Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktFor my first post here, let me just pose two philosophical questions I think about from time to time that relate to the nature of the undertaking. For comment or just thought, either way.
First, do you think America is more divided today than in the past (Civil War aside, we can stipulate)? More starkly, more irresolvably?
This is often said, and I do think it is true in significant respects, and that it is magnified by mass media and what passes for education and culture, as well as the course of history and events. I also think that it flows inherently from the rise of ideologies in the 20th century — principally ideologies on the left. But, I’m not sure I am right about this.
Second, how much of this political argument and disagreement do you think is a function of miscommunication and innocent misunderstanding? I see a fair amount of this in reading blogs and commentary, although I think that willful misunderstanding and demagoguery are more prevalent. I see clarity of expression and reasoned statement as indispensable, while admittedly failing to achieve them with regularity. Achieving memorable and penetrating clarity of expression is one reason some works are timeless. Thucydides comes to mind. And I am something of a sucker for believing that clear communication can go a long way toward bridging disagreements.
That being said, however, I reject strong versions of this theory that posit that miscommunication is the source of most or all disagreement. I am not that familiar with the literature and thought in this area, but I think it all but undeniable there are unbridgeable divisions in what people believe, disagreements that can be better understood but not erased by understanding.
And this leads to a question of what, then, is gained by understanding why we disagree.
Well, let’s see, did I figure out how to post?
Update (yes, my first Update, on my very first post!): Mark emailed that he isn’t able to comment on this post. I have tried to determine why, but I am clueless. Options are set to allow comments. It may relate to my outdated Explorer version, which Blogger says will cause problems, or some other ineptitude of mine. Perhaps Kevin will be able to diagnose my error.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
"I reject strong versions of this theory that posit that miscommunication is the source of most or all disagreement."I would agree with this, though I would say that initial disagreement tends to warp our perception of subsequent arguments. That is, once we are in the midst of a disagreement, it effects how we view everything the other person is saying. If you've ever been in a discussion where you've said some inflammatory things, and then recognize that things are getting out of control, and try to turn down the volume–only to have the other party argue that you are trying to "trick" them are that this is a deception–you know what I'm talking about. You know that you are trying to get back to a better level of communication, but the other party is informing your real effort with their disagreement or upset about things you've said previously. Somewhat tangential to your point, but I think we *all* tend to communicate very poorly, for a variety of reasons, and much of our disagreements are based on things other than pure objective facts. If someone is advocating green jobs as a solution to our economic doldrums, we tend to assume a lot of things about that person, and it informs our perceptions of what they have to say. If someone is skeptical about global warming, then, ditto. I don't know how you avoid that. I do wonder if modern mass media makes our tendency to form tribes around things like ideology or national politics more prevalent, or more divisive. "I also think that it flows inherently from the rise of ideologies in the 20th century — principally ideologies on the left"I'm dubious. Not that such divisiveness isn't sourced on the left (although less out of ideology than out of the approaches of practitioners and advocates), but there's clearly an embrace of bombast and exclusionary tactics on the right, especially in the media. Even if we argue that this is reactionary–well, reaction is a choice.My thought: divisiveness is, in the end, a cooperative effort. And so is it's opposite.
LikeLike
qb, nice post. I'd like to post a longer comment but I'm very busy at work today and need time to sort through it. I know from experience that you and I primarily talk past each other, perhaps we can change that and then again maybe not. I think understanding why we disagree is key though to consensus if that is the goal. But perhaps it's not.
LikeLike
QB! Great post. Partly this perception (increased polarization) is due to the common habit of thinking that history started the day you were born. As a result, this is the most (insert issue of dispute here) in our country's history. Also,'some things, beliefs, are just not reconcilable. There's nothing wrong with it, except formthinking that such differences can be reconciled.
LikeLike
I see I sounded extremely wishy washy. Either I didn't express myself well or I am. I was thinking of my father when I wrote it. He was very conservative and uh, I'm not. We used to find areas of agreement sometimes after many hours of debate or negotiation but it was usually when one of us was highly motivated to compromise. Other times, no dice, and we just talked past each other and agreed to disagree. I think the goal is what determines the level of understanding.
LikeLike
btwqb is able to read our comments but not post one himself from his work computer.
LikeLike
While some differences are indeed irreconcilable, I often get a sense that we are, as lmsinca said, talking past each other, and neither side truly sees the foundation upon which the other is basing their position (indeed, sometimes our foundations are so established, and built upon and painted over, it's difficult for us to articulate them). I do think it's worth taking some time to make sure, if we are disagreeing 100%, that we actually understand what we're disagreeing about. Blogger doesn't work with Internet Explorer 7. Bizarre. I would never have thought that.
LikeLike
Fuck You! Eat shit and die asswipe!Oh we're not on the Plum Line?Sorry, ahem…Oh, Hi quarterback, how are my communication skills?How about this, I agree with you, as you know I have so many times. You are a right wing ideologue and I am the left wing Gift From God and we'll never agree, even though we have but let's ignore that for the sake of argument. "I think it all but undeniable there are unbridgeable divisions in what people believe, disagreements that can be better understood but not erased by understanding."So there we have it. What we have here is not failure to communicate, but failure of people to think alike, no matter how well they communicate. That is not a liberal position and on that I agree with QB, 100% So and this is the important part, we can talk even though we don't agree. Cef, for example, is a militarist leftist, his militarism seems delusional and crazy next to his politics to me and yet, I love to read what he writes and I do not fight with him, nor he with me. So look QB, I know you've read The Painted Bird, the point of this, of civility, isn't to all get together and agree on a line of march, the point is to stop killing each other.
LikeLike
Kevin, same thing happened to me last night on my company laptop. I could have made a post (sighs of relief that I didn't) but could not comment. I'm pretty sure it's a conspiracy.
LikeLike
Troll, were you using IE7?
LikeLike
Yup.
LikeLike
Kev, I could not post that long comment that appears above as a new post on Opera, Firefox nightly 64, IE9-64, or chrome. That makes me think it was rejected as too long.
LikeLike
mark:Length should not be an issue with regard to actual posts. Not sure about comments, but front line blog posts should have no limit. When I was writing my old blog on this same platform, I wrote some outrageously long (matched only by their insight) posts with no problem.
LikeLike
That makes me think it was rejected as too long.A lot of girls said that. So you had that problem too?
LikeLike
There's some kind of old saying about not being able to hear someone until you know what is in the heart. I'm very aware of that when I judge people's arguments. If we have different moral values (or I don't know the person's values) I find myself rather unwilling to spend much time trying to unpack their opinions. It just seems like a colossal waste of time (which may not be true). When our values resonate, I'm quite willing and able to spend hours trying to understand their views at a very detailed level. And that does not require that I agree–I just am very motivated to understand. I swing into a learning mode when I respect the person's values. I am prolife, but I can have a very calm conversation with someone who is prochoice as long as I know that they value life in general. I am religious and Christian, but I can have a calm conversation with atheists and agnostics and members of other organized religions, as long as I know that they respect that belief in a higher power can be a positive force. To me it's not about ideology–it's about values. If a person loves animals, I can appreciate that person for that value even if there is not a single other thing we have in common. If a person tortures dogs for fun, I don't care if we agree on everything from Vietnam to Iraq and in between, I wouldn't care to exchange one word with him.
LikeLike
I love dogs.
LikeLike
And God love you for it. Do you have a dog now?
LikeLike
12bar, you are unusual in being motivated to understand others. I suspect the increase in ideological division is inversely correlated with the interest in understanding those with different views.
LikeLike
As I tried to make clear, brian, I'm not universally motivated to understand others, but if I find that if I discover that someone has his heart in the right place, I can be extraordinarily motivated to really try to put myself in his head. I do try to suspend judgment when I'm in that place.
LikeLike
I think a site like this has a chance of working, if there are enough people who make that effort. To QB's original post, I think there dwindling numbers of people who do.
LikeLike
brian,I don't know what cracks open the defenses of others, I only know for myself. I can remember Kevin repeatedly saying that he isn't the least bit seduced by being insulted. If I didn't say I agreed with him wholeheartedly, I should have. Some people are seduced by intellectual depth, by originality, by logical arguments and a lot of other things. For me, I have to know the person's heart. I suppose it has to do with trust.
LikeLike
get a room you twoeveryone wants a site like thisthey just don't know howwe are special, because we know
LikeLike
Remains to be seen, shrink. BTW, I like your Polish persona. I guess you're Polish.My Norwegian ancestors were named Bakli. Since that's not anyone-son, maybe it's the name of the farm. When they got over here (around 1840 maybe), the name became Bagley. Finally they got to North Dakota where they lived in a sod hut and the whole Giants in the Earth bit. My grand uncle was named Gulick Bagley, but he got in a tiff and decided there were too many Bagleys. So he changed his name to Gulick Gulickson. That why the Bagleys and Gulicksons are all the same, according to me mother.
LikeLike
I know you're not Polish, but maybe Jerzy is Polish.
LikeLike
I think that we are more divisive than we have ever been.Not because we have disagreement, but because we haven't learned to respect the disagreement, and certainly not the one disagreeing.
LikeLike