Paul - a good point about identity: much of the flameage in political/religious discussions stems from people feeling threatened by beliefs different from their own: taking these beliefs as personal attacks (which they too often degenerate into).
The fact that you think well enough to correctly judge your level of expertise and whether you should jump into the conversation puts you a step ahead of the majority of the population in the first place.
For most, expertise or knowledge is relative to the expertise of the people they are speaking to. Sit in your average city coffee house and listen to the bs getting tossed around... it will amaze you, and show you the importance of associating with smart people.
Rather than letting as few things into one's identity as possible (which might prohibit growth), why not actively absorb the opposite viewpoints? Keep your identity balanced, not necessarily small.
Family is also a common subject of small talk ("How is your wife doing?"), which is identity-plus-plus for most people, and the mating habits of snails are topics most people weakly identify with but not commonly used for small talk, so I'm guessing that relationship is a little less persuasive than it seems to be at first brush.
I think what he meant by "weakly identify with" was that people have opinions about these things but aren't hardcore about them. People will identify with the movies they like, what kind of pets they prefer, etc. On the other hand, I feel like very few identify with snail mating at all.
Right, but the thesis is that it is unsafe to even mention identity because it invites catastrophic conversational degradation. The observed ability to talk about family without someone saying uncharitable things about your wife cuts against the thesis.
Both participants need to identify strongly. If two guys strongly identify over the same woman there will be trouble with any talk about her. People fight over sporting teams, but you can ask a fan about the season without conflict if you don't identify with the sport.
The real issue is whether the identities conflict. It doesn't hurt my marriage to know that your marriage is great. Meanwhile, knowing someone is a proud follower of the One True Way threatens your identity as a member of the One True-Er Way.
Though if you both happen to be members of the same True Way, starting a conversation about religion and politics can be incredibly beneficial. I know seeing a bunch of Ayn Rand books on a friend's shelf boosted our relationship immensely.
Perhaps all that saves these kinds of conversations from spiraling into "religious wars" is peoples' recognition that these things are arbitrary and ridiculous to get upset about.
For instance, I am a dog person and my girlfriend is a cat person. Occasionally, we start to debate the relative merits of each. And there may in fact be one which is in general "better"; after all, most people would agree that dog ownership is better than man-eating tiger ownership. But since we both recognize that dog and cat ownership is a rather silly thing to get upset about, we don't.
On the other hand, politics (for example) are considered to be important. And while we may realize that it's nearly impossible to find a "right answer", that our discussion will likely lead to nothing, etc., we don't feel silly getting upset about it. That, combined with our identity-based connection with politics, leads to flared tempers and out-of-control discussions.
As an extension to what you are saying. Politics and Religion are, in fact, important. Whether or not we give millions to this are that cause, whether there is some kind of afterlife, these are important questions and so people should get involved in them. I think that there is something wrong with people who choose not to. This is not to say that people should be rude or irrational about these topics, but that they should put the thought into them so that they can discuss them rationally, and act on their conclusions in a productive fashion.
That said, I think that HN is generally the wrong place to have these debates. These topics, when treated fairly, require a lot of space and time to flesh out fully, and a tech news forum isn't properly equipped to do that. In addition, they distract from the valuable discussion for which this place is good.
I think I concur that in educated discussions Identity does not help, but I have been thinking through the importance of identity for a while.
I think in many situations identity gives you strength. I have an identity within Y Combinator, with my family, with people that went to my University, in the countries I have lived in etc. These fragments of my identity all give me strength, it means I would help people out that have similar identity to me and I know people in those groups would help me. Beyond aid, it also give me purpose and meaning.
This balance between the good and the part parts of having Identity are important. I don't think one should just try to blindly minimize identity. Maybe just try to keep an open mind in discussions about Identity.
You're right. That's why I was careful to qualify it with "all other things being equal."
In general identity gives you strength while making you stupid. This can sometimes be a good trade, especially in stressful situations. E.g. I think this is one reason people in the US are so much more religious than they were when I was a kid. People who 30 years ago might have been skeptical of preachers are now thinking that religion may at least save their kids from meth.
You could also see emotion as heuristic behavior guides that were calculated by evolution. Many decisions are so computationally complex that reasoning isn't useful.
Just for some context, are people much more religious than when you were a kid? I had figured this was a relatively stable number. Or maybe you were referring to how fervent people have become with their religious views?
I'm curious about the actual trend of religiosity, and I'm somewhat skeptical of anecdotal data (for the very reasons in your article). What is the general trend from someone who's been following this longer?
are people much more religious than when you were a kid?
Yes. It was very noticeable when I went back to Pittsburgh recently. When I was a kid, people went to church, but it didn't spill over into everyday life. They did it more as a matter of form. Now people's conversation is filled with religious references. Someone who 30 years ago would have said "we have two children" now says "we've been blessed with two children."
Kierkegaard had some interesting views on this very subject, that a belief system such as Christianity requires a greater life involvement than the common 'Sunday Christianity' of 30 years ago. I think now we find a larger number of 'genuine believers' whereas 30 or more years ago people went to Church because that was the thing you do. Now, as people have a greater freedom to NOT go, so the remaining attendees probably become more devoted. A kind of evolutionary process, where the selection method is self-selection of attendance based upon initial belief.
As a rationalist/atheist/whateverlabel of course I'm not sure I'm altogether comfortable with the rapid increase in religious adherence in recent years but that's a different discussion.
It's a complex question. Joe Bageant, author of Deer Hunting With Jesus, can be a good explainer of evangelical religion in America to the rest of us. He asserts that there have always been people who are this deeply religious in about this proportion, but the difference is that now they are a political constituency and a valuable demographic for advertisers. Perhaps it's very simply that culture isn't controlled by the city anymore, nor by the three big TV networks who all had similarly liberal urbanites in control.
If I were to guess I'd say that what's on the decline is nominal religiosity. Those who don't believe, don't worship, in greater numbers. At the same time, among those who do believe, there's been an assertion of cultural power since the 1980s or so.
No data here, just an observation from someone about the same as as pg.
My thoughts exactly pretty much. I also think the atheist movement has become much better organized and more assertive, largely due to the net. The two probably whip each other up into a frenzy as well.
Sometimes I wonder if our perceptions of things are different because we have easier access to information/people or whether things truly are more widespread than before.
For example, are there really as many Evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians as it seems, or do they just sound louder because they are broadcasting on more channels?
It is often times the case that people/groups with less power or advantage are louder since they are trying to draw more attention and have less to lose in doing so. But for those not well informed, that loudness translates into legitimacy even though it can indicate exactly the opposite. PETA comes to mind as an example.
Have you read Tom Wolfe's "The 'Me' Decade and the Third Great Awakening"? He seems to think the 70's were particularly religious, although perhaps not in the traditional way. These things definitely seem to go in cycles, though.
Really? The US has changed a great deal then. Up here in Canada, in my 35ish years I don't really remember a great change in religious belief. In fact, if anything, I find that there is less these days than 30 some odd years ago.
Of course! Kids does not think about death, they did not see it ahead. One probably could discover it after some incident or heavy decease, but usually kids are not aware.
Unawareness is the one little secret of their cheerfulness.
Indeed, how do you bring up your own kids to have a small identity?
I get the feeling that children growing into adults have an innate need to find identity, and if you have an identity vacuum at home they'll find it elsewhere.
I subscribe, and if I can I would add:
- Multicultural experiences, when I was younger I participated in a Camp with people from various backgrounds (races, income classes, countries) it was really a big experience.
- Sharing, I guess in the near future we will be teaching to our children to be humble by giving, those new syndromes they're discovering of spoiled children who just had everything in their lifes and the parents lose control of them. I guess playing with another children also helps, and having strong bonds with relatives of the same age.
I am from a big family and I just see the differences when comparing myself to single sons, but I find the differences interesting, I even admire them.
I also wonder what are the influences of growing up in a family dominated by women. Anyone wants to elaborate?
I think there's another variable strongly influencing how "identity" behaves in the wild.
Consider the examples of Nelson Mandela and Ghandi. Both men very strongly identified with the cause of their people, but despite that identity had an amazingly noble approach to their oppressors. Horrible atrocities were committed by their foes, yet they reached out to them with grace - both during their struggles and after their victories. They studied their "enemy's" culture and language extensively and had empathy and compassion for them even while fighting for their cause.
There are many examples of wonderful Lincoln-esque people who strongly identified with a cause, yet had compassion and understanding for the other side. From examining them, it seems that identity was not a factor in causing strife and stupidity when it was coupled with that genuine graciousness and understanding.
Tragically, there seem to be far more examples in history of people taking the other approach - envy, hate, violence, etc. In those instances, identity seems to be the vigorous fan that stokes the flames.
While those may be extreme examples, the same principles apply to today's conversations. For instance, very few people would get into a heated debate with a down-syndrome child over a religious point of doctrine or political policy - no matter how adamant she was about it. Why? Well, it's hard not to have compassion for a mentally-handicapped child who is so innocent in her understanding. Yet when people come across a 35 year old man with the same view (who incidentally may be just as 'innocent' in his understanding) - it's much easier to throw away that compassion and understanding and attack him personally with vitriol.
If someone has genuine love and concern for another person it's hard to imagine the kind of stupid debates and spiraling into dumbness that pg describes - even if the participants are at polar ends of the religious/political identity scales. Some of you may remember what ParticleTree did to effectively reduce trolls and flamers: http://credibility.stanford.edu/captology/notebook/archives....
By giving commenters a reminder of compassion, they took a lot of heat out of identity-stupidity.
Lincoln, Ghandi, Mandela etc understood this principle and used it for great good. It reminds me of a great quote from one of my favorite sci-fi novels that shows Charity not as a flaccid quality - but like this:
"And now it came. It was fiery, sharp, bright, and ruthless, ready to kill, ready to die, outspeeding light; it was Charity, not as mortals imagine it, not even as it has been humanised for them since the Incarnation of the Word, but the trans-lunary virtue, fallen upon them direct from the Third Heaven, unmitigated. They were blinded, scorched. They thought it would burn their bones. They could not bear that it should continue. They could not bear that it should cease." - That Hideous Strength, CS Lewis
I've know highly religious/political people who were extremely dedicated to their views, yet seemed to get along with just about everyone even while having lively debate that even decreased dumbness! Unfortunately, we've also seen much of the opposite. The main key always seems to be whether the person has genuine love and compassion for the others holding opposing views - so much so that the others know that disagreement doesn't threaten the relationship. It's a rare and wonderful quality we can all strive for.
In a nutshell - have all the identity you want - just make sure you couple it with the Golden Rule (thankfully found in just about every belief system, religious or not, yay!).
Mandela founded the ANC's armed wing (Umkhonto we Sizwe). This armed wing was responsible for its fair share of atrocities such as:
- Planting landmines that killed people indiscriminately in rural areas
- Torture and executions esp. in foreign camps
- Burning people that worked with the apartheid government alive (necklacing). Mandela's wife killed a 14 year old boy without spending a day in jail (Stompie Sipei)
- Church Street bombing and Magoo's bar bombing (which killed civilians). Bombing of an Amamzimtoti shopping center (which killed two children and a woman).
- Factional fighting with the IFP in the late 80ies and early 90ies (which killed more than 15,000 people).
What happened in South Africa was amazing - but it was not just Mandela that made a great leap. White people gave up all power that they had - military, political, just on the basis of a constitution. This knowing full well that there were no other successful democratic African country.
This brings this post to a familiar ground - we do not want to be discussing politics on YCNews. So if you want to use a person as a hero, use Archbishop Desmond Tutu who advocated for non-violence from the start.
Yes, Mandela is a great example of someone who was able to change his ways from hate and violence to understanding and compassion. If he can do it, I guess there is hope for online flamers and trolls ;)
The saying goes: one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. I made this account especially because I knew I will be regarded as a “troll” by some.
The real world is unfortunately not entirely black and white. I never said that what Mandela fought for was wrong - I said that the way it was done was wrong. Unfortunately most people spend time on the Apartheid era's misdeeds but ignore that of the liberation movement.
I said he should use Desmond Tutu as a fine example. Tutu fought for the same thing as Mandala (equal rights) but he did it in a non-violent way. He denounced violence and terrorism on both sides (he even intervened once risking his own life to prevent a crowd from necklacing a person).
You will also notice above that I recommended moving off from the politics topic because it is unnecessarily divisive and not really the focus point of YCNews.
EDIT: Why I also think that Tutu makes an excellent example is that his actions (such as the non-violence he promotes) stems from his religious identity. This is clearly the case in which a person's identity is a good attribute.
Great - then use Tutu for the example. Just be careful that you don't go through life missing the point in discussions by getting caught up nit-picking the examples people use.
Paul's essays are quite objective and plain scientific analysis of things with no subjective emotions attached.They are quite brilliant in that sense. But still life is not governed by plain facts. Emotions are also important and emotions are what differentiate living from non-living.Sense of identity is governed by emotions. But still as I think in some more depth, even emotions appear to be manifestation of the fact that our genes are engineered to sustain itself and propagate. And since in the presence of a given complex external stimuli, it is difficult to take decisions with in the constraint of limited processing ability of the brain, emotions help in coming with some decision. And this decision may or may not be correct. Emotions can be thought of as the memorization of some decisions for some patterns of external stimuli.So finally everything seems to be quite deterministic with cause and effect relationships.So I am just perturbed and want to know whether there is a free will? And as I understand about probability, it just quantifies how much we don't know ( bit amusing in the sense that we quantify something which we don't know...and that is done using statistics which again makes it somewhat deterministic ).
Keeping your identity small is great advice, but it is actually biased advice.
If you keep your identity small you are not going to be associating with any large group holding common beliefs, which would argue against associating with 'a political party', 'a religion' and so on. This is not a binary issues, everybody 'identifies' with some group more or less than with others. For instance, I had no part in the Romans occupying NL because it happened 2,000 years before I was born, but in spite of that I sympathize with any people that it did happen to. Possibly people from present day 'rome' would see this differently. Arguably the whole Yugoslavian war was exactly because people remembered too well what side of a battle they were on long ago. I don't readily identify as a perl or a python programmer but I do have a stronger leaning towards python because I feel that that is a cleaner language, and easier on the eyes so in an argument about pers vs python I'm probably biased for python, even though I may try to be as objective as possible.
That said, I do agree with the whole argument that whenever peoples' identity is involved in a discussion you run the risk of degradation of the conversation. But that's really up; to both parties, their mutual respect and the way the conversation is conducted. It doesn't HAVE to degenerate, even if identities are involved. The discussion can still be civil and you can agree to disagree on the basics of your belief systems and still come out ahead on both sides of the dividing line.
I guess sitting on the 'kill' button of this site comes with some responsibility and I see this piece mostly as a justification of executing the policy, even if the discussion is civil to avoid future degeneration and the 'slippery slope' of if you allowed 'that' then you should allow 'this'.
I think to some extent you are confusing sympathy or agreement with identity. I think identity requires both the internaliztion of a belief and an emotional commitment to its truth.
To complicate things: What if I have a kid. Then being a father becomes part of my identity. Perhaps I might even think that people should have kids. If someone suggests that all children should be killed, or that debt should be added to the State I live in that presumably my children would have to pay off, I might react to these statements with more than disinterest and perhaps even with anger, since they conflict with my identity as a father.
'Open mindedness' may be a help navigating some problems regarding differing identities, but certainly not all.
Actually, the two are much closer than you think. All major religions achieved their growth and status by becoming the ideological arm of state power. Both politics and religion are fundamentally about how people think about the rulers.
"All major religions achieved their growth and status by becoming the ideological arm of state power." I wonder whether that's true. Because it seems hard to distinguish from this: "All major religions, because of their growth and status, acquired state power which fuelled their further growth."
To distinguish between the two, we'd want to look for religions that (presumably by good luck) got significant state power before they became widespread. Someone who knows more history than me may have more clue here, but the only example I can think of is that of the pharaoh Ankh-en-aten (= Akhnaten), who basically tried to introduce monotheism into ancient Egypt, with scarcely any success after the end of his reign. That's hardly conclusive, but it seems like evidence for the hypothesis that widespread belief matters more than state power in getting a religion off the ground.
How would you define ideology? As a person's current set of beliefs? Or as a set of vehemently held beliefs?
Argument is the process of applying logic to a set of ideas. It is based on the premise that logic alone can yield insights and both participants try to use logic to point out fallacies in their opponent's arugment.
If you believe that ideology is someone's current set of beliefs, then ideology is not threatening, as you have a good shot of changing someone's ideology through logic and argumentation.
However, if you believe that ideology is a dogma that someone viciously clings to, then there is no reason to bother arguing, as it could never result in the person conceding a point or changing an opinion.
I the former definition applies to most intelligent people.
In my case, all of my beliefs are provisional. I don't know anything for certain, but I may still engage in argument. I won't necessarily preface the argument with an in-depth acknowledgement of all of the holes I see in the beliefs at hand. Instead, I will see how well they stand up to my opponent's assaults. After all, I've already admitted to myself that they have holes, so now before I abandon them I should give them one last stand to see how they do.
A successful argument is one in which a) I discover more holes, or b) I realize that something I thought was a hole isn't.
Logical argument is quite unlike javascript where there are obvious ways of empirically testing a result. In the more abstract areas of programming there are massive arguments (see LKML, etc.) because it is hard to simply empirically test the result... the concepts are abstract and interwoven, etc.
To read the arguments on LKML, one sees that they are more socratic, more focused on the abstractions and hence are more subject to "ideology" being used rather than simple assertions.
So if you dismimss "ideology" as necessarily uninformed, you are asserting your own "ideology" onto the discussion.
What is a non-ideological argument? Is it something like this?
Person 1: I can't be sure, but I think there is a chance that A
Person 2: I see. I agree that there is a chance that A, but I think there is a greater chance that B.
Person 1: We both make good points.
Person 2: Indeed.
While the above may be an abundantly mature way to address A and B, I find a spirited argument far more informative. For the same reason, I find that it's easier to learn about the nuances of a political issue by reading op-eds written from various perspectives than from reading one supposedly objective "news" article.
I think this is a good argument for minimising one's identity.
But there can be good reasons in particular cases for taking on some identity. For example, oppression is often begun to be fought by the oppressed joining together under a shared identity.
In general, people typically take on an identity — or keep one that they find themselves with (upbringing) — to feel that they belong in some group of people. But I don't think that sticking some big label on oneself is necessary for belonging. One can belong in the group of one's friends and family just by being one anothers' nearest and dearest, not through being fellow x-ists or y-arians. And being partial to one's nearest and dearest as such isn't in itself harmful, only mutually beneficial to those involved, and beneficial to others since a group of mutually supportive individuals reduces the demands those individuals might make against those outwith that group.
A technical note about his note [1]. pg says, When that happens, it tends to happen fast, like a core going critical, but he probably means "like a core going supercritical", which is when a chain reaction goes on at an increasing rate (i.e. what you need for a nuclear explosion). Critical is an equilibrium (i.e the self-sustaining condition, as used for power generation).
Hmm. I could change it. But are you sure it wouldn't be hypercorrect to phrase it that way? Isn't going critical a kind of shorthand for going supercritical, because in practice any situation that produces the first is going to produce the second?
Edit: Actually I think criticality is the right metaphor. It's a change in state from what preceded it. That's the important part, not the resulting explosion. (Arguably there are in fact analogs to control rods in online discussions-- nesting depth, the fact that people get tired after a while, etc.)
Reaching criticality is a normal goal for the operators of a controlled nuclear reactor (nuclear power reactor unit; research reactor; etc.). A reactor that has reached criticality is usually one that is operating normally. For example: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22initial+criticality%22
The JRR-4, which reached initial criticality in 1965, had contenued to aperate safely until 1996 using uranium of a high concentration of 93% [...]
Unit 1 reached initial criticality on March 8, 1988 and went into commercial operation on August 25. Unit 2 reached initial criticality on March 12, ...
I think the flipside of this is people liking to belong to groups. Most of the time belonging to any group with a properties that are essentially homogenous across the members involves some suspension of disbelief. Once people have made that leap and accepted whatever core values those are, they in turn define themselves in those terms, ignoring the fact that they weren't rationally vetted or arrived at through independent thought on the way in. Then if you've got some logisticians among the group, they'll go to great lengths to systematically rationalize the things that they mostly accepted because they're a part of that group. (I certainly do.) This goes from anything from political activism to religion to free software.
This of course isn't necessarily bad or wrong -- in fact I think society would scarcely function were for it not for a modicum of such behavior -- but it does mean that people aren't having these debates in the way that they would another debate -- because they've already know the answer, they're just trying to convince others that their opinion isn't stupid and wrong.
Its posts like this and Paul's "How to Disagree" that remind me of an idea that I keep coming back to again and again.
I've often wondered what would be possible in terms of designing a website that aims to moderate debate in a way that leads to new ideas and conclusions and attempts to negate as many of these types of effects as possible.
Some formal system, that the users would have no choice but to follow, that begins with some one making a statement such as "X is true because of Y and Z" and then everyone debates it, reforms the statement as necessary and at some point it gets locked in as either true or false and then the discussion has to proceed based on that understanding.
People are forced to address each others points and eliminate as much bias as possible in their statements.
You could visually map out the progress that gets made until perhaps some new interesting conclusion gets reached.
Obviously no perfect solution exists but for me its an interesting question of how useful a system could be designed. There's also the obvious problems that a) few people are likely to want to use such a system and b) those that do are probably skewed to favor some particular point of view.
There is just so much wasted energy on the internet not being harnessed for actual progress. There are many blogs etc that have been created with the specific purpose of progressing some cause or area of expertise but people are just turning up, yelling opinions at one another and leaving with very little gained. Such is life I guess...
Well yes, except that wikipedia doesn't lead to new and interesting conclusions as far as I'm aware. It does a good job of converging on good truthiness for a lot of things but avoids the harder stuff for which these types of problems make impossible to deal with.
I've considered the idea too. Perhaps a Wikipedia based on prolog. The main problem is that the expert system would be too tedious for most to fill out. There needs to be some kind of happy medium between rigor and usability. That middle point hasn't occurred to me yet.
Perhaps just some kind of reference system, so when an old debate reemerges, people can just refer to the online record until new ground is broken. The problem in this case is succinct yet meaningful summaries of the debate.
I keep thinking something useful could be achieved without getting too formal or needing something as strict and complex as Prolog.
Looking at how well a site like Stack Overflow is working gives me hope of a happy medium between rigor and usability being possible in the future somehow.
It combines a whole bunch of ideas from social sites such as voting, points, awards, wiki style editing into an effective solution. Far from perfect but useful which as about all you could ask for I guess.
It would also be interesting if a company like Disqus started experimenting with features in this area.
To go into a bit more detail of this likely pipe dream...
One approach could be to have a group of site moderators who make it their mission to, as Paul said, keep their identities as small as possible and simply judge the logic and biases of peoples arguments.
Perhaps their vote is what locks in a statement to be taken as true or false and then everyone has to then play by the rule of accepting their judgment on the matter for future debates.
In a similar way that scientific research builds on the work that was done before it to make progress, standing on the shoulders of giants type stuff, the conversation could be mapped to show these towers of progress grow as people logically move from "if A is true then B must be true..." and so on.
Perhaps the debate branches at points of contention and goes off down different paths.
The idea being that anyone can join in and quickly get up to speed as to where the conversation is up to by looking at the map of statements that have been dealt with so far.
If someone wants to reopen the debate around some statement and attack the foundation of one of these towers and bring it crashing down then they can.
Of course an enormous element of this will be based on the subjective judgment of the moderators. It can't be entirely based on pure logic but if it is useful and leads to new and interesting things then who cares...
Even if it succeeded in removing a lot of the crap around a debate and focus precisely on the points that people differ on so they can be attacked directly I think that would be a useful thing.
My idea for making this somewhat enjoyable and stand a chance of people participating in it would be to make it game like in some way.
Anyway, its all pretty out there stuff I know, but I'll no doubt continue to think about anyway...
It's not a pipe dream. There are some folks out there working on this kind of stuff, and I prototyped one for my master's project. However, I didn't go the route of having propositional-level granularity, because I'm aiming for Wikipedia levels of participation, and it's understood in HCI that the more structure you impose on input at the interface level, the lower the adoption.
Some stuff you may want to look up (all but the first are actually online):
MIT's Collaboratorium (should be an article in Sloan)
DebateGraph
TruthMapping
DebateWise
Debatepedia
There are also a bunch of other more commercial attempts whose names I can't recall. ReadWriteWeb or a similar site did a roundup of them last year. But they suck. Even the listed examples have probems insofar as they screw up the interface, interaction design, and/or information architecture. (That is, if the goal is to achieve widespread use.) Within small, interested communities, there may be sufficient motivation to use them. In Collaboratorium's case, they had a class at MIT use it w/r/t climate change.
If you're really interested in tackling this problem, let me know. I'm too busy working on a for-profit venture to keep developing my MS project, but my design doc might give you some ideas, even if you don't go the route I did.
"Since no one can be proven wrong, every opinion is equally valid, and sensing this, everyone lets fly with theirs."
No, every opinion is not equally valid - there is a range of probabilities into which opinions can be classified. The more improbable the belief, the less valid it is. One doesn't have to prove that a theory is 100% wrong, merely that on the scale of probability it scores poorly against a rival theory.
For example, I may believe the earth is 4,000 years old but it is a demonstrably false opinion. It doesn't matter how sincerely I believe this or that a quarter of the planet's humans believe that.
Similarly, there is one good explanation for how and when life originated on earth, and all the other "competing" opinions are highly improbable.
One of religion's goals is to explain the world, but science does a much better job, and yet people's religious beliefs are expected to be respected, even if they are stupid and childish (which they are most of the time). Another goal of religion is to set a standard for morals, and yet holy books are full of despicable, horrendously grotesque, anti-human "morals".
I think that one of the reasons people have a hard time admitting their religions and religious beliefs are fantasies is that they have been indoctrinated since childhood that faith is a virtue, to not ask WHY. Some of this appears to have its origin in natural selection, because children who believe at face value what their parents tell them are more likely to survive.
I think it's more like: As far as everyone is concerned, their own opinions are more correct than everyone else's. Which is what leads to debate, argument, etc. If everyone believed opinions were all equally valid, they'd just live and let live. There'd be no reason for conflict.
Edit: There's something incongruent about trying to discuss an opinion of how the validity of opinions is determined... Hmm...
One can argue against (a) religion with logic and facts.
With logic: one can exhibit contradictions in religious doctrines. (If there are any.)
With facts: for example geological/fossil evidence can be used to argue against creationism. (The best one can do in trying to put forward 'facts' is to put forward what is well supported by the available evidence, and better supported than known alternatives. So, here for example, one would also have to try and find fault with whatever evidence can be brought forward in support of creationism.)
Whether or not those on each side of a debate will give due dispassionate consideration to the other sides' arguments, is another matter, however. Presumably, what you meant was that one can't argue successfully against religion with logic or facts.
With logic: one can exhibit contradictions in religious doctrines. (If there are any.)
I've always found it a bad idea to pretend to be an expert in someone else's religion. Pointing out contradictions in someone else's religion 99.9% of the time is just going to make you sound very ignorant as to how people interpret the things that you find at first glance contradictory.
Christianity has had 2,000 years to iron out the obvious contradictions. I am pretty sure that the more mature faiths are consistent if you accept their axioms.
I doubt you can think of anything that Augustine and Aquinas didn't. The dudes had nothing else to do but think.
Simplifying one's personal identity is a hard path to follow and a good way to get to feeling lost. It takes a lot of faith to put one foot in front of the other when the path before you spans wide, untrodden.
Eckhart Tolle sells a good mindset to carry this sort of work.
I have a friend who, when asked his nationality, will always respond "citizen of the world". He thinks that the answer has much to recommend it and that it is not an identity. He is right in the first respect and very wrong in the other.
Ditto with "Having considered the alternatives rationally, I reject the notion of having an identity vis a vis [religion, politics, etc]".
I think the problem your friend is doing it that he/she thinks people will draw conclusions from his identity.
I'm Swedish. But it doesn't mean that I'll defend Sweden in a war against Norway. I have very little more in common with the Swedes who lives on the border to Norway then the Norwegians who live on the border to Sweden. However, I'm Swedish - I grew up there and I have my cultural heritage from there. That's not wrong - it's just fact
Buddhist practitioners are human too, of course, but a central practice in Buddhism is to dissolve and refute concrete belief in a persistent self and consciousness.
Try breaking up an inner city gang fight by telling them to let their concrete beliefs dissolve in persistent self and consciousness.
My point is that this zen buddhism stuff is mainly the luxury of the elite few. Others have to grapple with the practicalities of daily survival, group membership, and hope for the future. Out of such things come the hard forged religious and political systems.
No one lives in a persistent fight. But for those that do experience conflict, I don't see how those who needn't sustain their identity in the face of adversity fare much worse than others.
I know. Anatman. I had disagreements between Buddhists in the Mahayana and Theravada schools in mind, though: I don't know of any escalating to violence(!), but the former calling the latter "Hinayana" (which is kind of like "The Inferior Way (to enlightenment)") is pretty petty. Nobody is immune to "my school of thought is better than yours" identity squabbling, unfortunately.
I think that some Buddhist practices are a pretty direct attempt to keep this sort of behavior in check, but still the old habits take a long time to simmer down. I think the central problem is when something in the animal brain mistakes criticism of identity for a physical threat. Meditation helps to see this for what it is and let it go, most of the time.
in very simple words selfish thoughts are the cause of a suffering (the third of the Four Noble Truths), so, all the benefits of a small identity is just an effect.
It is interesting that you have marked a philosophy that moves people to lead lives of monastic asceticism as a philosophy that encourages a small identity.
I wouldn't read too much into that. Many philosophies so move some people. I marked a philosophy which rejects the reality of a "self" that is separable from the rest of the universe.
The key to having a sane political discussion is to remember that the survival of your tribe does not actually depend on the outcome of the discussion. Discuss politics as an observer of a complex and fascinating system, not as a participant trying to influence events. Despite what your grade school teachers taught you, unless you're Paul Krugman or Samantha Powers your political views do not matter.
People act hysterical in political debates because they feel threatened. But the pseudo-anonymous commenter you are debating has an infinitesimally small impact on policy. So stop feeling threatened. While the policy in question may or may not be disastrous, getting angry in a comment thread is not going to make a whit of difference.
Hey pg, here is at least one situation that entirely backs up your theory.
I'm not a Freemason, but one of the rules of Freemasonry is that politics and religion are NOT to be discussed while within the lodge.
This is done in part so that no mason will have to justify their personal interpretation of either (and thus their identity) to any other mason while in the lodge.
Perhaps they were onto something (apart from getting drunk and playing ping pong)
The notion that it is impolite to discuss politics and religion is a staple bit of folk wisdom dispensed by parents, grandparents, various other elders, and barkeeps the world over.
The notion that it is impolite to discuss politics and religion is a staple bit of folk wisdom dispensed by parents, grandparents, various other elders, and barkeeps the world over.
...but it's not a universal piece of folk wisdom. In fact it's the significant minority
When you consider 68% of the world of the world is composed under the belief structures of the 3 primary religions (christianity, islam, hinduism) and religion is primarily passed from the parent to the child, I find that parents (and so by inference, grandparents) suggesting that it is impolite to discuss religion a hard pill to swallow.
When you take almost all other religions into account, Non Religious people account for around 21% of the world's population, with some of those are agnostic people (like myself).
My grandfather gave me that advice, and he's a member of the clergy. There are varying levels of social sophistication amongst religious people. In general those born into some sort of longstanding cultural religion tend to not bring it up in polite conversation. It's the newly converted noobs, or perhaps a crazy aunt, who ruin the dinner party.
Maybe it's not so much religion or politics as it is a matter of open-mindedness vs. close-mindedness. There are extremists on both ends of the spectra on politics and religion. I think a lot of the disputes between humans could be resolved if people were more willing to stop and listen, learn, read, discover, empathize with the plights of others.
Having a "small identity" has cost me a bit as a writer. I once interned at a magazine that was looking for contributors to their politics blog, covering this presidential election. I don't have a political science degree. I never worked in government or on a campaign. So I didn't think it'd make sense for me to start opining on the horserace in the way they were looking for. Other interns were more than happy to leap into the fray despite being in the same boat more or less.
So while I'd rather hang out with people who don't argue about things they know nothing about. I think the market favors the bold, and that includes people leaping into debates about things they know nothing about.
The thing that politics and religion have in common, is that they have large organizations that actively cultivate emotional responses and ideological conformity.
Organized religions do this because that's how they attract and hold on to followers.
Politicians and interest groups frame issues in emotional, moral, and ideological terms, because emotion and social pressure motivates voters to get off their butt and go to the polls. Rational self interest cannot motivate voters, because the effort it takes to vote is greater than the direct reward. The press sensationalizes politics and stokes fears of "the other" because emotion sells. The polarization starts at the top and trickles down into every internet comment thread.
Electoral/partisan democracy is poisonous. The Venetians had the right idea in using lotteries to select officials.
It might not just be identifying with something. It doesn't seem that it's completely identify based, at least to me.
I drive a Jeep -- love old Jeeps. It's part of who I am. But if somebody started ragging on Jeeps in a forum I was in I don't think it'd matter. I wouldn't feel threatened. I like Jeeps. So what. I also like puppies.
Some subjects make people feel threatened because to talk about them, in any fashion, is to personally criticize their judgment and their intelligence.
It's the degree people feel threatened. Most people, when you poke around at their politics or their religion, realize their is something deeply irrational going on in their head. They don't take kindly to having people mucking around in there, questioning their sanity -- their value as a fellow person. Religion and politics are topics where the fact that emotions drive reasoning is very close to the surface. It makes probing difficult.
As a further example, I disagree with Paul's opinion on languages. Inevitably we get into a discussion of what "best" means. At the end of the day, "best" usually means whatever I personally value. To criticize that is to criticize how I make opinions. Paul values terseness. Bob values availability of programmer. Joe values available libraries, etc. Once we start questioning judgment -- especially for programmers -- it gets personal.
I've been in the consulting biz for a while -- long enough to move from code monkey to trying to help managers make better decisions. A lot of this is like poking around in a minefield: on some topics people feel their character/intelligence/judgment is a lot more at stake than others. These are the topics you don't want to go bringing up in a forum, online or not.
I think it is more than just having one's sanity questioned. Speaking for myself, I react this way not because I don't value rationality over what feels good, but its that it seems there is knowledge behind my belief and I'm being forced to reject it because I am not articulate enough to defend it. This can be a major problem if the cultural context of the debate does not contain the right words and concepts to explain what I believe. Consequently, since debates go to the most succinct and clear, I must lose, but not due to necessarily having a more irrational belief. Then, if I persist in my belief, I become ostracized as an irrational person.
Articles like this merely fuel the feeling of impotence in the culturally disadvantaged like myself, leading to a more irrational defense of their (my) beliefs, and a vicious cycle follows. This is the "core going critical" that pg mentions. The ultimate result will be a more "rational" person, but they are more "rational" because they have been lobotimized.
I look at politics and religion as deeply personal choices. I also think they are somewhat "beyond reason" -- I don't want to use the term irrational because my point is that the rules of rationality don't apply. Perhaps trans-rational? And when I mean religion, I include the atheists here. They're as impervious to reason as any of the others, but mostly can't see it, which makes them a bit humorous to deal with.
The problem is that most folks are 1) very uncomfortable with this situation, and 2) can't find the words to express the "why" of what they are saying (except for the rationalists, who will use reason ad infinitum regardless of which side of the issue they stand)
I think the most honest responses are, like yours, where you say that there's good reasons that you just can't get to. I also respect people who say "beats me" -- the agnostics. I'm more of an agnostic these days when it comes to religion, and for a long time I've realized that politics is completely non-rational.
That's not to say you can't use logic and reason in the discussion: I think they provide tools to meet in the middle and share equally. But logic in these discussions has a completely different purpose than it does in say, a geometric proof. It's a flashlight in a dark, constantly changing room. It's not the light switch. Most people miss that point.
I enjoy seeing people talk about religion and politics (as long as it's civil) because it gives me an idea of how they think. It's neat to watch people struggle with really tough questions. Who knows? There might be something I could learn there. But I can see where it can destroy a forum.
I think Paul Graham is mistaken that large identities are the problem. I think plenty of programmers have big egos too.
I propose the difference is the traditions about how to argue politics and religion, which don't apply as much to arguing javascript. Even people with low egos can have fruitless discussions about politics, because they are so accustomed to making certain kinds of statements which replay the same scene the other guy also knows how to have. Persuading anyone takes more lateral thinking than that.
I do agree that strongly identifying with ideas is a bad thing. As Popper said, we should let our ideas die in our place. We can change our minds! If you identify as someone who cares about the truth and isn't attached to any particular idea, that is best.
266 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 322 ms ] threadFor most, expertise or knowledge is relative to the expertise of the people they are speaking to. Sit in your average city coffee house and listen to the bs getting tossed around... it will amaze you, and show you the importance of associating with smart people.
Also, think about what stuff in your mental surroundings (things you read regularly, etc.) tend to reinforce certain beliefs you already have.
(As a side note, snail mating is actual fairly cool-looking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxejE8HB9lY . I actually like this one of slugs a bit more, skip in to about 2:30 for the good stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSW9kWIRCOQ )
Though if you both happen to be members of the same True Way, starting a conversation about religion and politics can be incredibly beneficial. I know seeing a bunch of Ayn Rand books on a friend's shelf boosted our relationship immensely.
For instance, I am a dog person and my girlfriend is a cat person. Occasionally, we start to debate the relative merits of each. And there may in fact be one which is in general "better"; after all, most people would agree that dog ownership is better than man-eating tiger ownership. But since we both recognize that dog and cat ownership is a rather silly thing to get upset about, we don't.
On the other hand, politics (for example) are considered to be important. And while we may realize that it's nearly impossible to find a "right answer", that our discussion will likely lead to nothing, etc., we don't feel silly getting upset about it. That, combined with our identity-based connection with politics, leads to flared tempers and out-of-control discussions.
That said, I think that HN is generally the wrong place to have these debates. These topics, when treated fairly, require a lot of space and time to flesh out fully, and a tech news forum isn't properly equipped to do that. In addition, they distract from the valuable discussion for which this place is good.
I think in many situations identity gives you strength. I have an identity within Y Combinator, with my family, with people that went to my University, in the countries I have lived in etc. These fragments of my identity all give me strength, it means I would help people out that have similar identity to me and I know people in those groups would help me. Beyond aid, it also give me purpose and meaning.
This balance between the good and the part parts of having Identity are important. I don't think one should just try to blindly minimize identity. Maybe just try to keep an open mind in discussions about Identity.
In general identity gives you strength while making you stupid. This can sometimes be a good trade, especially in stressful situations. E.g. I think this is one reason people in the US are so much more religious than they were when I was a kid. People who 30 years ago might have been skeptical of preachers are now thinking that religion may at least save their kids from meth.
Couldn't something similar be said about any emotional response. In that emotional responses give you something but are inherently irrational.
I'm curious about the actual trend of religiosity, and I'm somewhat skeptical of anecdotal data (for the very reasons in your article). What is the general trend from someone who's been following this longer?
Yes. It was very noticeable when I went back to Pittsburgh recently. When I was a kid, people went to church, but it didn't spill over into everyday life. They did it more as a matter of form. Now people's conversation is filled with religious references. Someone who 30 years ago would have said "we have two children" now says "we've been blessed with two children."
As a rationalist/atheist/whateverlabel of course I'm not sure I'm altogether comfortable with the rapid increase in religious adherence in recent years but that's a different discussion.
Very interesting essay PG!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#B...
They moved from 94% believing in God to 73%. Might just be the small sample or differences in questions asked though.
If I were to guess I'd say that what's on the decline is nominal religiosity. Those who don't believe, don't worship, in greater numbers. At the same time, among those who do believe, there's been an assertion of cultural power since the 1980s or so.
No data here, just an observation from someone about the same as as pg.
For example, are there really as many Evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians as it seems, or do they just sound louder because they are broadcasting on more channels?
It is often times the case that people/groups with less power or advantage are louder since they are trying to draw more attention and have less to lose in doing so. But for those not well informed, that loudness translates into legitimacy even though it can indicate exactly the opposite. PETA comes to mind as an example.
http://nymag.com/news/features/45938/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer in a nutshell.
I get the feeling that children growing into adults have an innate need to find identity, and if you have an identity vacuum at home they'll find it elsewhere.
I am from a big family and I just see the differences when comparing myself to single sons, but I find the differences interesting, I even admire them.
I also wonder what are the influences of growing up in a family dominated by women. Anyone wants to elaborate?
Great discussion!
I think there's another variable strongly influencing how "identity" behaves in the wild.
Consider the examples of Nelson Mandela and Ghandi. Both men very strongly identified with the cause of their people, but despite that identity had an amazingly noble approach to their oppressors. Horrible atrocities were committed by their foes, yet they reached out to them with grace - both during their struggles and after their victories. They studied their "enemy's" culture and language extensively and had empathy and compassion for them even while fighting for their cause.
There are many examples of wonderful Lincoln-esque people who strongly identified with a cause, yet had compassion and understanding for the other side. From examining them, it seems that identity was not a factor in causing strife and stupidity when it was coupled with that genuine graciousness and understanding.
Tragically, there seem to be far more examples in history of people taking the other approach - envy, hate, violence, etc. In those instances, identity seems to be the vigorous fan that stokes the flames.
While those may be extreme examples, the same principles apply to today's conversations. For instance, very few people would get into a heated debate with a down-syndrome child over a religious point of doctrine or political policy - no matter how adamant she was about it. Why? Well, it's hard not to have compassion for a mentally-handicapped child who is so innocent in her understanding. Yet when people come across a 35 year old man with the same view (who incidentally may be just as 'innocent' in his understanding) - it's much easier to throw away that compassion and understanding and attack him personally with vitriol.
If someone has genuine love and concern for another person it's hard to imagine the kind of stupid debates and spiraling into dumbness that pg describes - even if the participants are at polar ends of the religious/political identity scales. Some of you may remember what ParticleTree did to effectively reduce trolls and flamers: http://credibility.stanford.edu/captology/notebook/archives.... By giving commenters a reminder of compassion, they took a lot of heat out of identity-stupidity.
Lincoln, Ghandi, Mandela etc understood this principle and used it for great good. It reminds me of a great quote from one of my favorite sci-fi novels that shows Charity not as a flaccid quality - but like this:
"And now it came. It was fiery, sharp, bright, and ruthless, ready to kill, ready to die, outspeeding light; it was Charity, not as mortals imagine it, not even as it has been humanised for them since the Incarnation of the Word, but the trans-lunary virtue, fallen upon them direct from the Third Heaven, unmitigated. They were blinded, scorched. They thought it would burn their bones. They could not bear that it should continue. They could not bear that it should cease." - That Hideous Strength, CS Lewis
I've know highly religious/political people who were extremely dedicated to their views, yet seemed to get along with just about everyone even while having lively debate that even decreased dumbness! Unfortunately, we've also seen much of the opposite. The main key always seems to be whether the person has genuine love and compassion for the others holding opposing views - so much so that the others know that disagreement doesn't threaten the relationship. It's a rare and wonderful quality we can all strive for.
In a nutshell - have all the identity you want - just make sure you couple it with the Golden Rule (thankfully found in just about every belief system, religious or not, yay!).
- Planting landmines that killed people indiscriminately in rural areas
- Torture and executions esp. in foreign camps
- Burning people that worked with the apartheid government alive (necklacing). Mandela's wife killed a 14 year old boy without spending a day in jail (Stompie Sipei)
- Church Street bombing and Magoo's bar bombing (which killed civilians). Bombing of an Amamzimtoti shopping center (which killed two children and a woman).
- Factional fighting with the IFP in the late 80ies and early 90ies (which killed more than 15,000 people).
What happened in South Africa was amazing - but it was not just Mandela that made a great leap. White people gave up all power that they had - military, political, just on the basis of a constitution. This knowing full well that there were no other successful democratic African country.
This brings this post to a familiar ground - we do not want to be discussing politics on YCNews. So if you want to use a person as a hero, use Archbishop Desmond Tutu who advocated for non-violence from the start.
The real world is unfortunately not entirely black and white. I never said that what Mandela fought for was wrong - I said that the way it was done was wrong. Unfortunately most people spend time on the Apartheid era's misdeeds but ignore that of the liberation movement.
I said he should use Desmond Tutu as a fine example. Tutu fought for the same thing as Mandala (equal rights) but he did it in a non-violent way. He denounced violence and terrorism on both sides (he even intervened once risking his own life to prevent a crowd from necklacing a person).
You will also notice above that I recommended moving off from the politics topic because it is unnecessarily divisive and not really the focus point of YCNews.
EDIT: Why I also think that Tutu makes an excellent example is that his actions (such as the non-violence he promotes) stems from his religious identity. This is clearly the case in which a person's identity is a good attribute.
That was put to music recently in a country western hit, "Drugs or Jesus".
If you keep your identity small you are not going to be associating with any large group holding common beliefs, which would argue against associating with 'a political party', 'a religion' and so on. This is not a binary issues, everybody 'identifies' with some group more or less than with others. For instance, I had no part in the Romans occupying NL because it happened 2,000 years before I was born, but in spite of that I sympathize with any people that it did happen to. Possibly people from present day 'rome' would see this differently. Arguably the whole Yugoslavian war was exactly because people remembered too well what side of a battle they were on long ago. I don't readily identify as a perl or a python programmer but I do have a stronger leaning towards python because I feel that that is a cleaner language, and easier on the eyes so in an argument about pers vs python I'm probably biased for python, even though I may try to be as objective as possible.
That said, I do agree with the whole argument that whenever peoples' identity is involved in a discussion you run the risk of degradation of the conversation. But that's really up; to both parties, their mutual respect and the way the conversation is conducted. It doesn't HAVE to degenerate, even if identities are involved. The discussion can still be civil and you can agree to disagree on the basics of your belief systems and still come out ahead on both sides of the dividing line.
I guess sitting on the 'kill' button of this site comes with some responsibility and I see this piece mostly as a justification of executing the policy, even if the discussion is civil to avoid future degeneration and the 'slippery slope' of if you allowed 'that' then you should allow 'this'.
'Open mindedness' may be a help navigating some problems regarding differing identities, but certainly not all.
I don't disagree with your point, it just deals with very semantically messy stuff.
To distinguish between the two, we'd want to look for religions that (presumably by good luck) got significant state power before they became widespread. Someone who knows more history than me may have more clue here, but the only example I can think of is that of the pharaoh Ankh-en-aten (= Akhnaten), who basically tried to introduce monotheism into ancient Egypt, with scarcely any success after the end of his reign. That's hardly conclusive, but it seems like evidence for the hypothesis that widespread belief matters more than state power in getting a religion off the ground.
Argument is the process of applying logic to a set of ideas. It is based on the premise that logic alone can yield insights and both participants try to use logic to point out fallacies in their opponent's arugment.
If you believe that ideology is someone's current set of beliefs, then ideology is not threatening, as you have a good shot of changing someone's ideology through logic and argumentation.
However, if you believe that ideology is a dogma that someone viciously clings to, then there is no reason to bother arguing, as it could never result in the person conceding a point or changing an opinion.
I the former definition applies to most intelligent people.
In my case, all of my beliefs are provisional. I don't know anything for certain, but I may still engage in argument. I won't necessarily preface the argument with an in-depth acknowledgement of all of the holes I see in the beliefs at hand. Instead, I will see how well they stand up to my opponent's assaults. After all, I've already admitted to myself that they have holes, so now before I abandon them I should give them one last stand to see how they do.
A successful argument is one in which a) I discover more holes, or b) I realize that something I thought was a hole isn't.
Logical argument is quite unlike javascript where there are obvious ways of empirically testing a result. In the more abstract areas of programming there are massive arguments (see LKML, etc.) because it is hard to simply empirically test the result... the concepts are abstract and interwoven, etc.
To read the arguments on LKML, one sees that they are more socratic, more focused on the abstractions and hence are more subject to "ideology" being used rather than simple assertions.
So if you dismimss "ideology" as necessarily uninformed, you are asserting your own "ideology" onto the discussion.
What is a non-ideological argument? Is it something like this?
Person 1: I can't be sure, but I think there is a chance that A
Person 2: I see. I agree that there is a chance that A, but I think there is a greater chance that B.
Person 1: We both make good points.
Person 2: Indeed.
While the above may be an abundantly mature way to address A and B, I find a spirited argument far more informative. For the same reason, I find that it's easier to learn about the nuances of a political issue by reading op-eds written from various perspectives than from reading one supposedly objective "news" article.
But there can be good reasons in particular cases for taking on some identity. For example, oppression is often begun to be fought by the oppressed joining together under a shared identity.
In general, people typically take on an identity — or keep one that they find themselves with (upbringing) — to feel that they belong in some group of people. But I don't think that sticking some big label on oneself is necessary for belonging. One can belong in the group of one's friends and family just by being one anothers' nearest and dearest, not through being fellow x-ists or y-arians. And being partial to one's nearest and dearest as such isn't in itself harmful, only mutually beneficial to those involved, and beneficial to others since a group of mutually supportive individuals reduces the demands those individuals might make against those outwith that group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass
Edit: Actually I think criticality is the right metaphor. It's a change in state from what preceded it. That's the important part, not the resulting explosion. (Arguably there are in fact analogs to control rods in online discussions-- nesting depth, the fact that people get tired after a while, etc.)
The JRR-4, which reached initial criticality in 1965, had contenued to aperate safely until 1996 using uranium of a high concentration of 93% [...]
Unit 1 reached initial criticality on March 8, 1988 and went into commercial operation on August 25. Unit 2 reached initial criticality on March 12, ...
Not in a PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor If a nuclear reactor's core is not critical, that nuclear reactor is not on.
This of course isn't necessarily bad or wrong -- in fact I think society would scarcely function were for it not for a modicum of such behavior -- but it does mean that people aren't having these debates in the way that they would another debate -- because they've already know the answer, they're just trying to convince others that their opinion isn't stupid and wrong.
I've often wondered what would be possible in terms of designing a website that aims to moderate debate in a way that leads to new ideas and conclusions and attempts to negate as many of these types of effects as possible.
Some formal system, that the users would have no choice but to follow, that begins with some one making a statement such as "X is true because of Y and Z" and then everyone debates it, reforms the statement as necessary and at some point it gets locked in as either true or false and then the discussion has to proceed based on that understanding.
People are forced to address each others points and eliminate as much bias as possible in their statements.
You could visually map out the progress that gets made until perhaps some new interesting conclusion gets reached.
Obviously no perfect solution exists but for me its an interesting question of how useful a system could be designed. There's also the obvious problems that a) few people are likely to want to use such a system and b) those that do are probably skewed to favor some particular point of view.
There is just so much wasted energy on the internet not being harnessed for actual progress. There are many blogs etc that have been created with the specific purpose of progressing some cause or area of expertise but people are just turning up, yelling opinions at one another and leaving with very little gained. Such is life I guess...
Perhaps just some kind of reference system, so when an old debate reemerges, people can just refer to the online record until new ground is broken. The problem in this case is succinct yet meaningful summaries of the debate.
Looking at how well a site like Stack Overflow is working gives me hope of a happy medium between rigor and usability being possible in the future somehow.
It combines a whole bunch of ideas from social sites such as voting, points, awards, wiki style editing into an effective solution. Far from perfect but useful which as about all you could ask for I guess.
It would also be interesting if a company like Disqus started experimenting with features in this area.
One approach could be to have a group of site moderators who make it their mission to, as Paul said, keep their identities as small as possible and simply judge the logic and biases of peoples arguments.
Perhaps their vote is what locks in a statement to be taken as true or false and then everyone has to then play by the rule of accepting their judgment on the matter for future debates.
In a similar way that scientific research builds on the work that was done before it to make progress, standing on the shoulders of giants type stuff, the conversation could be mapped to show these towers of progress grow as people logically move from "if A is true then B must be true..." and so on.
Perhaps the debate branches at points of contention and goes off down different paths.
The idea being that anyone can join in and quickly get up to speed as to where the conversation is up to by looking at the map of statements that have been dealt with so far.
If someone wants to reopen the debate around some statement and attack the foundation of one of these towers and bring it crashing down then they can.
Of course an enormous element of this will be based on the subjective judgment of the moderators. It can't be entirely based on pure logic but if it is useful and leads to new and interesting things then who cares...
Even if it succeeded in removing a lot of the crap around a debate and focus precisely on the points that people differ on so they can be attacked directly I think that would be a useful thing.
My idea for making this somewhat enjoyable and stand a chance of people participating in it would be to make it game like in some way.
Anyway, its all pretty out there stuff I know, but I'll no doubt continue to think about anyway...
Some stuff you may want to look up (all but the first are actually online):
There are also a bunch of other more commercial attempts whose names I can't recall. ReadWriteWeb or a similar site did a roundup of them last year. But they suck. Even the listed examples have probems insofar as they screw up the interface, interaction design, and/or information architecture. (That is, if the goal is to achieve widespread use.) Within small, interested communities, there may be sufficient motivation to use them. In Collaboratorium's case, they had a class at MIT use it w/r/t climate change.If you're really interested in tackling this problem, let me know. I'm too busy working on a for-profit venture to keep developing my MS project, but my design doc might give you some ideas, even if you don't go the route I did.
No, every opinion is not equally valid - there is a range of probabilities into which opinions can be classified. The more improbable the belief, the less valid it is. One doesn't have to prove that a theory is 100% wrong, merely that on the scale of probability it scores poorly against a rival theory.
For example, I may believe the earth is 4,000 years old but it is a demonstrably false opinion. It doesn't matter how sincerely I believe this or that a quarter of the planet's humans believe that. Similarly, there is one good explanation for how and when life originated on earth, and all the other "competing" opinions are highly improbable.
One of religion's goals is to explain the world, but science does a much better job, and yet people's religious beliefs are expected to be respected, even if they are stupid and childish (which they are most of the time). Another goal of religion is to set a standard for morals, and yet holy books are full of despicable, horrendously grotesque, anti-human "morals".
I think that one of the reasons people have a hard time admitting their religions and religious beliefs are fantasies is that they have been indoctrinated since childhood that faith is a virtue, to not ask WHY. Some of this appears to have its origin in natural selection, because children who believe at face value what their parents tell them are more likely to survive.
As far as everyone is concerned, all opinions pretty much are equally valid, whether they actually are or not doesn't seem to matter.
Edit: There's something incongruent about trying to discuss an opinion of how the validity of opinions is determined... Hmm...
With logic: one can exhibit contradictions in religious doctrines. (If there are any.)
With facts: for example geological/fossil evidence can be used to argue against creationism. (The best one can do in trying to put forward 'facts' is to put forward what is well supported by the available evidence, and better supported than known alternatives. So, here for example, one would also have to try and find fault with whatever evidence can be brought forward in support of creationism.)
Whether or not those on each side of a debate will give due dispassionate consideration to the other sides' arguments, is another matter, however. Presumably, what you meant was that one can't argue successfully against religion with logic or facts.
I've always found it a bad idea to pretend to be an expert in someone else's religion. Pointing out contradictions in someone else's religion 99.9% of the time is just going to make you sound very ignorant as to how people interpret the things that you find at first glance contradictory.
I doubt you can think of anything that Augustine and Aquinas didn't. The dudes had nothing else to do but think.
Eckhart Tolle sells a good mindset to carry this sort of work.
Ditto with "Having considered the alternatives rationally, I reject the notion of having an identity vis a vis [religion, politics, etc]".
I'm Swedish. But it doesn't mean that I'll defend Sweden in a war against Norway. I have very little more in common with the Swedes who lives on the border to Norway then the Norwegians who live on the border to Sweden. However, I'm Swedish - I grew up there and I have my cultural heritage from there. That's not wrong - it's just fact
My point is that this zen buddhism stuff is mainly the luxury of the elite few. Others have to grapple with the practicalities of daily survival, group membership, and hope for the future. Out of such things come the hard forged religious and political systems.
I think that some Buddhist practices are a pretty direct attempt to keep this sort of behavior in check, but still the old habits take a long time to simmer down. I think the central problem is when something in the animal brain mistakes criticism of identity for a physical threat. Meditation helps to see this for what it is and let it go, most of the time.
Humans have wonderfully malleable minds.
People act hysterical in political debates because they feel threatened. But the pseudo-anonymous commenter you are debating has an infinitesimally small impact on policy. So stop feeling threatened. While the policy in question may or may not be disastrous, getting angry in a comment thread is not going to make a whit of difference.
I'm not a Freemason, but one of the rules of Freemasonry is that politics and religion are NOT to be discussed while within the lodge.
This is done in part so that no mason will have to justify their personal interpretation of either (and thus their identity) to any other mason while in the lodge.
Perhaps they were onto something (apart from getting drunk and playing ping pong)
...but it's not a universal piece of folk wisdom. In fact it's the significant minority
When you consider 68% of the world of the world is composed under the belief structures of the 3 primary religions (christianity, islam, hinduism) and religion is primarily passed from the parent to the child, I find that parents (and so by inference, grandparents) suggesting that it is impolite to discuss religion a hard pill to swallow.
When you take almost all other religions into account, Non Religious people account for around 21% of the world's population, with some of those are agnostic people (like myself).
Many of my family Christmas' have been ruined by drunken dancing old women :)
So while I'd rather hang out with people who don't argue about things they know nothing about. I think the market favors the bold, and that includes people leaping into debates about things they know nothing about.
Organized religions do this because that's how they attract and hold on to followers.
Politicians and interest groups frame issues in emotional, moral, and ideological terms, because emotion and social pressure motivates voters to get off their butt and go to the polls. Rational self interest cannot motivate voters, because the effort it takes to vote is greater than the direct reward. The press sensationalizes politics and stokes fears of "the other" because emotion sells. The polarization starts at the top and trickles down into every internet comment thread.
Electoral/partisan democracy is poisonous. The Venetians had the right idea in using lotteries to select officials.
I drive a Jeep -- love old Jeeps. It's part of who I am. But if somebody started ragging on Jeeps in a forum I was in I don't think it'd matter. I wouldn't feel threatened. I like Jeeps. So what. I also like puppies.
Some subjects make people feel threatened because to talk about them, in any fashion, is to personally criticize their judgment and their intelligence.
It's the degree people feel threatened. Most people, when you poke around at their politics or their religion, realize their is something deeply irrational going on in their head. They don't take kindly to having people mucking around in there, questioning their sanity -- their value as a fellow person. Religion and politics are topics where the fact that emotions drive reasoning is very close to the surface. It makes probing difficult.
As a further example, I disagree with Paul's opinion on languages. Inevitably we get into a discussion of what "best" means. At the end of the day, "best" usually means whatever I personally value. To criticize that is to criticize how I make opinions. Paul values terseness. Bob values availability of programmer. Joe values available libraries, etc. Once we start questioning judgment -- especially for programmers -- it gets personal.
I've been in the consulting biz for a while -- long enough to move from code monkey to trying to help managers make better decisions. A lot of this is like poking around in a minefield: on some topics people feel their character/intelligence/judgment is a lot more at stake than others. These are the topics you don't want to go bringing up in a forum, online or not.
Articles like this merely fuel the feeling of impotence in the culturally disadvantaged like myself, leading to a more irrational defense of their (my) beliefs, and a vicious cycle follows. This is the "core going critical" that pg mentions. The ultimate result will be a more "rational" person, but they are more "rational" because they have been lobotimized.
The problem is that most folks are 1) very uncomfortable with this situation, and 2) can't find the words to express the "why" of what they are saying (except for the rationalists, who will use reason ad infinitum regardless of which side of the issue they stand)
I think the most honest responses are, like yours, where you say that there's good reasons that you just can't get to. I also respect people who say "beats me" -- the agnostics. I'm more of an agnostic these days when it comes to religion, and for a long time I've realized that politics is completely non-rational.
That's not to say you can't use logic and reason in the discussion: I think they provide tools to meet in the middle and share equally. But logic in these discussions has a completely different purpose than it does in say, a geometric proof. It's a flashlight in a dark, constantly changing room. It's not the light switch. Most people miss that point.
I enjoy seeing people talk about religion and politics (as long as it's civil) because it gives me an idea of how they think. It's neat to watch people struggle with really tough questions. Who knows? There might be something I could learn there. But I can see where it can destroy a forum.
I propose the difference is the traditions about how to argue politics and religion, which don't apply as much to arguing javascript. Even people with low egos can have fruitless discussions about politics, because they are so accustomed to making certain kinds of statements which replay the same scene the other guy also knows how to have. Persuading anyone takes more lateral thinking than that.
I do agree that strongly identifying with ideas is a bad thing. As Popper said, we should let our ideas die in our place. We can change our minds! If you identify as someone who cares about the truth and isn't attached to any particular idea, that is best.