Good article. Good quote from Patton - it is very distressing to see unanimity across large bodies of politicians on certain issues. Agree that the hostility expressed on Twitter and now Substack isn't pleasant, anonymity partly breeds this. And there really are bad faith actors out there.
Culture is an essential part of conflict and conflict resolution. Cultures are like underground rivers that run through our lives and relationships, giving us messages that shape our perceptions, attributions, judgments, and ideas of self and other.
Depends on how you see the purpose of an argument.
If it's to settle once and for all who's right, you need a "winner" and a "loser" and, yes, anything short of that is but a truce in an ongoing war.
But if you instead see the argument as an exchange of views, in which information and perspectives are shared, and both parties may be the better for the exchange even if neither capitulates, an argument that ends with a shrug and a smile may, in fact, be the conclusion of an excellent and productive exchange.
Totally agree. Which, I suppose, is another way to 'end an argument' : )
Discussions may temporarily end for all sorts of incidental reasons ('this is my bus'), whereas 'arguments' may, by their nature, be interminable, assuming there's always someone willing to take up the cause and sift the endless supply of evidence.
Interesting, thanks! I agree with the prescription but I'm surprised you present this in terms of "naive realism". The possibility of illusion seems much less important than the broader point you make about contextual inference:
"...even though the sensory input she gets is exactly the same as the sensory input I got, her sense of what she sees will be different. Because she and I have different experiences and different beliefs. Because she and I are using different mental models."
Even if naive realism were true (and it still is mostly a going concern in philosophy at least - see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-problem/#NaiReaPro), the point that we all bring different prior experiences to the perceptual party is surely much more important?
I wonder if Third culture kids are more resilient to naive realism, as they are accustomed to experience different, sometimes contradictory, worldviews?
Zacharia a was wrong from day one as I said then and have been proven out over time in Spades - now by several international court determinations. Israel has been afflicting usurpious war since 1948 upon the Palestinians. The slaughter on the West Bank had been taking place on Oct 7 and never slowed down. I guess your view of the death camp depends on which side of the gas chamber door your on but to any honest observer it's pretty prima-facie.
The problem you mentioned is true and important. However:
1)I mean, you can have expectation to not disagree without naive realism. Aumann's Agreement Theorem is literally "(under certain strict conditions) reasonable people cannot agree to disagree, they are to converge"; persisting disagreements are mostly about priors. Even if everyone sees past the naive realism, the problem you're talking about won't be solved.
Dear Dan, how do you convince yourself that there truly is an objective reality “out there” not merely what our brains generate based apparently on what our senses detect? Old philosophical conundrum I guess!
One can probably add to this fascinating discussion other assumptions we make similar to the movement in grass must be a snake. I am thinking about how difficult it is for each of us to look at issues in detail or go back to original sources. Thus, we come to discussion confident in our views because we were told which way the wind of blowing by a politician, journalist or friend whose views we trust. And even if we are certain that our trusted person has almost always been correct, it doesn’t mean they are correct now. Moreover, our trusted person may in fact be basing their decision on their own trusted person and no real knowledge of the issue in question.
Also, I am often also struck by how easy it seems to be for the framing of an issue to be solidified by the first person out of the gate or the one who is the most confident or extreme in their exposition.
Good article. Good quote from Patton - it is very distressing to see unanimity across large bodies of politicians on certain issues. Agree that the hostility expressed on Twitter and now Substack isn't pleasant, anonymity partly breeds this. And there really are bad faith actors out there.
Great post, Dan!
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/culture_conflict#:~:text=Culture%20is%20an%20essential%20part,ideas%20of%20self%20and%20other.
Culture is an essential part of conflict and conflict resolution. Cultures are like underground rivers that run through our lives and relationships, giving us messages that shape our perceptions, attributions, judgments, and ideas of self and other.
But if you 'end an argument with a shrug and a smile', is it really over? Or, just hitting the snooze button...for now?
Depends on how you see the purpose of an argument.
If it's to settle once and for all who's right, you need a "winner" and a "loser" and, yes, anything short of that is but a truce in an ongoing war.
But if you instead see the argument as an exchange of views, in which information and perspectives are shared, and both parties may be the better for the exchange even if neither capitulates, an argument that ends with a shrug and a smile may, in fact, be the conclusion of an excellent and productive exchange.
Totally agree. Which, I suppose, is another way to 'end an argument' : )
Discussions may temporarily end for all sorts of incidental reasons ('this is my bus'), whereas 'arguments' may, by their nature, be interminable, assuming there's always someone willing to take up the cause and sift the endless supply of evidence.
Interesting, thanks! I agree with the prescription but I'm surprised you present this in terms of "naive realism". The possibility of illusion seems much less important than the broader point you make about contextual inference:
"...even though the sensory input she gets is exactly the same as the sensory input I got, her sense of what she sees will be different. Because she and I have different experiences and different beliefs. Because she and I are using different mental models."
Even if naive realism were true (and it still is mostly a going concern in philosophy at least - see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-problem/#NaiReaPro), the point that we all bring different prior experiences to the perceptual party is surely much more important?
Does OpenAI know that Lincoln was a foot taller than Douglas?
If that's the worst historical inaccuracy an AI prompt generates, you're golden.
"Philosophical Investigations" - Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Dammit. Trying to post the duckrabbit but apparently images can't be posted here.
So imagine a duckrabbit....
Is there an 'executive summary' version of this post? ;-)
I wonder if Third culture kids are more resilient to naive realism, as they are accustomed to experience different, sometimes contradictory, worldviews?
No idea what the answer is but it's an intriguing question. Thanks!
I can’t believe that people can hate each other so much!
Zacharia a was wrong from day one as I said then and have been proven out over time in Spades - now by several international court determinations. Israel has been afflicting usurpious war since 1948 upon the Palestinians. The slaughter on the West Bank had been taking place on Oct 7 and never slowed down. I guess your view of the death camp depends on which side of the gas chamber door your on but to any honest observer it's pretty prima-facie.
The problem you mentioned is true and important. However:
1)I mean, you can have expectation to not disagree without naive realism. Aumann's Agreement Theorem is literally "(under certain strict conditions) reasonable people cannot agree to disagree, they are to converge"; persisting disagreements are mostly about priors. Even if everyone sees past the naive realism, the problem you're talking about won't be solved.
2)Most people are stupid across domains.
Dear Dan, how do you convince yourself that there truly is an objective reality “out there” not merely what our brains generate based apparently on what our senses detect? Old philosophical conundrum I guess!
Thanks. This life is not the time to listen to your own inner voices. It is the time to listen to others external voices.
One can probably add to this fascinating discussion other assumptions we make similar to the movement in grass must be a snake. I am thinking about how difficult it is for each of us to look at issues in detail or go back to original sources. Thus, we come to discussion confident in our views because we were told which way the wind of blowing by a politician, journalist or friend whose views we trust. And even if we are certain that our trusted person has almost always been correct, it doesn’t mean they are correct now. Moreover, our trusted person may in fact be basing their decision on their own trusted person and no real knowledge of the issue in question.
Also, I am often also struck by how easy it seems to be for the framing of an issue to be solidified by the first person out of the gate or the one who is the most confident or extreme in their exposition.