11-15-2016, 06:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2016, 07:00 AM by Bob Butler 54.)
Taramarie
We were having an interesting conversation a few days back. Kinser popped in and got me going on other stuff. I couldn't find the time and energy to hold both conversations at once. I'll try to pick it up, though I don't know how much there is left to say.
In general, I believe it takes a traumatic failure of one's ideals in order to force reconsideration. I don't see the human brain as a objective tool for pursuing goals and analyzing situations, or perhaps it does it in two phases. First, it builds a world view to analyze problems and values as goals to be sought. This takes a lot of effort, thus it is effective to do this once as one is growing into maturity. Once maturity is reached, it is easier to act using the world view to analyze and the values as targets to be sought rather than to think through every decision objectively from scratch.
From an evolutionary perspective, at least in the hunter gatherer environment where we evolved, one can argue that this approach is very cost effective. Today's environment is much more diverse and complex than the hunter gatherer life style we evolved for. Two perfectly good minds that grew up in different environments can develop entirely different world views and values.
How traumatic a failure is required before a human can reexamine something that has been set at a core level? I might provide two illustrations.
![[Image: Atlanta64.jpg]](http://www.polyticks.com/photo/Atlanta64.jpg)
Atlanta, 1864
![[Image: Berlin45.jpg]](http://www.polyticks.com/photo/Berlin45.jpg)
Berlin, 1945
The above reflects how world views are altered on a massive crisis scale, or at least people will give the impression of having a world view shift. The slave owners might be made to acknowledge their property is now free, but that didn't prevent Jim Crow. While the Germans and Japanese after World War II became very dubious about fighting wars of aggression, some of the Germans still didn't think much of Jews.
Causing that degree of trauma to someone's world view by typing in a chat room is difficult to rare. I've been saying that people are seldom moved off their bedrock. That is because the defense mechanisms that protect the brain from reconsidering world views -- vile stereotypes, blindness to obvious fact, a tendency to revert to childish insult and squabbling, others -- are just that strong. The defense mechanisms might be considered symptoms of a disease, or perhaps a reflection of how the human mind works.
Some world views are more flexible than others. A fundamentalist with firm literal belief in the Bible is in a tight place. It is perhaps fortunate for such people that the Bible was written over a long period of time, records values reflecting quite different cultures, thus one can pick and choose from among the centuries to build a perspective that works. There is a good deal of wiggle room between 'eye for an eye' and 'turn the other cheek'. A scientist who lives the notion that all theories must be reconsidered when fact conflicts with the theory is in a much better place. Even if his political values are strong, such people are trained somewhat to stop and reevaluate, and acting in conflict with observed fact is anathema.
Part of one's chat room game might be attempting to understand how people view the world, what their goals are. If you wish to make a point, using an argument centered on their world views or values will be much more effective that an argument from a different perspective. Defense mechanisms are apt to kick in such they will be unable to comprehend or acknowledge an argument from a different perspective. [understatement] Alas, arguing against a perspective from within that perspective is tricky at best. [/understatement]
You might try stating your own values firmly and clearly. This won't make the change their values, but if you are firm, clear, with many repetitions, they might hear you, they might eventually listen. The same with obvious facts. Simple, clear, firm, undeniable, repeated. You might also go with an expectation of failure, that they aren't going to listen anyway. Expect vile straw men, denial, insults and childish temper tantrums. It's endless.
The emotional force applied might need to be comparable to Berlin 1945 or Atlanta 1864. It might not be worth it. It's hard to apply that much force while being nice. Thus, while I'm with you in trying for a chat room that isn't totally dominated by the defense mechanism rudeness, if you're really interested in communicating your views, in shifting other people's values, you might need to reach for the chisel and hammer from time to time. I'm sensing that your own values will make you reluctant to go for the hammer and chisel. If you can communicate at a core values at level while staying nice, you go girl, go for it.
You are touching on something very basic here. Two conflicting principles. Civilization involves rules to make sure people don't hurt each other. Human rights exist in part to prevent government rules that limit freedom. There is a conflict when one person's freedom is another person's evil that should be prevented. Such conflicts can and often do work at a core values level, in which case they are a step short of unresolvable.
"Keeping the conversation away from where their inflexible way of perceiving things has failed them" would be a good way to keep the peace, to keep the forum more civilized. It would not be a good way to communicate your own values or attempt to change theirs. Values change is traumatic. Defense mechanisms such as vile stereotypes, rejection of fact, insults and tantrums reflect the trauma. There might be a choice between inflicting the trauma or giving up on communicating.
I had been sort of aware of the above for quite some time. Thanks for prompting me to share.
We were having an interesting conversation a few days back. Kinser popped in and got me going on other stuff. I couldn't find the time and energy to hold both conversations at once. I'll try to pick it up, though I don't know how much there is left to say.
(11-13-2016, 02:51 AM)taramarie Wrote:(11-13-2016, 02:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: "Correct in that we're locked into a clash of ideals. It's problematic, though, that we're locked into fixed positions. An awful lot of us can only see things through specific perspectives and attitudes, which is emphatically not ideal."
What do you think can cause someone to shift their ideals? In a way that personally impacts them perhaps? I guess it all depends on how open their mind is to a different perspective.
In general, I believe it takes a traumatic failure of one's ideals in order to force reconsideration. I don't see the human brain as a objective tool for pursuing goals and analyzing situations, or perhaps it does it in two phases. First, it builds a world view to analyze problems and values as goals to be sought. This takes a lot of effort, thus it is effective to do this once as one is growing into maturity. Once maturity is reached, it is easier to act using the world view to analyze and the values as targets to be sought rather than to think through every decision objectively from scratch.
From an evolutionary perspective, at least in the hunter gatherer environment where we evolved, one can argue that this approach is very cost effective. Today's environment is much more diverse and complex than the hunter gatherer life style we evolved for. Two perfectly good minds that grew up in different environments can develop entirely different world views and values.
How traumatic a failure is required before a human can reexamine something that has been set at a core level? I might provide two illustrations.
Atlanta, 1864
Berlin, 1945
The above reflects how world views are altered on a massive crisis scale, or at least people will give the impression of having a world view shift. The slave owners might be made to acknowledge their property is now free, but that didn't prevent Jim Crow. While the Germans and Japanese after World War II became very dubious about fighting wars of aggression, some of the Germans still didn't think much of Jews.
Causing that degree of trauma to someone's world view by typing in a chat room is difficult to rare. I've been saying that people are seldom moved off their bedrock. That is because the defense mechanisms that protect the brain from reconsidering world views -- vile stereotypes, blindness to obvious fact, a tendency to revert to childish insult and squabbling, others -- are just that strong. The defense mechanisms might be considered symptoms of a disease, or perhaps a reflection of how the human mind works.
Some world views are more flexible than others. A fundamentalist with firm literal belief in the Bible is in a tight place. It is perhaps fortunate for such people that the Bible was written over a long period of time, records values reflecting quite different cultures, thus one can pick and choose from among the centuries to build a perspective that works. There is a good deal of wiggle room between 'eye for an eye' and 'turn the other cheek'. A scientist who lives the notion that all theories must be reconsidered when fact conflicts with the theory is in a much better place. Even if his political values are strong, such people are trained somewhat to stop and reevaluate, and acting in conflict with observed fact is anathema.
Part of one's chat room game might be attempting to understand how people view the world, what their goals are. If you wish to make a point, using an argument centered on their world views or values will be much more effective that an argument from a different perspective. Defense mechanisms are apt to kick in such they will be unable to comprehend or acknowledge an argument from a different perspective. [understatement] Alas, arguing against a perspective from within that perspective is tricky at best. [/understatement]
You might try stating your own values firmly and clearly. This won't make the change their values, but if you are firm, clear, with many repetitions, they might hear you, they might eventually listen. The same with obvious facts. Simple, clear, firm, undeniable, repeated. You might also go with an expectation of failure, that they aren't going to listen anyway. Expect vile straw men, denial, insults and childish temper tantrums. It's endless.
The emotional force applied might need to be comparable to Berlin 1945 or Atlanta 1864. It might not be worth it. It's hard to apply that much force while being nice. Thus, while I'm with you in trying for a chat room that isn't totally dominated by the defense mechanism rudeness, if you're really interested in communicating your views, in shifting other people's values, you might need to reach for the chisel and hammer from time to time. I'm sensing that your own values will make you reluctant to go for the hammer and chisel. If you can communicate at a core values at level while staying nice, you go girl, go for it.
(11-13-2016, 02:51 AM)taramarie Wrote:(11-13-2016, 02:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Problem is, in some respects listening does hurt. Extreme partisans are often incapable of reevaluating their world views or values. To force them to reconsider basics is very hard for them. It's not physical pain, but it's emotional trauma. That is why they have defense mechanisms such as vile stereotypes. When you are right and they are wrong on a fact and ideals level, you become invisible, one of their vile stereotypes suddenly materializes where you were standing, and they will attack the vile stereotype. The inability to perceive obvious facts is another defense mechanism. Whenever an extreme partisan starts responding in a childish or abusive fashion, it is quite likely that you have stressed their world view or values to the point where their mind has to change the subject, move the conversation away from where their inflexible way of perceiving things has failed them.
Do they not consider that others may have different values and that theirs impacts others in a way that does not fit them (through politics). The big question is how to allow people to live under a system that fits them without stepping the boundary onto how others want to live their lives. Which is why I believe politics and culture should not mix. They already have enough issues with economic disputes. Culture makes it personal and when you live in such a massive and diverse country it makes it near impossible to please everyone. That is also a good piece of advice "move the conversation away from where their inflexible way of perceiving things has failed them." Thank you I will keep it in mind.
You are touching on something very basic here. Two conflicting principles. Civilization involves rules to make sure people don't hurt each other. Human rights exist in part to prevent government rules that limit freedom. There is a conflict when one person's freedom is another person's evil that should be prevented. Such conflicts can and often do work at a core values level, in which case they are a step short of unresolvable.
"Keeping the conversation away from where their inflexible way of perceiving things has failed them" would be a good way to keep the peace, to keep the forum more civilized. It would not be a good way to communicate your own values or attempt to change theirs. Values change is traumatic. Defense mechanisms such as vile stereotypes, rejection of fact, insults and tantrums reflect the trauma. There might be a choice between inflicting the trauma or giving up on communicating.
(11-13-2016, 02:51 AM)taramarie Wrote:(11-13-2016, 02:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: One way to keep score in a political chat room is by personal attacks drawn by facts and ideals. With many extreme partisans, whenever you draw a personal attack, you have successfully proven their values are flawed, though most will posture and squirm to avoid at all costs admitting it. They were unable to defend their points of view. They'll revert to elementary school recess behavior, insults and verbal brawls. Thus, when someone sends abusive childish stuff at me, I am apt to quietly smirk and repeat variations of the ideals and facts that caused them to loose their cool.
Mean of me, I know, but that's all one can really do. Pushing someone entirely off his bedrock is extremely rare.
Ah I never thought of that before. I just thought they were being nasty. Thank you for the advice. Much appreciated.
I had been sort of aware of the above for quite some time. Thanks for prompting me to share.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.