I’ve done it twice, very explicitly. (Probably more implicitly.)
Here’s some thoughts, tuned specifically to the cases I had.
The individuals would bring very ‘defensible’ arguments forward. And they would stubbornly refuse to change their mind in response to my improved understanding of the world. I knew they’d never change my mind, so I was always stuck debating them, I could never move on.
They had a certain level of status in a community (e.g. one was a public figure who sells books and gives talks) that was not status I was giving them. It wasn’t like a friend I could just stop being friends with, they would continue to ‘be in the public environment’.
It took me a long while to go from “this person seems wrong and set in their ways around ideas and norms that I do not support” to “as best I can tell, in some important ways this person does not live out virtue and I do not want to consult them when I am trying to understand the world or take action”. Their arguments were always very ‘defensible’ in the given social context. To a significant extent I had to give up on that social context, give up being interested in getting status in that hierarchy, in order to stop caring what they had to say on an issue.
I suspect it helps to have an alternative social context to positively move one’s mind into. Instead of repeating to myself that I shouldn’t listen to person X, it helps to positively encourage myself to engage with person Y or social environment A, that’s different and that these individuals were not a part of.
After a while, my mind didn’t bring them into the conversation, and I also changed the conversations I was having in my mind. Much better for it, very glad to “just not care” what they thought.
Oh, I notice that I also have done this sort of thing with a bunch of recent tv/films/content.
There’s a habit of modern content that, when it gets politicized, will “mimic argument”. It will pretend to show sincere dialogue and debate, but it will fully swing the deck against one side and in favor of the other, and straightforwardly imply that the other side is unethical.
I can watch political art that I disagree with, I can even put up with good art that has bad political art inside of it, but when it attempts to distort what good faith dialogue is in order to win an argument, I just turn it off. I don’t want to simulate that character/perspective or have a dialogue with them/it in my head.[1]
I can immediately think of four times I’ve done this with shows/content I otherwise greatly enjoyed and admire. I just don’t want to learn to simulate them.
———
[1] Writing this out, I realize it’s straightforward darkside epistemology.
Maybe that is one way how entertainment manipulates public opinion: By creating memorable (=easily emulable) characters that become shoulder ‘influencers’ that promote the official narrative right in the heads of the populace.
Okay, because you asked AllAmericanBreakfast. Though I am not likely to follow-up discuss the specifics of each. Recent examples include the last season of Brooklyn Nine Nine and Bo Burnham’s “Inside”.
The “before” state you describe, where you find yourself having arguments with stubborn advisors who refuse to change their minds, reminds me strongly of rumination.
I say this because it’s something I’m working on to get out of. I’ll sometimes find myself engaged in a pretty adversarial discussion about what boils down to my boundaries and be unable to fall asleep for a few hours. And it’s usually the same cast of characters. I’ve found that I can consciously jump out of it by reminding myself that I’m merely burning energy without changing reality in any way. But I usually have to do this a few times before the “bad advisor” finally quiets down.
Do bad shoulder advisors feel like rumination to you?
I’ve done it twice, very explicitly. (Probably more implicitly.)
Here’s some thoughts, tuned specifically to the cases I had.
The individuals would bring very ‘defensible’ arguments forward. And they would stubbornly refuse to change their mind in response to my improved understanding of the world. I knew they’d never change my mind, so I was always stuck debating them, I could never move on.
They had a certain level of status in a community (e.g. one was a public figure who sells books and gives talks) that was not status I was giving them. It wasn’t like a friend I could just stop being friends with, they would continue to ‘be in the public environment’.
It took me a long while to go from “this person seems wrong and set in their ways around ideas and norms that I do not support” to “as best I can tell, in some important ways this person does not live out virtue and I do not want to consult them when I am trying to understand the world or take action”. Their arguments were always very ‘defensible’ in the given social context. To a significant extent I had to give up on that social context, give up being interested in getting status in that hierarchy, in order to stop caring what they had to say on an issue.
I suspect it helps to have an alternative social context to positively move one’s mind into. Instead of repeating to myself that I shouldn’t listen to person X, it helps to positively encourage myself to engage with person Y or social environment A, that’s different and that these individuals were not a part of.
After a while, my mind didn’t bring them into the conversation, and I also changed the conversations I was having in my mind. Much better for it, very glad to “just not care” what they thought.
Oh, I notice that I also have done this sort of thing with a bunch of recent tv/films/content.
There’s a habit of modern content that, when it gets politicized, will “mimic argument”. It will pretend to show sincere dialogue and debate, but it will fully swing the deck against one side and in favor of the other, and straightforwardly imply that the other side is unethical.
I can watch political art that I disagree with, I can even put up with good art that has bad political art inside of it, but when it attempts to distort what good faith dialogue is in order to win an argument, I just turn it off. I don’t want to simulate that character/perspective or have a dialogue with them/it in my head.[1]
I can immediately think of four times I’ve done this with shows/content I otherwise greatly enjoyed and admire. I just don’t want to learn to simulate them.
———
[1] Writing this out, I realize it’s straightforward darkside epistemology.
Maybe that is one way how entertainment manipulates public opinion: By creating memorable (=easily emulable) characters that become shoulder ‘influencers’ that promote the official narrative right in the heads of the populace.
I would love an example, though I realize there are several reasons you might not want to put one out there!
Okay, because you asked AllAmericanBreakfast. Though I am not likely to follow-up discuss the specifics of each. Recent examples include the last season of Brooklyn Nine Nine and Bo Burnham’s “Inside”.
Thanks!
The “before” state you describe, where you find yourself having arguments with stubborn advisors who refuse to change their minds, reminds me strongly of rumination.
I say this because it’s something I’m working on to get out of. I’ll sometimes find myself engaged in a pretty adversarial discussion about what boils down to my boundaries and be unable to fall asleep for a few hours. And it’s usually the same cast of characters. I’ve found that I can consciously jump out of it by reminding myself that I’m merely burning energy without changing reality in any way. But I usually have to do this a few times before the “bad advisor” finally quiets down.
Do bad shoulder advisors feel like rumination to you?
That sounds right.