War Room Lounge v135: Accidental Meme Thread Click

[Lead]

The thing is, a lot of rightists really believe that that's what other people think. So if you're coming from that perspective, it seems very believable. But actual leftists and liberals don't really think like that so it was an obvious forgery. Same thing happens with all the people who say that they used to be liberal. They can't fake it effectively because they don't actually get in the heads of people who disagree with them. I think it would be a good exercise to try to post as someone you disagree with in a way that they'd genuinely agree with--not trolling or satire, but a real ideological Turing Test.

This is just a broad statement and not directed at LC.

One thing I think is very important is you shouldn’t get the majority of your information about another persons viewpoint from someone who doesn’t actually share that viewpoint. Like even if Ben Shapiro was trying to be as fair and honest as possible when describing x pundit/ politician, he usually isn’t going to be able to explain their views and reasoning behind those views better than the person doing it themselves. So if I gather all my information about what liberals think and believe from conservative pundits/ writers, it’s going to get skewed quickly. You should get an understanding from those people first so you know the real argument they are putting forward (and possibly why), then you can look at the counterpoints pundits/ writers make toward that person and be able to determine if that’s a fair critique or not. I see a lot of people get it backwards. They listen to sources they like the opinion of and expect that place to give an accurate view of what others believe. It’s one of the greatest dangers of an echo chamber. I’d say more than half of the material I take in is from people I don’t agree with ideologically and I’ve benefited a lot from it. Not necessarily cause it’s going to change my viewpoint but because I get a sense of the larger picture and where the real fault lines are rather than the artificial stuff that gets used a lot in headlines.

 

[Lead]

The thing is, a lot of rightists really believe that that's what other people think. So if you're coming from that perspective, it seems very believable. But actual leftists and liberals don't really think like that so it was an obvious forgery. Same thing happens with all the people who say that they used to be liberal. They can't fake it effectively because they don't actually get in the heads of people who disagree with them. I think it would be a good exercise to try to post as someone you disagree with in a way that they'd genuinely agree with--not trolling or satire, but a real ideological Turing Test.

Also, I tried something like this at one point called steelman an opposing posters viewpoint. I didn’t flesh out the idea well enough so it kinda went nowhere but there’s gotta be a good way of pulling it off.

 

[JDragon]

This is just a broad statement and not directed at LC.

One thing I think is very important is you shouldn’t get the majority of your information about another persons viewpoint from someone who doesn’t actually share that viewpoint. Like even if Ben Shapiro was trying to be as fair and honest as possible when describing x pundit/ politician, he usually isn’t going to be able to explain their views and reasoning behind those views better than the person doing it themselves. So if I gather all my information about what liberals think and believe from conservative pundits/ writers, it’s going to get skewed quickly. You should get an understanding from those people first so you know the real argument they are putting forward (and possibly why), then you can look at the counterpoints pundits/ writers make toward that person and be able to determine if that’s a fair critique or not. I see a lot of people get it backwards. They listen to sources they like the opinion of and expect that place to give an accurate view of what others believe. It’s one of the greatest dangers of an echo chamber. I’d say more than half of the material I take in is from people I don’t agree with ideologically and I’ve benefited a lot from it. Not necessarily cause it’s going to change my viewpoint but because I get a sense of the larger picture and where the real fault lines are rather than the artificial stuff that gets used a lot in headlines.

Dude

Do you even format

 

[Higus]

Really? I always thought studies show that this actually happens the other way around. Jonathan Haidt's research, for one, indicates that conservatives are much better at predicting and understanding liberals than vice versa. I'll admit that I haven't studied this issue intensely, but as far as I know his scholarship on the issue leads the field.

Bolded: it would be helpful if "conservatives" had a coherent and consistent world view.

 

[Pseudo Sane]

I don't think you read my comment carefully enough. Here it is again:

"The thing is, a lot of rightists really believe that that's what other people think. So if you're coming from that perspective, it seems very believable. But actual leftists and liberals don't really think like that so it was an obvious forgery. Same thing happens with all the people who say that they used to be liberal. They can't fake it effectively because they don't actually get in the heads of people who disagree with them. I think it would be a good exercise to try to post as someone you disagree with in a way that they'd genuinely agree with--not trolling or satire, but a real ideological Turing Test."

I read the Righteous Mind, and while he discusses something that touches on my comment, it's distinct.

I like it. I'd be willing to do it. Not sure what position you think it would test, though. I again think you're misreading something.

Is the distinction that you are you using 'rightist' as something other than a synonym for conservative? I'm afraid your point elides me.

I took your claim to be that rightists have a poor mental model of liberal and leftist thought, and thus fall for obvious forgeries. This is obviously true in this particular instance, but says nothing about whether this general human weakness is more prevalent among liberals or conservatives.

One of the most interesting conclusions from Haidt's research, in my mind, is that conservatives actually have a better mental model of liberals than liberals do of conservatives, which to my mind is a direct counter to your point, that you haven't really addressed.

If I'm missing your actual position, I hope you'll clarify.

Any ideas for a fun topic to write on? @JDragon seems interested as well.

 

[Pseudo Sane]

This is just a broad statement and not directed at LC.

One thing I think is very important is you shouldn’t get the majority of your information about another persons viewpoint from someone who doesn’t actually share that viewpoint. Like even if Ben Shapiro was trying to be as fair and honest as possible when describing x pundit/ politician, he usually isn’t going to be able to explain their views and reasoning behind those views better than the person doing it themselves. So if I gather all my information about what liberals think and believe from conservative pundits/ writers, it’s going to get skewed quickly. You should get an understanding from those people first so you know the real argument they are putting forward (and possibly why), then you can look at the counterpoints pundits/ writers make toward that person and be able to determine if that’s a fair critique or not. I see a lot of people get it backwards. They listen to sources they like the opinion of and expect that place to give an accurate view of what others believe. It’s one of the greatest dangers of an echo chamber. I’d say more than half of the material I take in is from people I don’t agree with ideologically and I’ve benefited a lot from it. Not necessarily cause it’s going to change my viewpoint but because I get a sense of the larger picture and where the real fault lines are rather than the artificial stuff that gets used a lot in headlines.

Lead, give me back my likes so I can like this.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

lol

 

[Pseudo Sane]

Bolded: it would be helpful if "conservatives" had a coherent and consistent world view.

Ironically, Haidt's point is that they do, just arising from different premises that are not shared with liberals. In particular, loyalty, authority, and sanctity.

I would strong suggest reading the Righteous Mind, which @Jack V Savage mentioned. You might learn something interesting.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is just a broad statement and not directed at LC.

One thing I think is very important is you shouldn’t get the majority of your information about another persons viewpoint from someone who doesn’t actually share that viewpoint. Like even if Ben Shapiro was trying to be as fair and honest as possible when describing x pundit/ politician, he usually isn’t going to be able to explain their views and reasoning behind those views better than the person doing it themselves. So if I gather all my information about what liberals think and believe from conservative pundits/ writers, it’s going to get skewed quickly. You should get an understanding from those people first so you know the real argument they are putting forward (and possibly why), then you can look at the counterpoints pundits/ writers make toward that person and be able to determine if that’s a fair critique or not. I see a lot of people get it backwards. They listen to sources they like the opinion of and expect that place to give an accurate view of what others believe. It’s one of the greatest dangers of an echo chamber. I’d say more than half of the material I take in is from people I don’t agree with ideologically and I’ve benefited a lot from it. Not necessarily cause it’s going to change my viewpoint but because I get a sense of the larger picture and where the real fault lines are rather than the artificial stuff that gets used a lot in headlines.

I agree with all that. Another thing I'd add is that it hurts your understanding to read real idiots you disagree with because you could fall back on just thinking that that's all there is on the other side. Scott Alexander (sigh, @Tycho Brah) was the first to introduce to me "weak men," which are like strawmen but they're real. It's a big world, and you can find real people to espouse every stupid idea you can imagine, but by giving a disproportionate voice to the crazies on the other side, you get a distorted idea of what the good ones think.

 

[Pseudo Sane]

Also, I tried something like this at one point called steelman an opposing posters viewpoint. I didn’t flesh out the idea well enough so it kinda went nowhere but there’s gotta be a good way of pulling it off.

Speaking of steelmen, did anyone else see that Slatestarcodex has gone under due to the NY Times threatening to doxx Scott Alexander in an upcoming article?

 

[Possum Jenkins]

He doesn't give a shit. @Lord Coke is as disingenuous as they come.

I mean, he's a Federalist society lawyer ffs.

Stop everything, a lawyer fell for that one?? A real one, or the Amerikuracana type?

In other news, the Mythbusters: Black Fatherhood thread is going about as well as you'd expect it to go simply by reading the title of the thread.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

We need a left leaning mod to shit post in threads involving race , you know , to even things out ....

 

[Limbo Pete]

This is a tired tactic from right wingers here and elsewhere. I've seen it applied to Barry, to Limbo Pete, to Rational Poster, to KONG, and to plenty of other posters. If one of those posters is ever not in the mood to post with the utmost seriousness, and they make a flippant insult or gif post, the argument is that they're identical to other right wing trolls that only make hollow shit posts. But then if they're a particularly severe poster or one that only posts quality, they get ragged on for not being able to take a joke, treating a message board too seriously, etc.

Oh yeah, i've gotten that a lot over the years lol. Greoric in particular tried really really hard to make it stick.
They never learn.

 

[Sara]

Is anyone else having dry skin flare ups right now? I haven’t had patches this bad on my elbows, knees, hands since I was a child.

 

[JDragon]

Is anyone else having dry skin flare ups right now? I haven’t had patches this bad on my elbows, knees, hands since I was a child.

@senri

 

[Lead]

Dude

Do you even format

Not that it’s any better on desktop but I tend to just type out everything on mobile without considering format. It also auto corrects poorly and I choose to not reread what I typed out. It’s a small phone, man.

Lead, give me back my likes so I can like this.

I actually enjoyed that Haidt book as well. Have you read Klein’s why we are polarized? It really gets into the central divide being population density which is something I’ve suspected for quite awhile. You can reasonably determine why someone would agree/ oppose most issues usually if they lived in a city vs the woods.

 

[Higus]

Ironically, Haidt's point is that they do, just arising from different premises that are not shared with liberals. In particular, loyalty, authority, and sanctity.

I would strong suggest reading the Righteous Mind, which @Jack V Savage mentioned. You might learn something interesting.

I'll take a look into it. I have to say that the conservative mind is highly susceptible to doublethink, though. When someone believes things that are in contradiction with another and doesn't have a problem with the dissonance, it becomes extremely difficult to take them at their word. Hence the gap in understanding.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Its when someone takes a contrarian position that is vague enough so that they "win" the argument no matter who comes on top. The actual subject is irrelevant to the person using the tactic, since their goal is to "win" rather than exchange ideas. It's Mick's default mode.

Oh shit yeah that's his bread and butter strategy alright lmao

 

[Sara]

@senri

I’d prefer serious responses......

 

[JDragon]

Not that it’s any better on desktop but I tend to just type out everything on mobile without considering format. It also auto corrects poorly and I choose to not reread what I typed out. It’s a small phone, man.

I am 98% on phone here, but I have discovered this funny key that starts a new paragraph.