Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

The press likes to sensationalize everything. Good for ratings I guess.

True (although I’d temper it by saying “almost” everything)

One of the the worst thing that ever happened to “news” was the advent of 24-hr news channels. The fact is, most of the time there isn’t that much actual news, so most of the “the maw” (as an old producer/editor of mine used to call it) is fed by not-news.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Sure I question it. You could write volumes on the injustices. Remember OJ? All the racially motivated beatings by cops and their acquittal? The politically motivated incarcerations? Why do you think there are so many presidential pardons? The system is broken, don't try and hide the elephant in the room. Don't shoot the messenger and I didn't create the problem, I just recognize it for what it is.

Institutions are only as good as the people who run them.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Exile

Institutions are only as good as the people who run them.

And government agencies are run by political appointees. This could lead to the danger zone real fast.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

And government agencies are run by political appointees. This could lead to the danger zone real fast.

Always a potential problem.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by GordMay

A national voter I.D. seems innocuous enough, until someone visualises an official saying "papers please". I mention this, only partly, in jest.

I call Godwin's Law.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Singularity

The theory I buy into holds that the actions of the extremists who effectively act as the holders of virtue at the existential root of each "side's" position acts as the carnival barkers that keep each side in line. "You understand that women are subjugate and it's wrong....don't you? You know that xx is a sin and it's wrong...don't you?”

Good way of thinking about it. All societies have methods of corralling and shaping the behaviour of its members. To use a parliamentary term, the “whips” work to keep the more rambunctions of us in line.

The social costs of stepping outside of these cultural norms of your group can be dire. This is why in-group thinking can be so powerful, and why it can become impossible to discuss an issue rationally when it becomes intertwined with group identity.

This is why we need to disentangle these contentious issues from group identity. And we need to resist efforts to convert issues into group-identity topics. This is where the overt manipulation comes in.

[john61ct]

Follow the money.

Identification of "the tribe" with an irrational policy stance against the public interest is an engineered result of completely intentional campaigns, not just "naturally arising" out of the zeitgeist.

Those profiting from a given side of the policy fence spend millions on professionals skilled in the art and science of propaganda.

Obviously ancient roots, and yes many see Joseph Goebbels as a modern master, but really it was American experts like Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays and Walter Lippmann that he learned from.

Also gave the birth to the modern PR and advertising industries, same thing different names. Google them, very interesting stuff.

Now of course combined with the surveillance capitalism enabled by internet / social media / database analytics / artificial intelligence.

And in many cases combined with black ops, including the murder of journalists and activists working for justice against the interests of the wealthy PTB.

[Mike OReilly]

OK, along these lines of how issues get intertwined with political tribes, here’s a current Canadian example of an effort to convert an issue into a political tribal schism.

(I”m specifically using a Canadian example in the hopes that we can stay out of the American-political rabbit hole which so many discussions seem to spiral down into).

Over the last year or so there have been a number of cases of convicted murders being shifted around in our criminal justice system. Specifically, the cases involve moving a prisoner into a lesser-secure facility (maximum security to medium), and giving them access to a larger range of rehabilitation services.

This kind of decision has always been within the purview of the experts who run the criminal justice system in Canada. Elected officials or judges play no role in these decisions.

However, over the last year or so one political party in Canada has questioned a few specific transfers in the House of Commons, and generally tried to raise public question and concerns about these moves. Here is a news item about the latest one:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ison-1.5042978

The officials always claim these shifts happen are based on achieving the best criminal justice outcome for society. It is a decision made outside of politics. But there appears to be a clear attempt to politicize this issue, coming specifically from one party. T

his seems to be in an effort to create a new group-identity factor for their side, which gets to the question of how issues become intertwined with group identities.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by StuM

I call Godwin's Law.

1. I drew NO implication that a National Identity (voting) card was on the slippery slope to a Nazi-style internal passport.
I DID point out that a certain minority of others (radical libertarians) might see it that way.
I linked (post #752) to (3) articles describing the phenomenon, one of which (ACLU), used the actual words (& intentional implication of) “papers please”.
➥ https://www.aclu.org/other/5-problems-national-id-cards

2. Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole, when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.

3. I might invoke Godwin’s secondary law: “As the likely-hood of Nazi's and/or Hitler being mentioned in a thread, in direct reference to his Primary law, increases, so to must the chances of his own law being referred to. This will usually have little effect on the actual thread.

4. I might also point out Van der Leun's Corollary: As global connectivity improves, the probability of actual Nazis being on the Net approaches one.
Or Quirk’s Exception: Meaning that intentional invocation of Godwin's Law is ineffectual.

In an informative Peanuts comic strip of several years ago, Lucy and Charlie Brown are lying on the grass watching the clouds. Lucy says, "Look at those clouds, Charlie Brown! In that one to the right I see the beautiful Greek Isles, that one in the middle looks like the Trojans attacking at Persephone, and the one of the left reminds me of the Siberian tiger stalking his prey." After a pause, Lucy asks, "What do you see in the clouds, Charlie Brown?" Charlie hesitantly replies, "Well, I was going to say a ducky and a horsey, but I think I won't say anything."
Perhaps Charlie had it right.

* Godwin’s Law was coined with a specific purpose in mind. American attorney and author Mike Godwin told the story in a 1994 column for Wired:
➥ https://www.wired.com/1994/10/godwin-if-2/

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by GordMay

1. I drew NO implication that a National Identity (voting) card was on the slippery slope to a Nazi-style internal passport.
[

I'm not going to question your intentions and was actually surprised you posted that, but that's exactly what was implicated. It would have been less volatile if you just poured gas on it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

I'm not going to question your intentions and was actually surprised you posted that, but that's exactly what was implicated. It would have been less volatile if you just poured gas on it.

I don't question intentions either since I've read so many posts from Gord at this point and find the vast majority so intelligent, helpful and honest. There is a partisanship that sometimes shows, however, that can detract from his message.

As for the effect of such posts on the issue of voter ID and so many others, I'd liken it more to a fire extinguisher rather than gasoline. I'm sure there are people who would like to abuse voter ID requirements in the hopes it will keep people with party leanings away from the polls, but most people can see valid reasons for imposing it while being wary of its potential adverse consequences. Otherwise the whole of Canada and half the US states wouldn't have it on the books.

But at least we managed to get both sides of the issue out there more or less civilly for a change. It's just interesting to see people with obvious political leanings tending to leap to conclusions without fully understanding the issue. That's the issue which most interests me, especially since I'm not immune from those impulses myself.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Exile

... I've read so many posts from Gord at this point ... There is a partisanship that sometimes shows, however, that can detract from his message ...

Indeed. I do have opinions, and often share them.
I also value facts, and accuracy, which I also try to share.
However, I sometimes think Pommer's law may more right, than wrong.
Pommer’s Law: “A person's mind can be changed by reading information on the internet. The nature of this change will be from having no opinion, to having a wrong opinion.”

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't question intentions either since I've read so many posts from Gord at this point and find the vast majority so intelligent, helpful and honest. There is a partisanship that sometimes shows, however, that can detract from his message.

Agreed.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Exile

As for the effect of such posts on the issue of voter ID and so many others, I'd liken it more to a fire extinguisher rather than gasoline. I'm sure there are people who would like to abuse voter ID requirements in the hopes it will keep people with party leanings away from the polls, but most people can see valid reasons for imposing it while being wary of its potential adverse consequences. Otherwise the whole of Canada and half the US states wouldn't have it on the books.

It's another issue that has been wrongfully politicized by the press. Obviously any voter ID laws would be administered fairly without regard to party affiliation and therefore isn't a partisan issue.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

It's another issue that has been wrongfully politicized by the press. Obviously any voter ID laws would be administered fairly without regard to party affiliation and therefore isn't a partisan issue.

I don’t think it’s fair to blame the press, or only the press. In the Canadian example I posted earlier, it is clearly one party who is pushing the issue. The press picks up the story and amplifies it (b/c it is news), but it is not the press who is politicizing it.

Of course we don’t have the same level of politicized media that you seem to in the USA.