I know I harp on this a lot. It’s because I think we can’t move ahead on much else without dealing with the “how”. This is one of the founders of Braver Angels. He doesn’t get into that until later. The first story, and he tells it in full, is how he came to be hated by the right and the left on the issue of gay marriage. It tracks the change in the political landscape over the last few decades. So, that gives the guy cred, in my book.
Later, and I’ll find the timestamp later, he mentions a common occurrence in Braver Angels workshops, where someone points out that they (themselves) make their decisions based on reason and evidenced and those other guys use their emotions. This happened to me, I was going to bring that up in the workshop I did, but then a conservative beat me to it. I was shocked. First that he thought that, since I’m sure he was wrong, but then that I thought that without ever attempting to query the guy as to what he knew, or how he arrived at his conclusion. If I did that work, I’m almost certain I’d still find him wrong, but if I want to reach him, get him to nuance his thoughts in the slightest, I’m not going to do that if I don’t do that work.
I am sure this is directly related to the Dunning-Ktuger effect, which describes how people tend to believe they are the smartest mind in the room.
Their ego often won’t allow them to accept that others are not necessarily smarter but are just better educated and just “know” more about a specific subject
The problem with that is that you don’t know what you do not know…
Not sure that’s a fit. I think we need another “effect”. I can’t vouch for this guy, because I only met him for a few hours, but he seemed to be fairly knowledgeable. There are also people who have achieved much more respect, who speak on these issues, and would agree with this guy. I have no problem disagreeing with a college professor in economics, but they would probably walk away saying Dunning-Kruger applied to me.
The “effect” of that intelligence is something that has been identified, that if you are smart, it’s easier to create an argument that is sound, and appears valid, but isn’t. Or as Feynmann said, it’s easiest to fool yourself. Dunning-Kruger can be overcome with facts, and simply shining the light on the person, getting them out of whatever dark corner they were in where they were validated.
What I’m pointing to, and this applies to anyone, no matter how much data they have in their heads, or how many of their theories have been confirmed, is the failure to recognize the experiences of whomever they are talking to. Throughout history, and we know it’s happening now, the expert opinion is functioning and the field is self-validating, but something is being missed.
Examples would be the opioid epidemic in rural America, while drug addiction in the cities had developed multiple pathways of treatment and recovery. Racism in the South was rampant and barely addressed until black people were called on to fight in WWII. Sexual abuse in churches and women’s athletics. All of these persist because we don’t listen to the story of the person who is having the experience because they don’t speak the academic language about their experience.
[quote=“lausten, post:3, topic:8476”]
Not sure that’s a fit. I think we need another “effect”. I can’t vouch for this guy, because I only met him for a few hours, but he seemed to be fairly knowledgeable.
Perhaps I was a little too judgemental, but I was a little irked by his presentation. That’s why I suggested a lack of dialogue/debating skills, rather that ignorance.
Note that he did not bother to flesh out or illustrate his interpretation, leaving us with a blanket statement without any real reference for comparison.
I’m going to go with the trend of resurrecting old threads.
This speech is from a couple of weeks ago. It was his “Presidential” role for the org, talking in broad terms about the work we do. He quotes Hannah Arendt, although I had trouble finding exact references. The part I want to highlight comes after the first hour and 5 minutes. He talks about Arendt’s observation that democracy needs conversation. It needs people who can’t fathom each others’ point of view to continue talking, listening. He relates it to Lincoln and to now.
My notes:
1:07:15 “Dark times do not stem from bad or stupid people”. Arendt. Or from circumstances. “Dark times stem from a collapse of public conversation. We can no longer communicate effectively with our fellow citizens about how we can live together as people who have something in common.”
“social vertigo” when people don’t feel connected by a common humanity
1:08 Jumps to Lincoln, “democracy is government by talk”, “when the talking ends, the only thing left to move your argument forward is force”. (Then David quotes the above Judge Tom)
1:10:12 Back to Arendt, “no longer willing participants in the civic discourse of friendships, people separate into identity groups often based on real or perceived shared grievances with each group pitted against the others.”
Unwilling to compromise. No accommodating for the sake of unity. Friendship is prior to accommodation, not its result. Without conversation there is no friendship, without friendship there is no trust, without trust there is no little or no chance for compromise.”
“The polarizers are still winning, but we’re gaining on them.”
