just want to validate that this isn't naive it's extremely important: this acts as a kind of cognitive bias that makes even very smart people make very poor decisions, because they have poor theory of mind of their opponents, because they consistently see the worst in them, can only see evil that doesn't want to cooperate, feel despair, and give up on trying to cooperate or make anything better.
It is absolutely a downward spiral and can be short circuited. People recoil when they hear this advice because they think "do something good for someone you perceive as evil". But you can reframe it as: those who understand their opponents are the most likely to win & outcompete. I tried to convey this here:
I think he's so right when he says that trying to figure out why someone said/did something is an "exhausting way to live." And I agree with you that things work out best when you assume the best/give the benefit of the doubt... because isn't that what you want from others, to assume the best of you? Maybe that's naive, but I guess I'd rather live that way than assuming the worst and constantly on the defensive.
Yes totally, have you read thezvi talk about simulacra levels? I’d link it but I’m on my phone right now, but it’s fairly clarifying. The problem with political discourse is that it’s discourse, the goal is far more varied than simply trying to determine the truth, but rather to support your side, and sometimes the best defense is a good offense.
Basically, instead of trying to argue, it’s full on arguments as soldiers, and pure association games. So you’ve gotta understand, everything’s being used for multiple purposes at the same time, there are multiple wars going on, or perhaps one war with multiple fronts. Is rfk saying something true about some people with autism, sure. Is he also potentially laying the groundwork for those with less debilitating forms of autism to lose some self-sufficient rights? Maybe. Yes, when you reply to someone on Twitter, you’re often trying to talk solely to them. What about when you quote tweet? There, you’re mainly trying to speak to your audience, and you’re trying to use your adversary not as a collaborator, but as a straw man for your opponent. What did Andy Warhol say, everyone gets their 15 minutes of hate?
The autism rfk stuff is so divisive partly because it rehashes an already well-discussed issue, namely the spectrum simplified to a stereotypical example. Do you use the quirky neurodivergent person, or the mute violent danger to themselves and others? I write a little about this somewhere, how naturally your support is going to end up helping those who least need it but still fit the example, as they’re easier to help.
just want to validate that this isn't naive it's extremely important: this acts as a kind of cognitive bias that makes even very smart people make very poor decisions, because they have poor theory of mind of their opponents, because they consistently see the worst in them, can only see evil that doesn't want to cooperate, feel despair, and give up on trying to cooperate or make anything better.
It is absolutely a downward spiral and can be short circuited. People recoil when they hear this advice because they think "do something good for someone you perceive as evil". But you can reframe it as: those who understand their opponents are the most likely to win & outcompete. I tried to convey this here:
- https://defenderofthebasic.substack.com/p/blue-tribe-is-starting-to-win-by
- https://defenderofthebasic.substack.com/p/criticizing-your-own-tribe-is-how
I randomly came across this clip from Dr. John Delony on "fundamental attribution error:"
https://www.tiktok.com/@johndelony/video/7236495277811830062
I think he's so right when he says that trying to figure out why someone said/did something is an "exhausting way to live." And I agree with you that things work out best when you assume the best/give the benefit of the doubt... because isn't that what you want from others, to assume the best of you? Maybe that's naive, but I guess I'd rather live that way than assuming the worst and constantly on the defensive.
Yes totally, have you read thezvi talk about simulacra levels? I’d link it but I’m on my phone right now, but it’s fairly clarifying. The problem with political discourse is that it’s discourse, the goal is far more varied than simply trying to determine the truth, but rather to support your side, and sometimes the best defense is a good offense.
Basically, instead of trying to argue, it’s full on arguments as soldiers, and pure association games. So you’ve gotta understand, everything’s being used for multiple purposes at the same time, there are multiple wars going on, or perhaps one war with multiple fronts. Is rfk saying something true about some people with autism, sure. Is he also potentially laying the groundwork for those with less debilitating forms of autism to lose some self-sufficient rights? Maybe. Yes, when you reply to someone on Twitter, you’re often trying to talk solely to them. What about when you quote tweet? There, you’re mainly trying to speak to your audience, and you’re trying to use your adversary not as a collaborator, but as a straw man for your opponent. What did Andy Warhol say, everyone gets their 15 minutes of hate?
The autism rfk stuff is so divisive partly because it rehashes an already well-discussed issue, namely the spectrum simplified to a stereotypical example. Do you use the quirky neurodivergent person, or the mute violent danger to themselves and others? I write a little about this somewhere, how naturally your support is going to end up helping those who least need it but still fit the example, as they’re easier to help.