What if G1=BEP and G2=GEP and discussing outgroup irrationality is much easier than discussing ingroup irrationality? Now suppose G1 is significantly larger than G2, and perhaps even that discussing G1 is more relevant to G2 winning* and discussing G2 is more relevant to G1 winning. How is the situation going to look like for a member of G2 who’s visiting G1? How about if you mix the groups a bit? Is it wrong?
if you have a better suggestion for how to talk about it I’m listening.
You connotationally implied the behaviour you described to be wrong. Can you denotationally do that?
How is the situation going to look like for a member of G2 who’s visiting G1?
I expect a typical G2/GEP visiting a G1/BEP community in the scenario you describe, listening to the BEPs differentially characterizing GEPs as irrational in negative-value-laden ways, will feel excluded and unwelcome and quite possibly end up considering the BEP majority a threat to their ongoing wellbeing.
How about if you mix the groups a bit?
I assume you mean, what if G1 is mostly BEPs but has some GEPs as well? I expect most of G1′s GEP minority to react like the G2/GEP visitors above, though it depends on how self-selecting they are. I also expect them to develop a more accurate understanding of the real differences between BEPs and GEPs than they obtained from a simple visit. I also expect some of G1′s BEP majority to develop a similarly more-accurate understanding.
Is it wrong?
I would prefer a scenario that causes less exclusion and hostility than the above. How about you?
You connotationally implied the behaviour you described to be wrong. Can you denotationally do that?
I’m not sure.
As I said, I’m cautious about characterizing groups by their averages, because it leads me to characterize individuals differently based on the groups I tend to think of them as part of, rather than based on actual evidence, which often leads me to false conclusions.
I suspect this is true of most people, so I endorse others being cautious about it as well.
I would prefer a scenario that causes less exclusion and hostility than the above. How about you?
I definitely want less exclusion and hostility, but I’m not sure the above scenario causes them for all values like GEP and BEP, nor for all kinds of examples of their irrationality. Perhaps we’re assuming different values for the moving parts in the scenario, although we’re pretending to be objective.
Many articles here are based on real life examples and this makes them more interesting. This often means picking an outgroup and demonstrating how they’re irrational. To make things personal, I’d say health care has gotten it’s fair share, especially in the OB days. I never thought the problem was that my ingroup was disproportionally targeted, but I was more concerned about strawmen and the fact I couldn’t do much to correct them.
Would it have been better if I had not seen those articles? I don’t think so, since they contained important information about the authors’ biases. They also told me that perhaps characterizations of other groups here are relatively inaccurate too. Secret opinions cannot be intentionally changed. Had their opinions been muted, I would have received information only through inexplicable downvotes when talking about certain topics.
I’m not sure the above scenario causes them for all values like GEP and BEP
I’m not exactly sure what reference class you’re referring to, but I certainly agree that there exist groups in the above scenario for whom negligible amounts of exclusion and hostility are being created.
Perhaps we’re assuming different values for the moving parts in the scenario, although we’re pretending to be objective.
I don’t know what you intend for this sentence to mean.
Would it have been better if I had not seen those articles? I don’t think so, [..] Had their opinions been muted, I would have received information only through inexplicable downvotes when talking about certain topics.
I share your preferences among the choices you lay out here.
Specific ones? Not especially. But it’s hard to know how to respond when someone concludes that C1 is superior to C2 and I agree, but I have no idea what makes the set (C1, C2) interesting compared to (C3, C4, .., Cn).
I mean, I suppose I could have asked you why you chose those two options to discuss, but to be honest, this whole thread has started to feel like I’m trying to nail Jell-O to a tree, and I don’t feel like doing the additional work to do it effectively.
So I settled for agreeing with the claim, which I do in fact agree with.
I have no idea what makes the set (C1, C2) interesting
I find that difficult to believe.
I’m trying to nail Jell-O to a tree,
I suggest this is because all we had was Jell-O and nails in the first place, but of course there are also explanations (E1, E2, .., En) you might find more plausible :)
What if G1=BEP and G2=GEP and discussing outgroup irrationality is much easier than discussing ingroup irrationality? Now suppose G1 is significantly larger than G2, and perhaps even that discussing G1 is more relevant to G2 winning* and discussing G2 is more relevant to G1 winning. How is the situation going to look like for a member of G2 who’s visiting G1? How about if you mix the groups a bit? Is it wrong?
You connotationally implied the behaviour you described to be wrong. Can you denotationally do that?
*rationality is winning
I expect a typical G2/GEP visiting a G1/BEP community in the scenario you describe, listening to the BEPs differentially characterizing GEPs as irrational in negative-value-laden ways, will feel excluded and unwelcome and quite possibly end up considering the BEP majority a threat to their ongoing wellbeing.
I assume you mean, what if G1 is mostly BEPs but has some GEPs as well? I expect most of G1′s GEP minority to react like the G2/GEP visitors above, though it depends on how self-selecting they are. I also expect them to develop a more accurate understanding of the real differences between BEPs and GEPs than they obtained from a simple visit. I also expect some of G1′s BEP majority to develop a similarly more-accurate understanding.
I would prefer a scenario that causes less exclusion and hostility than the above.
How about you?
I’m not sure.
As I said, I’m cautious about characterizing groups by their averages, because it leads me to characterize individuals differently based on the groups I tend to think of them as part of, rather than based on actual evidence, which often leads me to false conclusions.
I suspect this is true of most people, so I endorse others being cautious about it as well.
I definitely want less exclusion and hostility, but I’m not sure the above scenario causes them for all values like GEP and BEP, nor for all kinds of examples of their irrationality. Perhaps we’re assuming different values for the moving parts in the scenario, although we’re pretending to be objective.
Many articles here are based on real life examples and this makes them more interesting. This often means picking an outgroup and demonstrating how they’re irrational. To make things personal, I’d say health care has gotten it’s fair share, especially in the OB days. I never thought the problem was that my ingroup was disproportionally targeted, but I was more concerned about strawmen and the fact I couldn’t do much to correct them.
Would it have been better if I had not seen those articles? I don’t think so, since they contained important information about the authors’ biases. They also told me that perhaps characterizations of other groups here are relatively inaccurate too. Secret opinions cannot be intentionally changed. Had their opinions been muted, I would have received information only through inexplicable downvotes when talking about certain topics.
I’m not exactly sure what reference class you’re referring to, but I certainly agree that there exist groups in the above scenario for whom negligible amounts of exclusion and hostility are being created.
I don’t know what you intend for this sentence to mean.
I share your preferences among the choices you lay out here.
You understood me correctly.
I meant it’s tempting to replace “eye colour” with something less neutral and “irrationality” with something more or less reliably insulting.
I bet you have other choices in mind.
Specific ones? Not especially. But it’s hard to know how to respond when someone concludes that C1 is superior to C2 and I agree, but I have no idea what makes the set (C1, C2) interesting compared to (C3, C4, .., Cn).
I mean, I suppose I could have asked you why you chose those two options to discuss, but to be honest, this whole thread has started to feel like I’m trying to nail Jell-O to a tree, and I don’t feel like doing the additional work to do it effectively.
So I settled for agreeing with the claim, which I do in fact agree with.
I find that difficult to believe.
I suggest this is because all we had was Jell-O and nails in the first place, but of course there are also explanations (E1, E2, .., En) you might find more plausible :)