I suppose I'll write this in english since I probably don't know the terminology in spanish to complete the thought. There was a recent dialog on facebook that occurred when I posted a link to a news story concerning the well-known conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh. the story itself was not political in nature; I posted it because it was a somewhat comical story with some silly comments about bears:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100916/cm_yblog_upshot/rush-limbaugh-falls-for-wikipedia-hoax
After posting this link, there was a comment made:
"the judge's wife doesn't "think you should be able to broadcast something nationally if you can't verify it" so I guess she really had something to say about Dan Rather's 60 Minutes hoax - and that was far more significant than Limbaugh getting his factoids wrong about some judge in Florida"
This was posted by someone I know to be fairly adamantly conservative in political thought. One of the first questions that came to mind was, why did he post that? what was the underlying incentive to give this commentary? the comment is clearly defensive, which means this person was offended in reading the news story, or otherwise spurred to add a "wrong" to the other side of the the justice scale to create balance (or as suggested in the comment, make the injustice of the offending party "far more significant"). Yet there seems another part of the train of thought behind the post. Sure, if you're a fan of Rush's talk show, or a patron of his political ideas, the story might sting a sensitive neuron or two in the "Rush can't possibly be that incompetent" region of the frontal lobe. Placing aside the main reason for which I posted the story, being to share a mildly amusing story involving the idea of bears instilling the fear of God, the most I extracted from it was that the guy was too hasty and, probably fueled by the excitement at posting another hateful jab at the opposing party for his listeners to enjoy, jumped the gun without checking the facts. But of course no one's perfect.
But why would he make a public post diverting whatever perceived offence he gave to himself to a story of someone else in hopes of over-justifying his own unsettledness on the matter? What gain is accomplished? He may have a valid point about this Dan fellow's case, how both sides may not get it right all the time. Frankly I don't know the guy, thus holding him in no disposition. So perhaps I'm asking the wrong question. Let's look at his post from a bit further back. Let's propose a few things. 1. He probably thought I had posted that as a political argument 2. He responded with a similar political argument (a two-wrongs argument, which are unresolvable, inconclusive, and unproductive). It seems a part of human nature that people don't like to be told they're wrong or to acknowledge evil in people in whom they place high regards. Perhaps that's what this person took offence at in the first place. His response shows a gap of association - he responded with the exact same thing that he hated. If he responded negatively to the idea of putting someone down that he might have regards for, why would he offer the same idea in his counter argument? Mostly people do this to "teach someone a lesson", either consciously or subconsciously: If I respond with an example of someone he probably holds in high regards, he'll know how I felt and then he'll think about that the next time he does that. To revert this thinking back upon one's own self is where the secret lies: Since I didn't like it when I read about a person I respect getting something wrong, maybe he won't like it either, and he might respond unfavorably as I did. A productive argument that is leading to a resolution with favorable dispositions on all sides involves many aspects associated with good teaching. The teacher must inspire the students to think about her teaching, and get them thinking of it on her level, regardless of whether they normally think on such level. Thus, though the parties may initially hold differing ideas, they will be able to clearly glimpse through the opposing eyes, and when all parties have done so with each-other, the resolution may be already running through the minds of everyone present, and the end is usually so much closer to view. Hence a productive argument must inspire a favorable disposition in the opposing parties. That's why blaming others is a frowned-upon policy - it tends to cause others to defend against the accusation and be offended at the accusing party. We can connect the following: offence leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate (being a very powerful emotion) tends to affect the reasoning and empathizing abilities (and also leads to suffering - thanks yoda), which destroys progress.
It would seem that this ability to introvert the reactionary "teach a lesson" mindset takes a certain characteristic, or set of them. I propose that a main factor is empathy. Empathy, part of the "what if I had to face the same problems" mindset, might inspire the "If someone did that bad thing to me, I wouldn't like it" type of thinking. It also allows one to identify certain things that are good and bad about one's behavior by examining different reactions and circumstances separately and asking why they did what they did.
Let me give an example. Why do people who hate communism hate communism? I imagine it's from all the evil that's resulted in corrupted leadership in previous attempts to run a communist state, like China. Why do people (besides corrupt leadership) who like communism like it? it has a very strong appeal - even out the classes. To the majority of people, especially in countries with a very large low-class or mid-low class, this is a very appealing idea because it most likely means (according to the ideology) that your quality of living will increase. Yet it seems that the very idea inspires hatred in many people, making an illusory correlation between the evils they've heard about or experienced and the ideology of having all things equal. There are good and bad things about most forms of government. Hatred inspired by this illusory correlation tends to separate entire political systems into a "good" and "bad" category, leaving some of the good aspects unacknowledged and the bad uncensored. Empathy may inspire one to consider the case of the lower classes and acknowledge their reasoning for preferring such a system of government over their current circumstances. It also encourages, by empathizing with the opposing side, one to consider how people might take advantage of the system. Thus, one may conclude that applying certain principles of an idea and doing away with others is a favorable resolution to a problem, with the intent for the greater good.
Moral? This, in my opinion, is what we should seek for in political discussion. Hatred seems to be the antithesis and the anti-matter of progress towards resolution. The comment made on facebook probably wasn't hateful towards me, but involved a hateful accusation based on a preconceived notion that I was trying to offend him (or rather, the group of people to which he associates with), which preconception usually occurs when one assumes others to be of the same general mindset (in this case of posting such things hoping to offend someone or declare an idea absolute), which is not exactly an empathetic mode of thought.
And now I conclude my thought string.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100916/cm_yblog_upshot/rush-limbaugh-falls-for-wikipedia-hoax
After posting this link, there was a comment made:
"the judge's wife doesn't "think you should be able to broadcast something nationally if you can't verify it" so I guess she really had something to say about Dan Rather's 60 Minutes hoax - and that was far more significant than Limbaugh getting his factoids wrong about some judge in Florida"
This was posted by someone I know to be fairly adamantly conservative in political thought. One of the first questions that came to mind was, why did he post that? what was the underlying incentive to give this commentary? the comment is clearly defensive, which means this person was offended in reading the news story, or otherwise spurred to add a "wrong" to the other side of the the justice scale to create balance (or as suggested in the comment, make the injustice of the offending party "far more significant"). Yet there seems another part of the train of thought behind the post. Sure, if you're a fan of Rush's talk show, or a patron of his political ideas, the story might sting a sensitive neuron or two in the "Rush can't possibly be that incompetent" region of the frontal lobe. Placing aside the main reason for which I posted the story, being to share a mildly amusing story involving the idea of bears instilling the fear of God, the most I extracted from it was that the guy was too hasty and, probably fueled by the excitement at posting another hateful jab at the opposing party for his listeners to enjoy, jumped the gun without checking the facts. But of course no one's perfect.
But why would he make a public post diverting whatever perceived offence he gave to himself to a story of someone else in hopes of over-justifying his own unsettledness on the matter? What gain is accomplished? He may have a valid point about this Dan fellow's case, how both sides may not get it right all the time. Frankly I don't know the guy, thus holding him in no disposition. So perhaps I'm asking the wrong question. Let's look at his post from a bit further back. Let's propose a few things. 1. He probably thought I had posted that as a political argument 2. He responded with a similar political argument (a two-wrongs argument, which are unresolvable, inconclusive, and unproductive). It seems a part of human nature that people don't like to be told they're wrong or to acknowledge evil in people in whom they place high regards. Perhaps that's what this person took offence at in the first place. His response shows a gap of association - he responded with the exact same thing that he hated. If he responded negatively to the idea of putting someone down that he might have regards for, why would he offer the same idea in his counter argument? Mostly people do this to "teach someone a lesson", either consciously or subconsciously: If I respond with an example of someone he probably holds in high regards, he'll know how I felt and then he'll think about that the next time he does that. To revert this thinking back upon one's own self is where the secret lies: Since I didn't like it when I read about a person I respect getting something wrong, maybe he won't like it either, and he might respond unfavorably as I did. A productive argument that is leading to a resolution with favorable dispositions on all sides involves many aspects associated with good teaching. The teacher must inspire the students to think about her teaching, and get them thinking of it on her level, regardless of whether they normally think on such level. Thus, though the parties may initially hold differing ideas, they will be able to clearly glimpse through the opposing eyes, and when all parties have done so with each-other, the resolution may be already running through the minds of everyone present, and the end is usually so much closer to view. Hence a productive argument must inspire a favorable disposition in the opposing parties. That's why blaming others is a frowned-upon policy - it tends to cause others to defend against the accusation and be offended at the accusing party. We can connect the following: offence leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate (being a very powerful emotion) tends to affect the reasoning and empathizing abilities (and also leads to suffering - thanks yoda), which destroys progress.
It would seem that this ability to introvert the reactionary "teach a lesson" mindset takes a certain characteristic, or set of them. I propose that a main factor is empathy. Empathy, part of the "what if I had to face the same problems" mindset, might inspire the "If someone did that bad thing to me, I wouldn't like it" type of thinking. It also allows one to identify certain things that are good and bad about one's behavior by examining different reactions and circumstances separately and asking why they did what they did.
Let me give an example. Why do people who hate communism hate communism? I imagine it's from all the evil that's resulted in corrupted leadership in previous attempts to run a communist state, like China. Why do people (besides corrupt leadership) who like communism like it? it has a very strong appeal - even out the classes. To the majority of people, especially in countries with a very large low-class or mid-low class, this is a very appealing idea because it most likely means (according to the ideology) that your quality of living will increase. Yet it seems that the very idea inspires hatred in many people, making an illusory correlation between the evils they've heard about or experienced and the ideology of having all things equal. There are good and bad things about most forms of government. Hatred inspired by this illusory correlation tends to separate entire political systems into a "good" and "bad" category, leaving some of the good aspects unacknowledged and the bad uncensored. Empathy may inspire one to consider the case of the lower classes and acknowledge their reasoning for preferring such a system of government over their current circumstances. It also encourages, by empathizing with the opposing side, one to consider how people might take advantage of the system. Thus, one may conclude that applying certain principles of an idea and doing away with others is a favorable resolution to a problem, with the intent for the greater good.
Moral? This, in my opinion, is what we should seek for in political discussion. Hatred seems to be the antithesis and the anti-matter of progress towards resolution. The comment made on facebook probably wasn't hateful towards me, but involved a hateful accusation based on a preconceived notion that I was trying to offend him (or rather, the group of people to which he associates with), which preconception usually occurs when one assumes others to be of the same general mindset (in this case of posting such things hoping to offend someone or declare an idea absolute), which is not exactly an empathetic mode of thought.
And now I conclude my thought string.
No comments:
Post a Comment