What should really differ a “Progressive” from a “Conservative”?
Please note: this post has a joke, to skip the post and go
directly to the joke just scroll down!
“Republicans are against science!”
“Republicans consider ignorance to be a bliss!”
“Republicans do not want people to learn”
“Democrats represent the completely opposite approach to
knowledge, to science, to education!”
OK.
Let us assume that
all those statements are correct.
In that case, this is a very important piece of knowledge every
politically active knowledge-lover should have:
emotions always cloud our decision, and in too many cases
emotions govern our decision.
A quote from Wikipedia (or you can Google “How emotions affect
decisions” and chose whatever source you like): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_bias
“An emotional bias is a distortion in cognition and decision
making due to emotional factors.
That is, a person will be usually inclined
· to believe something that has a positive emotional effect,
that gives a pleasant feeling, even if there is evidence to the contrary.
· to be reluctant to accept hard facts that are unpleasant and
give mental suffering.”
In simple words, it means that when we hear or read something,
and if it makes us feel “bad”, especially if we start feeling “bad about
ourselves” we tend to reject whatever we hear or read (and v-v).
At first, our brain makes the emotional judgement – “this is
bad”, and then immediately follows a “logical” one – “this is wrong’. The
emotional judgement happens deep inside in our mind, uncontrollably, subconsciously,
and the rest of the energy is being used to develop a “logical” support around
it.
Ten years ago, such knowledge would have been available only to
a very tight circle of researchers in the field. Today anyone can easily find
it on the Internet.
Of course, not everyone needs to have this particular knowledge.
I would suggest, however, that people who make certain claims
about other people statements (in person, or on Facebook), need to be able to
go beyond just “I like it”, or “I don’t like it”. Especially people who see
themselves as the opposite of “those so much hated, stupid, ignorant
Republicans”.
Because, anyone who does just one thing – provides an emotional
judgement, but cannot offer nothing more to support it, or to logically
disprove the opposite statement – is not really different in his or her
actions, approaches, tactics from “those so much hated, stupid, ignorant
Republicans”.
The true difference is not in the ideals and beliefs, but in the
actions undertaken for supporting those ideals and beliefs.
And again, all I want to do is to point at writings on the mater
provided by very smart people.
Karl Popper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper) is
one of those people. One of his famous books “The Open Society and Its Enemies”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies) presents
a detailed account on how good ideas may lead to bad social results.
In short, when people accept an idea of some “ideal world”
without any critical analysis, i.e. dogmatically, eventually they tend to
reject every other idea which is incoherent with the “big idea”, and people who
offer other ideas become treated as wrong, and as the enemies of the “ideal
world” (and those people are needed to be destroyed).
I know, this is a gross simplification of the Popper’s views,
but good enough to make a point.
In the end, the true big difference between people with
different political views is not the views they have, but – if they treat those
views dogmatically, or if they allow some critical reasoning.
So, if anyone writes on Facebook (or anywhere else): “I don’t
like this!” - that is absolutely fine. But if that statement is related to a
potential political action (not about food, clothes, etc.), a responsible Democrat
should be able to add “Because of 1, 2, 3, ...”
Similarly, if anyone writes on Facebook (or anywhere else): “I
like this!” that is also absolutely fine. But if that statement is related to a
potential political action, a responsible Democrat should also be able to add
“Because of 1, 2, 3, ...”
But developing and laying out logical arguments (a.k.a.
reasoning) is as a job as any other job – requires a certain amount of
practicing. The first step is just to start trying (like the first step to
learn how to ride a bicycle is to start riding a bicycle). People who do that,
propel themselves beyond just emotional judgement. But not everyone wants to do
that (although – everyone CAN!).
Some time ago I had a Facebook chat with a lady, who attended a
so called “Resistance School” (https://www.resistanceschool.com/). Long story short, eventually I asked her to write to me and everyone else one
page of the summary from what she learned with a focus on what mistakes have
been done in 2016 (according to her, it was covered in the “school”). At this
point she told me that she needs to take care of kids, family, job, and she has
no time for doing this. Since she has time to drive to the “school”, listen to
the speakers, talk to other participants, drive back, and then chat about it on
Facebook, I assumed that she rather did not want to do it (“no time” is just an
excuse). I do understand that for the lady, attending the “school” plaid a very
important role by giving her an emotional support, by having her being surrounded
by people with similar views, by helping her to make sense from the 2016 loss
and the current politics. But a small extra step, like writing one summary
page, would make this whole experience even more valuable, more practical, more
actionable (BTW: a true school always assigns homework! Since the videos are
freely available at some point I will listen to them, usually I use a traffic
jam for this purpose).
The willingness to make that extra step, to go beyond an
emotional judgement, and to offer some reasoning to support his or her opinion
(or to dismantle somebody else’s opinion) – that is what (in my view) separates
a true Progressive from a Conservative.
So, I spent hours, and I wrote a long post about the importance
of reasoning in politics. What’s in it for me?
There is a joke I learned many years ago
when I was a physics undergrad.
Scientists study if monkeys can solve problems. In a big glass
cage they planted a tree and placed a banana on a top branch. A monkey enters
the cage and sees the banana. It jumps, but the banana is too high. It tries to
clime the tree, but there is a very slippery plastic wrap around it. It looks
around, finds a long stick and uses it to hit the banana down. Success! Then
the researchers prepare the tree for the next experiment, place the banana on a
top branch, but leave for a lunch. A hungry physics student sees the banana. He
jumps, but the banana is too high. He tries to clime the tree, but there is a
very slippery plastic wrap around it. The student starts shaking the tree, but
the banana does not fall down. The researches come back from a lunch and see a
student shaking a tree. After watching for a while one guy says via the
intercom: “Hey, have you tried to think?” And the student says: “I’m not
stupid. F@#k thinking! Just has to shake it harder!”
When I read something like: “Senator Sanders is on a tour!
Donate $3!” I always remember that joke.
I fail to see the logical connection between the two parts of
the statement. Does Senator Sanders need some extra money to buy airplane
tickets, or to rent a car, or to stay in a hotel? It looks to me that people
who sent this email think that I am no smarter than the student in the joke.
All they want from me is “keep shaking”.
However, when I look at the current state of affairs, to me it
looks that the Democrats (most of the top ones) are just “keep shaking a tree”.
In 2016 I trusted in the ability of the top Democrats to see the
social, economic, and political landscape of the Country, and to design the
appropriate strategy. Close to the October I started having deep doubts,
because the whole campaign has been built on a trivial slogan: “Trump is bad! I
am good!”. I knew that that would not work; and I was not the only one, for
example, Michael Moor and Bill Maher expressed similar views. But no one at the
top wanted to hear anything different from their own views. And Trump won.
“Fool me once, shame on you”, right? The thing is I do not want
to be fooled the second time. I lost my trust in the ability of the Democratic
party leaders to design the correct strategy to win next elections. But I still
have a hope they may come around. My hope is thinning every day.
All I hear is “We will fight!” I have no doubts in that. I have
doubts when I hear “We will win!”
Well, Democrats, you did not win the last time. And you treat
your loss like nothing special, like one pro-football team lost another one.
In realty, your loss is like a pro-football team lost to a bunch
of guys who has never plaid football and who just has met each other. And you
are trying to make an impression that nothing went wrong, it was just a
fluctuation. “Look, we won the popular vote!” Yes, you did, which means you
could have won the whole thing, BUT you did not, which makes things even worse
for your ability to deliver.
In 2016 Democrats did not use the money wisely (http://gomars.xyz/op.html#why). They dreamed that people would see how bad Trump was and would not vote for
him. Now they dream that people would see how bad Trump really is and will not
vote for him. So, six months passed since the election day, but the Democratic
leadership has not offered ANYTHING new in its strategy.
I do not believe that a complicated problem has a simple
solution. I do not trust people who say that. And I definitely do not trust
people who failed but do not want to talk about it.
Democrats, if you could not do it right in 2016, and keep doing
old same old same in 2017, why would I give you any money? You will lose again,
anyway!
For years, I have been voting democratic but remained an
independent. A couple of weeks after Trump won I registered as a Democrat. I
did not do it because I liked the Democrats. On the contrary, I did it because
I did not like the way they acted in 2016 elections and wanted to see from the
inside if the new leadership would show the signs of being able to make changes
the party needs.
SO, I am observing, and thinking, and writing, and waiting.
If I will not see from the leadership clear signs that they know
how to win the next elections (and I need a proof!), I will be doing what
millions of people have done on November 9, 2016 – switching to the third
party.
And yes, top Democrats – this IS a threat.
And yes – there are millions of us who are not trusting in just
slogans (I am just a sample from that army), and whose vote will decide the
next elections.
And the next.
And
the next.
How do I KNOWit?
I reason! http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/04/3dparty.html
If Democrats will not be capable of being true Progressives (in
time to 2018 elections), people who make decisions using logical arguments will
have to put their efforts together and form a new, the first truly third,
political party (I hope you would also read other posts available on the blog).
P.S. This is a link to a nice example of an exchange “logic” vs.
“who are you?:
or another video from Ben. Shapiro:
http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/11/disinformation.html
http://the3dforce.blogspot.com/2017/11/disinformation.html
P.P.S. some introduction into practice of arguing:
or
P.P.S. FYI - when I write what I think, I do not want to make
every reader to agree with me, or to switch someone into thinking like me. All
I want is to find people who (a) have similar views and willing to express it,
or (b) have different views and willing to offer a reasonable critique of my
ideas. People who just call me names do not affect me.
