Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

So the real answer is not to increase scientific literacy, but to disentangle politics from these data-driven issues.

YES! But how? Once one side infuses politics into the mix, the other side inevitably responds in kind.

Btw, I think there IS a way to discuss our political divides without being partisan and getting the thread closed, but climate change & race cards are probably not it.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

I always said the Global Warming issue wasn't political. The press and extremists try to make it one.

Disaster stories sell papers and win votes..
They dont give a toss about solving it..

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Exile

YES! But how? Once one side infuses politics into the mix, the other side inevitably responds in kind.

Btw, I think there IS a way to discuss our political divides without being partisan and getting the thread closed, but climate change & race cards are probably not it.

I think real Cruisers actually have an advantage on this due to our exposure to different cultures and the unpolitical reality of wind and weather.

I just ignore the extremist, the trolls and the haters and whenever "belief" or religion enters the fray, the conversation looses my interest

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by Exile

pics posted side-by-side of the two different crowds at a political event

Not events, just group shots of interns - usually college students- hired to work in the Congressional staff offices.

Often the children of donors, fundraisers etc, at least back in the years I worked there.

[Go Wildcats]

Identity politics is no different than other tribal groups. The more we become introspective the better we get at understanding ourselves and others.

I was taken aback when I read the UofO study as it contradicted my notion that more educated people are more likely to accept disconfirming information. This made me look further at myself. It's also made me less impulsive, giving me time to get context and learn before I judge. However, I am still prone to snap judgements now and again. I'm human after all and I don't have patience for willful ignorance.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Wow … thanks for the paper. A good, and kinda depressing read .

Your summation is good, although it’s even worse than you say. The findings are that those with high numeracy capacity were even worse at coming up with the right answer when it conflicted with their political beliefs.

I encourage everyone to read the paper. Especially those of us who think highly of our ability to reason logically.

The bottom line finding that comes out of all this is, as they state, our societies must find ways of disentangling politics with some of these critical data-driven problems. Problems like climate change, vaccinations, nuclear power, gun control, etc.

Man, I wish it were Spring. I’d be on my boat…

[Go Wildcats]

Epistocracy

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Censorship is never a good thing. It's biased and used indiscriminately.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

YES! But how? Once one side infuses politics into the mix, the other side inevitably responds in kind.

Yeah … there’s the $64,000 question. Sadly, the paper was mum on this question.

Originally Posted by Exile

Btw, I think there IS a way to discuss our political divides without being partisan and getting the thread closed, but climate change & race cards are probably not it.

Yes, those are two that are too intertwined all ready.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Go Wildcats

Actually, I was pointing out that the two US political groups are different in that one is homogeneous and the other is diverse. I wasn't calling you or any one a racist.

Surely you don't think those pictures are representative of each of the groups. We all know what your implication is, own it and stop dancing around it's ugliness.

[Go Wildcats]

Yes, i do absolutely believe that those two pictures represent the two political parties. Does that mean 100% of the members are represented in the photos, no. But the majority are. Demographics don't lie.

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Surely you don't think those pictures are representative of each of the groups. We all know what your implication is, own it and stop dancing around it's ugliness.

[crooks]

Originally Posted by Exile

Maybe not for long. The US Supreme Court recently took up a case which could wind up limiting the ability of Google and other large internet platforms to censor certain speech. Commentators have suggested that the Court is concerned that the dominance of such platforms are akin to speech in the "public square," thereby creating a duty on the part of monopolistic private internet cos. to refrain from the same type of censorship that the govt. is prohibited from.

If a person is offending to a person in his home, clearly the homeowner can say leave. If a person is offending in a bar, the only restraint on the bar owner is whether is banning the offender because of bias against his age, gender, religion or race. And gender is not all that settled.

I'd rather see our libel laws reformed to allow for lawsuits more broadly against those who attack without regard for truth. England has such.

The internet companies need to control there platform in the same way this website moderates discussion. It is a private sandbox so if you come in the owner can dictate the rules.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Go Wildcats

Identity politics is no different than other tribal groups. The more we become introspective the better we get at understanding ourselves and others.

So true. That’s the real value of this discussion, which has been largely productive and without the nastiness so common in these threads. I applaud everyone for keeping it sane and civil, and I will try to continue to do so myself.

Originally Posted by Go Wildcats

I was taken aback when I read the UofO study as it contradicted my notion that more educated people are more likely to accept disconfirming information. This made me look further at myself. It's also made me less impulsive, giving me time to get context and learn before I judge. However, I am still prone to snap judgements now and again. I'm human after all and I don't have patience for willful ignorance.

It has certainly given me pause, and got me re-thinking some of my views on education and expertise. Thanks again for posting.

I really think this study was smartly designed, and very illuminating. It speaks directly to the title of this thread: intellectual humility. Everyone here should read it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Exactly. Trying to get someone to change their political views is like telling a smoker to quit smoking or an alcoholic to stop drinking. It's a waste of time.

Wierd metaphor, bro. A smoker would be better off if they quit smoking, and an alcoholic would be better off if they quit drinking. These are still facts, regardless of whether voicing them has any effect or not.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Go Wildcats

Yes, i do absolutely believe that those two pictures represent the two political parties. Does that mean 100% of the members are represented in the photos, no. But the majority are. Demographics don't lie.

No, but political partisans lack objectivity and often mislead, which is exactly what many posters & mods would prefer you not do. There are many reasons why there is less diversity in the Republican Party, but your posting of these photos, along with your comments, attribute the disparity to exclusion based on racism, an attribution which grossly distorts reality. There are many thoughtful, rational conservatives and liberals who feel strongly that identity politics is causing much of our polarization and is counterproductive to the goal of equality. Others obviously disagree. Voicing your own particular leanings is divisive and inconsistent with the concept of intellectual humility which this thread is supposed to be about.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wierd metaphor, bro. A smoker would be better off if they quit smoking, and an alcoholic would be better off if they quit drinking. These are still facts, regardless of whether voicing them has any effect or not.

Now THAT might just explain a major difference b'twn liberals & conservatives right there. The conservative empathizes but accepts reality; the liberal sympathizes but wishes for a different reality, whether it's realistically attainable or not.

And then there are those who, despite superficial allegiance, are really in neither camp. These are the ones who claim superior moral insight in knowing what's best for others, but in reality are only advocating for themselves.

[Go Wildcats]

So you're saying that we should ignore the obvious differences and facts to not offend and to get along? That is one reason why Peer review studies show that they are failing. Those photos ARE representative of the respective parties. People tend to hire others who are like them. Thats the point of the post, to show that one party is diverse. Race is but one aspect of the diversity. Again, demographics show one party is diverse, the other is not. This is factual.

Originally Posted by Exile

No, but political partisans lack objectivity and often mislead, which is exactly what many posters & mods would prefer you not do. There are many reasons why there is less diversity in the Republican Party, but your posting of these photos, along with your comments, attribute the disparity to exclusion based on racism, an attribution which grossly distorts reality. There are many thoughtful, rational conservatives and liberals who feel strongly that identity politics is causing much of our polarization and is counterproductive to the goal of equality. Others obviously disagree. Voicing your own particular leanings is divisive and inconsistent with the concept of intellectual humility which this thread is supposed to be about.