegoat with violence. This means that while you can agree, agree to disagree or compromise on whether we should spend amount X,Y or inbetween on $socialprogram, but you can't really do this with the classes of beliefs which are expansionary and authoritarian. You can't do violence to a specific scapegoat group of people "only a little bit" and have them be okay with it.
And the reason why people come up with these beliefs are not the same reasoning process that other beliefs are adopted. You cannot logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into.
--
Now, all of this is not to demean the idea behind this post. It is true that the only way to deradicalize people is to find the irrational core behind their ideas and try to address that. I've had hour long discussions with "patriots" making BS arguments about the inherent sociocultural predisposition of black people towards crime, consistently trying to dig at why they really believed what they did - in the end, they had a traumatic experience getting mugged. After arriving at this, it was able to empathize, connect with them, and start shaking the beliefs.
But importantly, this was after I had interrupted them spreading "race realist" propaganda to a younger colleague of ours. The order of operations when dealing with people holding harmful beliefs (which are almost universally authoritarian, moralistic or of the "fuck you, I got mine" banal egoism) is to
1. stop them from doing harm/do harm reduction
2. try to connect with them as humans and try to deal with the trauma that almost always underlies their beliefs
Trying to compromise with people who are unwilling to compromise is how you get the slide into fundamentalist christianity (to quote the republican senator Kinzinger "the christian taliban" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/30/kinzinger-bo... ) that the US has been experiencing throughout the last decades. If you try to rationally and civilly deal with people not interested in being rational and civil but only about pushing their view of the world onto you, it won't work. In order to get that treatment, the beliefs need to be of a kind which is itself tolerant to others. Secular societies leaving the choice of abortion to women fulfills this condition: no-one is stopping hardcore christians from not aborting. But a society which forces women to come to term but does not also force everyone to donate blood and organs to those in need and does not provide a UBI cannot use the "life must be preserved" argument - it is simply imposing one extremely specific behavioural rule onto one specific subgroup of the population.
I know it is a radical take, but there are actual differences between beliefs. Acting as if there isn't does not bridge gaps, it simply pulls us towards extremes.
Spoken like someone who hasn't dealt with Nazis and other authoritarian and/or moralistic political radicals before, as well as a false equivalency.
The problem with Nazis, white supremacist and tankies is not that they are personally evil, or that we find their ideas morally abhorrent.
The problem is that their ideologies require an enemy, an underclass etc., and that the way they want to achieve good things by eradicating a scapegoat with violence. This means that while you can agree, agree to disagree or compromise on whether we should spend amount X,Y or inbetween on $socialprogram, but you can't really do this with the classes of beliefs which are expansionary and authoritarian. You can't do violence to a specific scapegoat group of people "only a little bit" and have them be okay with it.
And the reason why people come up with these beliefs are not the same reasoning process that other beliefs are adopted. You cannot logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into.
--
Now, all of this is not to demean the idea behind this post. It is true that the only way to deradicalize people is to find the irrational core behind their ideas and try to address that. I've had hour long discussions with "patriots" making BS arguments about the inherent sociocultural predisposition of black people towards crime, consistently trying to dig at why they really believed what they did - in the end, they had a traumatic experience getting mugged. After arriving at this, it was able to empathize, connect with them, and start shaking the beliefs.
But importantly, this was after I had interrupted them spreading "race realist" propaganda to a younger colleague of ours. The order of operations when dealing with people holding harmful beliefs (which are almost universally authoritarian, moralistic or of the "fuck you, I got mine" banal egoism) is to
1. stop them from doing harm/do harm reduction
2. try to connect with them as humans and try to deal with the trauma that almost always underlies their beliefs
Trying to compromise with people who are unwilling to compromise is how you get the slide into fundamentalist christianity (to quote the republican senator Kinzinger "the christian taliban" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/30/kinzinger-bo... ) that the US has been experiencing throughout the last decades. If you try to rationally and civilly deal with people not interested in being rational and civil but only about pushing their view of the world onto you, it won't work. In order to get that treatment, the beliefs need to be of a kind which is itself tolerant to others. Secular societies leaving the choice of abortion to women fulfills this condition: no-one is stopping hardcore christians from not aborting. But a society which forces women to come to term but does not also force everyone to donate blood and organs to those in need and does not provide a UBI cannot use the "life must be preserved" argument - it is simply imposing one extremely specific behavioural rule onto one specific subgroup of the population.
I know it is a radical take, but there are actual differences between beliefs. Acting as if there isn't does not bridge gaps, it simply pulls us towards extremes.
>The problem is that their ideologies require an enemy, an underclass etc
In my experience, this seems central to almost all ideologies. A common enemy, often greatly embellished or grossly misrepresented, has been used to bolster tribal cohesion since before humanity. I'm trying to think of an ideology that doesn't use this, but I'm coming up blank.
In my experience, this seems central to almost all ideologies. A common enemy, often greatly embellished or grossly misrepresented, has been used to bolster tribal cohesion since before humanity. I'm trying to think of an ideology that doesn't use this, but I'm coming up blank.
Humanism, non-tankie leftism and the more tolerant/loving religions all have "we are all brothers" ideologies. Internationalism is a key feature of leftist ideology, hâte the sin love the sinner etc.
Ans even then, you can't simply throw things into a pot. Singling out billionaires and aristocrats as the enemies for their wealth and power is a different thing than singling out homosexuals or women. If we started to deprive billionaires of political speech you could very simply and comfortably give up a few hundred million of wealth to regain it. So discrimination against the rich and powerful (which is very easy to opt out of) is different than discriminating against poor people (which from experience is much harder to opt out from).
The problem starts when the discrimination starts being essentialist and stigmatising. If we have people for having a rich father even if they themselves are estranged and poor, it's no better than racism etc
Ans even then, you can't simply throw things into a pot. Singling out billionaires and aristocrats as the enemies for their wealth and power is a different thing than singling out homosexuals or women. If we started to deprive billionaires of political speech you could very simply and comfortably give up a few hundred million of wealth to regain it. So discrimination against the rich and powerful (which is very easy to opt out of) is different than discriminating against poor people (which from experience is much harder to opt out from).
The problem starts when the discrimination starts being essentialist and stigmatising. If we have people for having a rich father even if they themselves are estranged and poor, it's no better than racism etc
On the one hand, he's right. On the other hand, I feel gaslit by the fact that, superficially speaking, someone has built a brand & an income around a BS token like "starmanning". I mean, we've all cast pearls before swine from time to time, but how many of you have managed to make a career out of it?
Much like steelmanning, I fear that starmanning ends up serving as an excuse to ignore the actual thought of your opponents, and to make up some version that feels more comfortable.
That's the opposite of steelmanning. Steelmanning is engaging with the actual thought of your opponents. Strawmanning is ignoring the actual thought of your opponents in favor of an easy-to-counter or ridiculous idea.
I don't understand how this adds anything different really than assuming the opponent is the worst.
I would expect the advice to be 'make no assumptions about the character of the person arguing and instead try to argue purely the content presented.'
Star-man seems like some inverse ad-hominem.
I would expect the advice to be 'make no assumptions about the character of the person arguing and instead try to argue purely the content presented.'
Star-man seems like some inverse ad-hominem.
Many (most?) people identify with their ideas. They consider their ideas to be parts of, or manifestations of, themselves.
This is why, if you attack an idea, the person defending it feels threatened. They go into a fight-or-flight mode, which almost completely deactivates their ability to evaluate your arguments rationally.
Star-manning makes clear from the start that you recognize, appreciate, and share their intentions. You aren't opposed to the things they care about the most. You're actually an ally. They don't need to fight you or run from you.
From this vantage point, you can discuss strategies for accomplishing the goals you both share, and there is a much higher likelihood they will be open to hearing the reasons you think your strategy will be more effective than they would if their hindbrain activated at the beginning of the conversation.
This is why, if you attack an idea, the person defending it feels threatened. They go into a fight-or-flight mode, which almost completely deactivates their ability to evaluate your arguments rationally.
Star-manning makes clear from the start that you recognize, appreciate, and share their intentions. You aren't opposed to the things they care about the most. You're actually an ally. They don't need to fight you or run from you.
From this vantage point, you can discuss strategies for accomplishing the goals you both share, and there is a much higher likelihood they will be open to hearing the reasons you think your strategy will be more effective than they would if their hindbrain activated at the beginning of the conversation.
Can't this only really work if your 'opponent' agrees to also do the same up front?
Imagine believing a troll arguing with you has fully honest and positive intentions (or you can convince them to be so) while they savage you. That's some weird self-torture.
Or, if your opponent isn't interest in the strategies, you're back to square one.
Training yourself to ignore the individual behind the comments and focus on the content sounds more useful in my opinion over time, as it allows you to debate under broader circumstances, without any social contract. I might be completely wrong, but I also imagine it would lead to better recognition of circular logic, ad-hominem and other useless argumentation rhetoric because you're actively working to remove the emotional triggers that blind you.
Imagine believing a troll arguing with you has fully honest and positive intentions (or you can convince them to be so) while they savage you. That's some weird self-torture.
Or, if your opponent isn't interest in the strategies, you're back to square one.
Training yourself to ignore the individual behind the comments and focus on the content sounds more useful in my opinion over time, as it allows you to debate under broader circumstances, without any social contract. I might be completely wrong, but I also imagine it would lead to better recognition of circular logic, ad-hominem and other useless argumentation rhetoric because you're actively working to remove the emotional triggers that blind you.
I think the point is that your "opponent" might agree to this if you express openness to it from the start by showing them you understand and share their deepest motives, but they will almost certainly be closed to you if they perceive themselves (rightly or wrongly) to be under attack.
It's always up to you to assess whether there's any hope for a productive conversation with someone. It's also up to you to define "productive." If there is no hope, by whatever definition you select, it's probably a better use of your time to set a boundary and disengage.
This strategy seems to be geared toward maximizing the chance that your "opponent" will be able and willing to hear your points, but there's only so much any strategy can do if someone is determined to see you as an enemy from the start.
It's always up to you to assess whether there's any hope for a productive conversation with someone. It's also up to you to define "productive." If there is no hope, by whatever definition you select, it's probably a better use of your time to set a boundary and disengage.
This strategy seems to be geared toward maximizing the chance that your "opponent" will be able and willing to hear your points, but there's only so much any strategy can do if someone is determined to see you as an enemy from the start.
From the article: "More often, you will run into ordinary people under the influence of bad ideas—ideas that lead them to think and act in misguided, even monstrous ways."
So a presumptuous negativity lurks behind starman? The tone is like "we can cure those people infected with bad ideas, with healing power of compassion".
So a presumptuous negativity lurks behind starman? The tone is like "we can cure those people infected with bad ideas, with healing power of compassion".
I took that as more a way to reach those readers who already think this way. Kind of "If you are trying to reach someone who is under the influence of ideas you think are bad, try empathizing with the values that led them to these ideas."
You needed to change what they wrote in order to take it that way.
Not really. I interpreted the quote in context of the whole, which you did not do.
You're missing the part where he says "monsters are so few in number that you’re unlikely to actually encounter one."
No argument there.
But then he continues: "more often, you will run into ordinary people under the influence of bad ideas... Our error is in assuming these people are lost to us."
You can try all you like to give him a green pass of interpretation and context, but by no means is he speaking from the cynic's point of view. He is establishing that people are infected with bad ideas. His premise is about all the ignorant people out there you can "de-cloak" with compassionate star-manning.
> "Many may still think this idea naïve, but they’re wrong."
I think the idea is naive, and the author comes across as arrogant, and contradicts his own advice. If you disagree, you're wrong. Don't worry, I extend you compassion!
No argument there.
But then he continues: "more often, you will run into ordinary people under the influence of bad ideas... Our error is in assuming these people are lost to us."
You can try all you like to give him a green pass of interpretation and context, but by no means is he speaking from the cynic's point of view. He is establishing that people are infected with bad ideas. His premise is about all the ignorant people out there you can "de-cloak" with compassionate star-manning.
> "Many may still think this idea naïve, but they’re wrong."
I think the idea is naive, and the author comes across as arrogant, and contradicts his own advice. If you disagree, you're wrong. Don't worry, I extend you compassion!
I'll take that wager. I've met a lot of people whose concern for others drops off sharply beyond their own family and friends. Then there is the deep tribal impulse that is satisfied only at the exclusion of others, almost as a principle. Suggesting they employ the starman in their discussion won't make a difference because it's not a rhetorical problem, it's just how their priorities reflect on how they act in their daily lives.
The issue is in assuming the most charitable version of an opponent when we have their actions to guide us instead. For example, right now there are lots of Russians who think it's fine to invade, kill and steal, not for safety, fairness or justice for everyone. They just want better for their tribe. And we should respond as such based on their actions.
And if you assume they want safety, fairness and justice for everyone, their responses will vary from 'sure, why not' to 'of course, that's exactly why we're liberating, cleansing and reappropriating'.
Many of us are just selfish bastards, and that's a character flaw.