Presidential election, 2016

[pbrower2a]

(11-15-2016, 06:40 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: 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.

A few decades ago some anthropologists romanticized the hunter-gatherers in jungle or savanna environments for having the most satisfying lives possible. Because of the climate and topography, little can last, and there can be no capital aside from the tools used for hunting, fishing, or cooking. There is no clear title to land, so there are no landlords to oppress farmers. There can be no industry, so there are no capitalists to exploit workers.. People meet their needs as they emerge, typically hunting or gathering as they start to get hunger pangs. A few small prey items of one large prey item (gazelle? capybara?) can feed a family-sized unit well before it rots.

One of the promoters of this view was a Marxist who considered the hunter-gatherer way of life the norm of human nature and that in the end Humanity would re-attain the hunter-gatherer's freedom through Communism because prosperity would be so strong that master-subject relations such as landlord-serf and capitalist-worker would be irrelevant. 

Today we face the prospect of the disparity between ownership and worker reverting almost to an aristocrat-serf difference in America. That will go badly.

Quote: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.

The damage could be even worse this time. The weapons have become more powerful, and there is no safe haven from a nuclear-armed ICBM except being as far from any possible target as possible.

Quote: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.

Our educational system has failed to keep up with the reality of the Internet that offers so much information (and bilge). Some of the most superficially-enticing stuff can use impressive imagery and shock value to deceive one into believing garbage, as at...

(Did you think that I was going to lead anyone to Holocaust denial, homophobia, Afrocentrism, or truther/birther stuff?)

Before people get easy access to the wide variety of material on the Internet, they need to develop a moral compass and the capacity for critical judgment.  Then, and only then, can they be prepared to savor the Internet without getting burned.

Quote: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.

It may be ironic that the atheists and agnostics know more about religion than do believers, on the whole. In my experience, Christian fundamentalists are remarkably ignorant of the scholarship of the Bible. Atheists and agnostics may recognize it as a piece of literature, a historical document, and a source for quote-mining. But that said, connecting moral authority to the LORD has its values. A call from a 'mere' politician for social justice is one thing. A call for social justice from the Pope is far more impressive.

Religious bodies must evolve to face changing reality if they are to have authority. 

Science, in contrast to religion, has credibility because it must adapt to reality. Biologists do not re-read The Origin of Species to understand heritable characteristics of living things better; they instead seek evidence in DNA, the chemical language of genetics. Science does not have the provincialism that religion and politics do. That one physicist is an Iranian and the other is an Israeli has little bearing on how they would interpret the motion of a pendulum. But on politics or religion they might be at each other's throats. 

Few of us can look at politics objectively. We all have some moral values that determine the  validity of policy.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote: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.

If one is in Saudi Arabia, then certain values are out of bounds.

Again we need to have people get some sophistication before going on the Internet so that people using it avoid straw men, denial, insults, and childish temper tantrums.

Quote: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.

Did the defenders of slavery expect to see their world destroyed so completely? I doubt it. Had the Germans known what Hitler was going to bring them in a dozen years, then they would have stayed clear of Hitler. But people rarely have foresight.

Maybe in 2023 one might add a similar image, this time of Chicago or Dallas, and in garish color, as an example of the consequences of reckless deeds by a nation's leadership.