Are you sure you are not doing an unjustified pattern-completion here? The picture you paint of feminazi brownshirts winning their battles thru mass action and moral bullying may apply to places like Overcoming Bias where Robin Hanson periodically trips over his tongue (or whatever). I don’t see it as even close to the truth here on LW.
Here, the relative numbers are so disproportionate that the bullying goes in the opposite direction. Any woman who would react with instinctive moral outrage at, say, a suggestion of inherent sexual differences in aptitudes or attitudes, … any such woman has been driven elsewhere. Here, even rational women, who are willing to discuss the facts, but insist on evidence (rather than pop evo psych rationalizations), are attacked by packs of boars.
On the contrary, I wasn’t talking about ideological extremists at all, but about regular decent people who don’t have any dishonest motive whatsoever, but merely carry a widespread bias in the form of developing an instinctive reaction that makes further rational discussion impossible whenever a conversation about certain topics deviates from what is considered the mainstream respectable view in our culture.
My observation about politics and ideology in general is that in our society, one of the main mechanisms by which ideologies establish dominance is the development of such reactions among wide swaths of the population, which then places any opponents in the position where they have no realistic chance of having their arguments heard and evaluated fairly. If one happens to be among the people in whom the propensity for such reactions has been instilled by the education, media, etc., it is by no means a sign of dishonesty or a personality defect, merely of cognitive bias.
I wasn’t talking about ideological extremists at all
Neither was I actually. The language of American political discourse has become so polarized that a term like “feminazi” no longer denotes an extremist—it merely denotes someone the speaker disagrees with.
… an instinctive reaction that makes further rational discussion impossible whenever a conversation about certain topics deviates from what is considered the mainstream respectable view in our culture.
I’m curious. Do you think that this cognitive bias is only possible in defense of the “mainstream respectable view” or is it also possible to develop this cognitive bias in defense of a “minority subculture view”?
Have you, yourself, ever found yourself victim to this kind of cognitive bias?
I’m curious. Do you think that this cognitive bias is only possible in defense of the “mainstream respectable view” or is it also possible to develop this cognitive bias in defense of a “minority subculture view”?
Of course it’s possible. Many contrarian groups develop their own internal strangely inverted forms of political correctness, to the point where someone among them who suggests that there might me some merit to a mainstream view after all will be faced with mindless outrage and personal attacks. I’ve seen this happen in various contrarian online venues.
Have you, yourself, ever found yourself victim to this kind of cognitive bias?
In the past, yes, but I do try actively to overcome this sort of thing. (For example, by regularly reading stuff written by people whose positions are radically opposed to my own ones, and who are openly hostile to various groups I happen to belong to.)
I do try actively to overcome this sort of thing. (For example, by regularly reading stuff written by people whose positions are radically opposed to my own ones, and who are openly hostile to various groups I happen to belong to.)
Sounds like a good practice. I sometimes do this sort of thing myself. But sometimes I find myself reading simply to find the flaws, rather than reading to understand the PoV. Do you have any suggestions to avoid this trap?
But sometimes I find myself reading simply to find the flaws, rather than reading to understand the PoV. Do you have any suggestions to avoid this trap?
One interesting exercise is to imagine that you’re explaining the issue to a space alien, and try hard to avoid imagining that alien as excessively similar to yourself.
Well, imagine you’re reading something you radically disagree with, perhaps even getting angry and offended in the process, but then you wonder if maybe you’ve been reading it in a biased way, eagerly looking for flaws while failing to consider the arguments seriously. Then you imagine that a space alien visits you at that moment, who is altogether ignorant of humans and their ways but interested in them in an anthropological sort of way, and asks what exactly the disagreement is about and why you believe that this stuff you’re reading is so wrong.
The key is to avoid unintentionally assuming that the alien shares a lot of your knowledge and presumptions. If you can come up with a coherent explanation under these assumptions, chances are you’ve gone a long way towards actually understanding the opponent’s point of view, rather than just dismissing it in an instinctive and biased way.
I’m curious. Do you think that this cognitive bias is only possible in defense of the “mainstream respectable view” or is it also possible to develop this cognitive bias in defense of a “minority subculture view”?
It tends to relate to whichever culture you are currently trying to affiliate yourself to. I’ve known people with a particular ability in well defined compartnentalisation who can comfortably and sincerely maintain contradictory biasses depending on location and present company.
Are you sure you are not doing an unjustified pattern-completion here? The picture you paint of feminazi brownshirts winning their battles thru mass action and moral bullying may apply to places like Overcoming Bias where Robin Hanson periodically trips over his tongue (or whatever). I don’t see it as even close to the truth here on LW.
Here, the relative numbers are so disproportionate that the bullying goes in the opposite direction. Any woman who would react with instinctive moral outrage at, say, a suggestion of inherent sexual differences in aptitudes or attitudes, … any such woman has been driven elsewhere. Here, even rational women, who are willing to discuss the facts, but insist on evidence (rather than pop evo psych rationalizations), are attacked by packs of boars.
On the contrary, I wasn’t talking about ideological extremists at all, but about regular decent people who don’t have any dishonest motive whatsoever, but merely carry a widespread bias in the form of developing an instinctive reaction that makes further rational discussion impossible whenever a conversation about certain topics deviates from what is considered the mainstream respectable view in our culture.
My observation about politics and ideology in general is that in our society, one of the main mechanisms by which ideologies establish dominance is the development of such reactions among wide swaths of the population, which then places any opponents in the position where they have no realistic chance of having their arguments heard and evaluated fairly. If one happens to be among the people in whom the propensity for such reactions has been instilled by the education, media, etc., it is by no means a sign of dishonesty or a personality defect, merely of cognitive bias.
Neither was I actually. The language of American political discourse has become so polarized that a term like “feminazi” no longer denotes an extremist—it merely denotes someone the speaker disagrees with.
I’m curious. Do you think that this cognitive bias is only possible in defense of the “mainstream respectable view” or is it also possible to develop this cognitive bias in defense of a “minority subculture view”?
Have you, yourself, ever found yourself victim to this kind of cognitive bias?
Perplexed:
Of course it’s possible. Many contrarian groups develop their own internal strangely inverted forms of political correctness, to the point where someone among them who suggests that there might me some merit to a mainstream view after all will be faced with mindless outrage and personal attacks. I’ve seen this happen in various contrarian online venues.
In the past, yes, but I do try actively to overcome this sort of thing. (For example, by regularly reading stuff written by people whose positions are radically opposed to my own ones, and who are openly hostile to various groups I happen to belong to.)
Sounds like a good practice. I sometimes do this sort of thing myself. But sometimes I find myself reading simply to find the flaws, rather than reading to understand the PoV. Do you have any suggestions to avoid this trap?
Perplexed:
One interesting exercise is to imagine that you’re explaining the issue to a space alien, and try hard to avoid imagining that alien as excessively similar to yourself.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand. What am I explaining to the alien? How does that exercise help me to benefit from reading stuff that I disagree with?
Well, imagine you’re reading something you radically disagree with, perhaps even getting angry and offended in the process, but then you wonder if maybe you’ve been reading it in a biased way, eagerly looking for flaws while failing to consider the arguments seriously. Then you imagine that a space alien visits you at that moment, who is altogether ignorant of humans and their ways but interested in them in an anthropological sort of way, and asks what exactly the disagreement is about and why you believe that this stuff you’re reading is so wrong.
The key is to avoid unintentionally assuming that the alien shares a lot of your knowledge and presumptions. If you can come up with a coherent explanation under these assumptions, chances are you’ve gone a long way towards actually understanding the opponent’s point of view, rather than just dismissing it in an instinctive and biased way.
It tends to relate to whichever culture you are currently trying to affiliate yourself to. I’ve known people with a particular ability in well defined compartnentalisation who can comfortably and sincerely maintain contradictory biasses depending on location and present company.