The Ideal (or Ideological) versus the Real
It's not uncommon on this site that some of the more heated arguments will bypass each other completely because they're attacking two different sides of a problem: how something should work, and how it actually does. In other words, one person will argue about the Ideal situation that we should work towards, and the other will argue about the situation we find ourselves in now. These aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but they do make it more difficult to reach common ground - or to end an argument that circles itself for the wrong reasons.
First, I want to parse these two terms a little more precisely, because I think we have an innate cultural dispostion towards the "real" rather than the "ideal": internet blogs frequently refer to themselves as "the reality-based community", accuse idealists of being impractical dreamers, etc. But I have something a bit broader in mind, and perhaps "ideology" is a better word than "ideal", since it's really about a coherent approach to life over a development of approach based on each new ("real") circumstance.
In other words, we're all a certain mix of ideology and realism, and we tend to shift back and forth between them depending on which suits our arguments better.
Here's an example: let's say I link to an article about Congress voting to regulate a particular industry. If it's part of your ideological core to distrust government intervention in private enterprise, you're likely to start sculpting your argument around this idea (or ideal) rather than around the particular situation that's leading Congress to take these steps. Meanwhile, someone without a strong ideological tilt towards the government-private relationship is more likely to research the information first, then draw a conclusion that's more situationally-based than ideologically.
It's never so simple, of course, and with each new issue we do some combination of both. You notice it especially in the gun debate, which hinges on two ideals (the right to own firearms v. the right to be safe from firearms) and two reals (murder statistics in gun-less areas v. murder statistics in gun-heavy areas), in which case the cross-talk is almost dizzying. Both sides could challenge themselves a bit more by making the tension between the ideal and real explicit: 1. Would you still fight for the right to own guns if the numbers proved that it makes society more unstable?, or 2. Would you still fight for gun control if the numbers proved that it makes society more unstable? (edit: both these questions assume someone who places ideology first; for a 'realist', we'd only need to flip the questions) In either case, which do you find a more compelling argument: the Ideal right, or the Real numbers?
This isn't a simple question, but for the next few weeks or so, I have a challenge for you all: pay attention to how you approach your arguments whenever a new issue hits the press.
- Do you begin by matching up the story against your fundamental beliefs?
- Do you begin by googling for more information?
and most importantly,
- Do you sift through evidence to match your beliefs, or do you let the accumulating evidence direct your opinion?
Again, I'm sure we'd all prefer to think ourselves in the latter category (it's the "scientific" way), but somehow I think we all have an inner cherry-picker who notices facts closer to our ideological bent more readily, even if we're not conscious of it. So for the next few weeks, try to be conscious of it.
I'm curious to see how this little experiment turns out, and if people find themselves becoming more self-aware during our debates.
Comments :
Now Pico's left himself open to
be pummeled by everyone.
That doesn't mean your points don't have validity, they do. Sometimes dealing with an adversary is easier if your looking for the differences rather than the shared.
How to challenge this not unusual occurance? We could take the read it over, count to 10, walk away from it for 10 minutes. I'm not sure we will. Or try to engage others into seeing what one is trying to convey. That's almost harder sometimes.
Oh, I don't mind a pummling,
so long as it's an honest one, and the criticisms are correct. :)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
You should be wearing my screen name.
Naw, it suits you just fine,
but I appreciate it.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Okay!
I will link to a newsy post latter and try this new approach, even if I had nothing more than a new awareness to my pov.
I especially like, and have noticed how you flip an argument and then look at it.
(though I am not sure how good I am at this approach)
I'm only half stupid
:)
I almost always approach any argument or story from an idealogical position. Approach is not everything though. So when I see that story on regulating a particular industry I almost immediately start off with a negative impression but that does not mean that I cannot change my mind upon finishing my examination of the issue.
It can be compared to the function of the face recognition software. My mind jumps at the pattern, matches it up to what I consider ideal and right, and returns a result. That is the first step. When researching the issue further, ultimately of course I do give more weight to the evidence that helps reinforce my view but there is a rational reason for that: my ideology is something that I've thought of and examined at length and it alone gives a huge jump on proving something to be a good or a bad idea due to a lot of previous cases where it was proven to be one or the other.
Scientific? Eh, so so. When I am googling for information I do sift through the evidence but if the the preponderance of evidence is against me, sometimes I do reevaluate the basis from which I started the investigation.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Not just beliefs
Gee, Pico, more hard questions! You know I'm no good at philosophy ;} but I'll give you my two cents anyway.
I don't know that I do either of those things. I am not consciously aware of first matching something to an inner ideological paradigm, nor do I always automatically do extensive research before forming an opinion. I think I approach issues using knowledge and experience rather than ideology. Politics, religion, sociology, history, science, art, culture: all the things I know I use to evaluate new information. Not some moral or ideological framework of "what is right" or at least, not only such a framework.
I suppose another way to say it is that I match new information to my inner "database" -- not for ideology but for validity. How well does it match my accumulated knowledge and experience? If it seems reasonable under those parameters, I am more likely to give it credence. If it does not, then perhaps I will do additional research or be very skeptical. I think this approach also allows me to register and comprehend the bias of the writer, because bias is present in all things, and it is just another factor to consider in the process of evaluating the validity of the information.
Let me use the latest hot topic as an example. (Note: do not use this as an excuse to continue that discussion here and ruin Pico's thread!)
Did Bush lie? Well, my inner database tells me that politicians' jobs force them to take a position and to persuade others to that position. That is the nature of politics. So I do not scurry for research, because hearing that a politician might have lied does not register as an event worthy of action.
Then I might ask myself, well, so what if he did? Does it matter? No, not really, because what politicians say means very little (ref: accumulated knowledge), it is what they do that matters, and there are plenty of actual results to judge him by. I would also extend that "so what" question to life in general; people say all sorts of stupid stuff, but is what they say really what they are, or is it what they do?
Maybe this is why I don't join a political party. Determining policy is a more complex process than just choosing something that fits into a known ideology. It is also not just an exercise in gathering the best data possible.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I wonder if this approach works
with the deliberately adversarial nature of this site. If the format were more inquisitorial we'd probably do more fact-finding and less argument-buttressing.
I agree that it's a good idea, certainly I catch myself sometimes googling to support a preconceived position. Just thinking out loud as to whether this is really encouraged here in terms of the format.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
My short answer.
When I am forming my beliefs/opinions, I research. [ In reality is goes the other way around. I don't sit down with the explicit intent to form an opinion and then conduct research into it. In actuality, I read things on both sides of an issue and then form an opinion about it. ]
When I am forming an argument in support of those beliefs/opinions I go back and cherry pick the points that were most significant when I formed my opinion.
[ So with respect to SC and arguments, I am mostly charry picking from previous research. Although the discussions here oftern lead to my following various tangential information and I frequently find other interesting related tidbits that then form the basis for other research. ]
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Personality
As I've pointed out before there are several personality types, one of which is immune (indifferent?) to facts. This is the so called Right Wing Authoritarian (RWA) personality as defined by psychologist Robert Altemeyer.
Read his book online The Authoritarians
to get the full background of his research.
This type of person is unwilling or unable to apply objective criteria to what they hold as core beliefs. So asking them to do so is unproductive. Altemeyer has also found a high correlation between this type of personality and one who holds conservative social or political views. He makes no universal claims, just that this association exists at present in the US and Canada.
This site seems to attract a fair number of people with this type of outlook and trying to get them to behave differently is not going to be very successful. Altemeyer, himself, states that he doubts he can even get this type of person to read his book, let alone agree with it.
The best "cure" for this type of closed-mindedness he has found is education. Those who entered his college as fairly rigid tended to become more tolerant as they became exposed to people and experiences first hand that they had only heard about before.
This understanding is one of the reasons that sects (religious or otherwise) try to keep their members away from outside influences.
--- Policies not Politics