Yes, I know. It has been a while, and I apologize. I've been having an up-and-down kind of year, and I'm trying to get back on track. Bear with me on this one.
I know that sometimes Heinlein's Razor is referred to as Hanlon's Razor, but since I'm a Heinlein fan, I prefer his phraseology. It goes as such:
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice.
I am also aware that Napoleon said something similar. Moving on. The point I am trying to make is that we have entered an age of hysteria.
I like to follow conservative blogs for US politics, and I read both the National Post and the Globe and Mail. I have noticed, of late, that "polarization" is an inadequate term to describe political behaviour. Tribalism is probably a more accurate term. Both conservatives and "progressives", or modern liberals, attribute heretofore unseen degrees of malice to their opponents.
I'm sure you've seen it: a conservative politician proposes some kind of cut, and liberals respond "Why do you hate [insert identity group here]?!". The same is true when a liberal proposes a new spending plan, to which conservatives respond "You are a closet [insert historical enemy here], seeking to destroy our glorious [insert pre-established notional system here] !!!!". Both sides believe the other is wrong, but not merely wrong but deliberately and maliciously plotting some kind of catastrophe. For examples of both, you need merely read Mother Jones or The Other McCain. This is not to say that neither side has valid points, merely that their methods of communication drown out their logic.
It gets worse, and my own brother and I both fell victim to its casual pervasiveness. In an exchange regarding the sequester, we calmly traded views segued to what I choose to call, barring his wish that I not, "Kay's Law". Kay wrote an excellent book on conspiracy theorists, and in one chapter noted that inevitably one group will cite some shadowy cabal as being responsible for evils. My brother cited the Koch Brothers, and I George Soros. In applying the old adage of Cui Bono, my brother and I, absent any proof, ascribed irrational political behaviour to the sinister manoeuvrings of established boogeymen.
And here lies the tribalism: we have otherized those with whom we disagree. Fear not, brave reader. I will not foray into Nathan Cullen style schoolmarmish laments for courtesy in discourse. I am too ruthless by half. This is merely a reinforcement of my previous post about Slut Walks. The average voter is Low Information. They are fatigued with the games, and yet still get that little hardwired shot of adrenaline brought on by political jousting. This can lead to some effective campaigning, but you fall into an old debating trap. If your straw man is too easily set alight by a motivated and eloquent commentator, your subsequent arguments are tarred by the sameatrociously mixed metaphor brush.
To wit: Donald Trump, a ludicrous character, continues to cleave to the bizarre ideal that President Barack Obama is a secret Marxist/Kenyan/Muslim/Communist. Knock one of these easily disproved concepts down, and the whole argument is invalid. Dan Rather destroyed his otherwise legendary career when he foolishly promoted the idea that President GW Bush had never actually served in the Air National Guard. His point, that President Bush had overly burnished his weak martial bona fides, may have been valid. His point also became irrelevant when his opponents produced documentation. "False, but accurate" wins you no points in our litigious society. Even Bob Woodward has fallen victim, with his claim that the White House strong-armed him being downgraded to "White House staffers were mean to My Journalistic Majesty".
Alas, I cannot provide a cure. Fallacies are fallacies because they are easy to choose as a default. I suppose superior voter education would be one prescription, but this would be a massive program. Perhaps a daily dose of Conrad Black would be a good start, but then I am biased in favour of those who can teach me new words (or new context for old words).
Humans are tribal, and this will not change. One would merely, and rather immodestly, hope that somehow a young turk political analyst will read this post and realize that his or her boss is senselessly alienating the essential swing voter through poor persuasion. Now discuss!
I know that sometimes Heinlein's Razor is referred to as Hanlon's Razor, but since I'm a Heinlein fan, I prefer his phraseology. It goes as such:
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice.
I am also aware that Napoleon said something similar. Moving on. The point I am trying to make is that we have entered an age of hysteria.
I like to follow conservative blogs for US politics, and I read both the National Post and the Globe and Mail. I have noticed, of late, that "polarization" is an inadequate term to describe political behaviour. Tribalism is probably a more accurate term. Both conservatives and "progressives", or modern liberals, attribute heretofore unseen degrees of malice to their opponents.
I'm sure you've seen it: a conservative politician proposes some kind of cut, and liberals respond "Why do you hate [insert identity group here]?!". The same is true when a liberal proposes a new spending plan, to which conservatives respond "You are a closet [insert historical enemy here], seeking to destroy our glorious [insert pre-established notional system here] !!!!". Both sides believe the other is wrong, but not merely wrong but deliberately and maliciously plotting some kind of catastrophe. For examples of both, you need merely read Mother Jones or The Other McCain. This is not to say that neither side has valid points, merely that their methods of communication drown out their logic.
It gets worse, and my own brother and I both fell victim to its casual pervasiveness. In an exchange regarding the sequester, we calmly traded views segued to what I choose to call, barring his wish that I not, "Kay's Law". Kay wrote an excellent book on conspiracy theorists, and in one chapter noted that inevitably one group will cite some shadowy cabal as being responsible for evils. My brother cited the Koch Brothers, and I George Soros. In applying the old adage of Cui Bono, my brother and I, absent any proof, ascribed irrational political behaviour to the sinister manoeuvrings of established boogeymen.
And here lies the tribalism: we have otherized those with whom we disagree. Fear not, brave reader. I will not foray into Nathan Cullen style schoolmarmish laments for courtesy in discourse. I am too ruthless by half. This is merely a reinforcement of my previous post about Slut Walks. The average voter is Low Information. They are fatigued with the games, and yet still get that little hardwired shot of adrenaline brought on by political jousting. This can lead to some effective campaigning, but you fall into an old debating trap. If your straw man is too easily set alight by a motivated and eloquent commentator, your subsequent arguments are tarred by the same
To wit: Donald Trump, a ludicrous character, continues to cleave to the bizarre ideal that President Barack Obama is a secret Marxist/Kenyan/Muslim/Communist. Knock one of these easily disproved concepts down, and the whole argument is invalid. Dan Rather destroyed his otherwise legendary career when he foolishly promoted the idea that President GW Bush had never actually served in the Air National Guard. His point, that President Bush had overly burnished his weak martial bona fides, may have been valid. His point also became irrelevant when his opponents produced documentation. "False, but accurate" wins you no points in our litigious society. Even Bob Woodward has fallen victim, with his claim that the White House strong-armed him being downgraded to "White House staffers were mean to My Journalistic Majesty".
Alas, I cannot provide a cure. Fallacies are fallacies because they are easy to choose as a default. I suppose superior voter education would be one prescription, but this would be a massive program. Perhaps a daily dose of Conrad Black would be a good start, but then I am biased in favour of those who can teach me new words (or new context for old words).
Humans are tribal, and this will not change. One would merely, and rather immodestly, hope that somehow a young turk political analyst will read this post and realize that his or her boss is senselessly alienating the essential swing voter through poor persuasion. Now discuss!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.