I was wondering why it got downvoted so much. Did you mean the post over at my blog, or this post here? I’m really not sure what’s so inflammatory about this post—I was just trying to explain an idea.
I meant this post here, because this is the one you have posted here. However, if you would post here the other one, I would mean that one too.
Essentially, you should separate your main point from the specific political examples, and preferably use historical examples that no one cares about deeply. Mixing logic and emotionally powerful political examples together has the effect that people who don’t share your political opinions may stop listening to the logic. Even the people who do share your political opinions may stop listening to the logic and just enjoy the fact that they found someone who agrees with them.
There is an evolutionary reason for this—when politics get debated, joining the winning side makes you more likely to survive and reproduce than focusing on being right; especially in an ancient environment. (Yeah, maybe your leader proposes something that will make you all starve in winter; but if you oppose him now, you may get killed now, which is even worse for you.) As much as we try to avoid this effect, it exists. So it is better to get our points across without activating the “I have to join the winning side or die” circuits of our brains too much.
The downvotes without explanation are probably because people who are offended by your examples (because they disagree with you politically) just downvote and leave, and only those not offended remain and participate in the discussion.
I was wondering why it got downvoted so much. Did you mean the post over at my blog, or this post here? I’m really not sure what’s so inflammatory about this post—I was just trying to explain an idea.
I meant this post here, because this is the one you have posted here. However, if you would post here the other one, I would mean that one too.
Essentially, you should separate your main point from the specific political examples, and preferably use historical examples that no one cares about deeply. Mixing logic and emotionally powerful political examples together has the effect that people who don’t share your political opinions may stop listening to the logic. Even the people who do share your political opinions may stop listening to the logic and just enjoy the fact that they found someone who agrees with them.
There is an evolutionary reason for this—when politics get debated, joining the winning side makes you more likely to survive and reproduce than focusing on being right; especially in an ancient environment. (Yeah, maybe your leader proposes something that will make you all starve in winter; but if you oppose him now, you may get killed now, which is even worse for you.) As much as we try to avoid this effect, it exists. So it is better to get our points across without activating the “I have to join the winning side or die” circuits of our brains too much.
The downvotes without explanation are probably because people who are offended by your examples (because they disagree with you politically) just downvote and leave, and only those not offended remain and participate in the discussion.
Thanks, that is good advice. Honestly hadn’t thought of that—oh well. Errare humanum est and all that...