Take NIMBYism for example. I have a perfectly good theory of mind about NIMBYs with respect to housing, which is they want less of it because of some combination of property value defense or avoiding people they don't like (i.e. in rich areas, poor people; in certain areas of SF, eViL tEcHiEs). But since those political positions sound selfish... because they are... you get bad faith arguments that argue for A when you really are motivated by B.
Because social media rewards engagement over truth, it gives motivation and amplifies the worst faith arguments.
I will add that what makes this hard is there is rarely a single theory of mind that applies to everyone. For example, some gun owners just want to own a gun to go hunting (not self defense). Likewise, some abortion supporters want it to be available in cases like rape and medical emergencies (not just free choice). It requires a lot of learning to really understand the other side of these issues, but it's work worth doing.
One of my most useful questions is: Help me understand what makes you say/think that? The answer always comes from their values and a conversation about values is always positive and productive ❤️ Thanks A.
I'll just add that I find "you" to be one of the most incendiary words in the language. I'd probably start out with, "why don't we unpack this for just a little longer? Help me understand why it makes sense to...."
Academia is rife with this problem. I was trained in critical theory. The basic move is to discount any views counter to your own by claiming those views are ideological, hegemonic, and the result of capitalist propaganda. For example, if a consumer says she likes having more choices at the supermarket, the critical theorist responds by claiming the consumer has been brainwashed by capitalist propaganda (Gramsci) and that the desire isn’t genuine but merely the result of the capitalist class maintaining hegemony. We are all dupes—except for the critical theorist of course.
If I ever suggest that perhaps audiences *like* certain kinds of entertainment media more than educational highbrow media, then I am simply a tool of capitalist hegemony. I can never convince that person that audience preferences might be genuine.
I have been criticized for representing industry views—because to try to understand the “capitalist class” is to endorse hegemony. They refuse to enter into a theory of mind.
People with these views self select into academia, and then teach their students that they have been dupes. They teach that no one operates in good faith except for the critical theorists, who are the only ones who know capitalism is bad. And now we’re reaping the results.
Love this post Adam! It does feel like people on the Internet are more interested in having shouting matches than conversations. So I’m really glad you brought up this very important topic. One good way to develop a theory of mind is to read about, listen to and actually talk with people who think and act differently than you. You don’t have to agree with other people’s opinions, but to have a good conversation - as you point out - you need to understand why they hold the opinions they do. Our civilization depends on it!
Another excellent post, Adam. Here are a few semi-connected thoughts:
--Most online commentary is not conversational, but in-group signaling or territory marking.
--The information overload world we live in rewards instant reactions over thought.
--The information engagement economy rewards emotional attachment over intellectual connection.
--Propagandists and narcissists thrive in this environment.
--There's no requirement that a person have an informed opinion on EVERYTHING. In fact, there's not even time to do so. And yet we belittle those we perceive as "uninformed" on any given topic.
Thought-provoking article. I'm frustrated by often people fight for their politics without understanding—or, I suspect, wanting to understand—the other positions on the issues. I'm not sure where this evident wide-spread lack of empathy stems from, but it makes it difficult to impossible to have a thoughtful, sober political discourse, as your piece suggests. We should all be a little more dispassionate and Spock-like about our positions and analyses—political and otherwise—even on issues like guns and abortion that understandably stir the passions.
Another excellent, fair-minded post - many thanks! To complicate the idea of a "simple opposition" even further, I will have to add that libertarians LOVE immigration (eg., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxFD32jzTLA), as do almost all employers/corporate managers who depend on low-wage labor to max out profits. It's impossible to be both pro-open border and pro-living wage - politics make divisions easy, while economics usually complicate things. Thank you again!
We are busy making caricatures of one another instead of having discourse. We rarely take the time to understand one another and so resort to name calling. It seems we’ve developed a heuristic model to codify someone’s argument instead of understanding the values behind it. But the assumption we hold about another isn’t always accurate. We don’t have to agree with the other person or group, but we should attempt to understand before we jump to pseudospeciation.
Take NIMBYism for example. I have a perfectly good theory of mind about NIMBYs with respect to housing, which is they want less of it because of some combination of property value defense or avoiding people they don't like (i.e. in rich areas, poor people; in certain areas of SF, eViL tEcHiEs). But since those political positions sound selfish... because they are... you get bad faith arguments that argue for A when you really are motivated by B.
Because social media rewards engagement over truth, it gives motivation and amplifies the worst faith arguments.
Good points here, but there's actually nothing selfish about defending property values - attempts to dismiss the opposition are always complicated....
This is something we agree on 100%!
I will add that what makes this hard is there is rarely a single theory of mind that applies to everyone. For example, some gun owners just want to own a gun to go hunting (not self defense). Likewise, some abortion supporters want it to be available in cases like rape and medical emergencies (not just free choice). It requires a lot of learning to really understand the other side of these issues, but it's work worth doing.
Ah, Sir Adam, such wisdom from one so young 🤪
One of my most useful questions is: Help me understand what makes you say/think that? The answer always comes from their values and a conversation about values is always positive and productive ❤️ Thanks A.
I'll just add that I find "you" to be one of the most incendiary words in the language. I'd probably start out with, "why don't we unpack this for just a little longer? Help me understand why it makes sense to...."
Academia is rife with this problem. I was trained in critical theory. The basic move is to discount any views counter to your own by claiming those views are ideological, hegemonic, and the result of capitalist propaganda. For example, if a consumer says she likes having more choices at the supermarket, the critical theorist responds by claiming the consumer has been brainwashed by capitalist propaganda (Gramsci) and that the desire isn’t genuine but merely the result of the capitalist class maintaining hegemony. We are all dupes—except for the critical theorist of course.
If I ever suggest that perhaps audiences *like* certain kinds of entertainment media more than educational highbrow media, then I am simply a tool of capitalist hegemony. I can never convince that person that audience preferences might be genuine.
I have been criticized for representing industry views—because to try to understand the “capitalist class” is to endorse hegemony. They refuse to enter into a theory of mind.
People with these views self select into academia, and then teach their students that they have been dupes. They teach that no one operates in good faith except for the critical theorists, who are the only ones who know capitalism is bad. And now we’re reaping the results.
Love this post Adam! It does feel like people on the Internet are more interested in having shouting matches than conversations. So I’m really glad you brought up this very important topic. One good way to develop a theory of mind is to read about, listen to and actually talk with people who think and act differently than you. You don’t have to agree with other people’s opinions, but to have a good conversation - as you point out - you need to understand why they hold the opinions they do. Our civilization depends on it!
Another excellent post, Adam. Here are a few semi-connected thoughts:
--Most online commentary is not conversational, but in-group signaling or territory marking.
--The information overload world we live in rewards instant reactions over thought.
--The information engagement economy rewards emotional attachment over intellectual connection.
--Propagandists and narcissists thrive in this environment.
--There's no requirement that a person have an informed opinion on EVERYTHING. In fact, there's not even time to do so. And yet we belittle those we perceive as "uninformed" on any given topic.
Thought-provoking article. I'm frustrated by often people fight for their politics without understanding—or, I suspect, wanting to understand—the other positions on the issues. I'm not sure where this evident wide-spread lack of empathy stems from, but it makes it difficult to impossible to have a thoughtful, sober political discourse, as your piece suggests. We should all be a little more dispassionate and Spock-like about our positions and analyses—political and otherwise—even on issues like guns and abortion that understandably stir the passions.
Another excellent, fair-minded post - many thanks! To complicate the idea of a "simple opposition" even further, I will have to add that libertarians LOVE immigration (eg., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxFD32jzTLA), as do almost all employers/corporate managers who depend on low-wage labor to max out profits. It's impossible to be both pro-open border and pro-living wage - politics make divisions easy, while economics usually complicate things. Thank you again!
We are busy making caricatures of one another instead of having discourse. We rarely take the time to understand one another and so resort to name calling. It seems we’ve developed a heuristic model to codify someone’s argument instead of understanding the values behind it. But the assumption we hold about another isn’t always accurate. We don’t have to agree with the other person or group, but we should attempt to understand before we jump to pseudospeciation.
Something all of us should make note of.
This is a good piece.