One small dissent for Katherine. Around 36 minutes in, you speak of people who illegally enter the country, and then sort of correct yourself to say "not, actually, technically they are 'undocumented' ".
Changing terminology from "illegal" or "unauthorized" to "undocumented" is NOT being more technically correct; it's quite the opposite. "Undocumented" sounds like they are legally in the country, but just forgot to bring their wallet with them today, or they lost their papers in a fire - which are objectively and factually incorrect, but that false impression is EXACTLY why that term was fostered on us, a blatant exercise in propaganda or attempt to unconsciously manipulate sentiment thought elite control of acceptable language.
"Undocumented" was never more correct *in any sense*, it was from the beginning an intentional misrepresentation created to overpower critical thinking with emotionality.
The most technically and functionally accurate term would still be "illegal immigrant", but the word "illegal" hurts some people's feelings, leading to things like virtue signaling yard signs saying "no human is illegal".
As a good faith compromise, I have adopted "unauthorized immigrant", which softens the term to minimize hurt feelings as much as possible without distorting the true nature of what is being described, as "undocumented" does in my opinion. I want to foster clear thinking, but I get no joy from unnecessarily upsetting people when not needed for honest communication.
Again, this is a small dissent, as that was not a major point you were making. You are still free to use whatever term you prefer, but the reasons for choosing "undocumented" are not to be more technically correct, but to be more politically accepted in some tribes.
I think we need to recognize that our general tendency is to feel somewhat threatened by disagreement, even when the other person does not have power over us to coercively implement their different viewpoint on us. As a social species highly influenced by each other, when somebody disagree, it suggests that we might be wrong, and that can be threatening.
And when somebody agrees, it can be comforting (ah, we probably have it right). And if we can persuade somebody to agree more with us than they previously did - there is an easy payoff to that.
What I think may be more of an acquired taste, is the payoff one can feel when somebody else persuades or convinces us, by what seems to be legitimate means. When that happens, I can feel some gratitude, because I am understanding the world a little deeper and with a broader reach - or so it feels anyway. I'm understanding something I previously did not, and that feels good too.
So when I enter a good faith discussion, firstly, I do not have any expectation of convincing the other side, as that usually does not happen (especially not rapidly). The most likely positive payoff is to understand the arguments for the other side better, and to understand how others could have those opinions (other than due to imputed ignorance, stupidity or malice), and maybe to have clarified and refined my own reasoning by needing to carefully and calmly expound upon it to somebody who doesn't already take it for granted.
On less common occasions, I can see that I have been somewhat persuasive and that can feel good; or I can feel myself somewhat persuaded (by good arguments that make sense even when considering my own existing arguments in a different direction). To my mind, both of those are a win, rather than persuasion being a win and being persuaded as loss.
One piece that may help is being forgiving of others and of myself, for having held a perspective I now consider untrue or less likely to be true. We were doing the best we could, and it's more important to remain appropriately open to rethinking things, than to blame somebody for past positions.
Adam, you say that you have not described yourself as conservative. I was inspired by something Coleman Hughes said a while back, to the effect that he does not identify as conservative or liberal, because he feels that one's identity or self-perception being tied to an ideology creates inflexibility. If changing your opinion due to changed evidence or reasoning, entails challenging or threatening your very identity, then it gets hard to be mentally flexible.
So I do not identify as liberal or conservative, though I may agree with relatively conservative people on one issue and with relatively liberal people on another. I see no advantage of adhering to a party line on issues, versus deciding each issue on its own merits as best we can decipher them. Being independent, I am free to agree if I truly am persuaded, without any need to nominally or publicly agree just to remain in the tribe.
So you can imagine how much I have enjoyed hearing from both of you.
I will mention that I've gotten involved with the organization "Braver Angels", which works to reduce affective polarization, which I might summarize quickly as despising those with different opinions rather than just disagreeing with them. It doesn't seek to move everybody to the middle or change minds, but to have more constructive dialogue with less social fragmentation.
I have found the discussions, with some participants in the Braver Angels events but especially with the other volunteers I encounter, to be a breath of fresh air. Stating an opinion or assessment which somebody else disagrees with is much more likely to result in curiosity about how I have come to that view, and respectful description of their own thinking, rather than immediate denunciation (when compared to most discussion today). I fear that the forces tearing the country apart may prove stronger than an organization like Braver Angels can counter, but in any case on a personal level it's rewarding to spend time with a less dogmatic group than the base of either political party today.
One small dissent for Katherine. Around 36 minutes in, you speak of people who illegally enter the country, and then sort of correct yourself to say "not, actually, technically they are 'undocumented' ".
Changing terminology from "illegal" or "unauthorized" to "undocumented" is NOT being more technically correct; it's quite the opposite. "Undocumented" sounds like they are legally in the country, but just forgot to bring their wallet with them today, or they lost their papers in a fire - which are objectively and factually incorrect, but that false impression is EXACTLY why that term was fostered on us, a blatant exercise in propaganda or attempt to unconsciously manipulate sentiment thought elite control of acceptable language.
"Undocumented" was never more correct *in any sense*, it was from the beginning an intentional misrepresentation created to overpower critical thinking with emotionality.
The most technically and functionally accurate term would still be "illegal immigrant", but the word "illegal" hurts some people's feelings, leading to things like virtue signaling yard signs saying "no human is illegal".
As a good faith compromise, I have adopted "unauthorized immigrant", which softens the term to minimize hurt feelings as much as possible without distorting the true nature of what is being described, as "undocumented" does in my opinion. I want to foster clear thinking, but I get no joy from unnecessarily upsetting people when not needed for honest communication.
Again, this is a small dissent, as that was not a major point you were making. You are still free to use whatever term you prefer, but the reasons for choosing "undocumented" are not to be more technically correct, but to be more politically accepted in some tribes.
I think we need to recognize that our general tendency is to feel somewhat threatened by disagreement, even when the other person does not have power over us to coercively implement their different viewpoint on us. As a social species highly influenced by each other, when somebody disagree, it suggests that we might be wrong, and that can be threatening.
And when somebody agrees, it can be comforting (ah, we probably have it right). And if we can persuade somebody to agree more with us than they previously did - there is an easy payoff to that.
What I think may be more of an acquired taste, is the payoff one can feel when somebody else persuades or convinces us, by what seems to be legitimate means. When that happens, I can feel some gratitude, because I am understanding the world a little deeper and with a broader reach - or so it feels anyway. I'm understanding something I previously did not, and that feels good too.
So when I enter a good faith discussion, firstly, I do not have any expectation of convincing the other side, as that usually does not happen (especially not rapidly). The most likely positive payoff is to understand the arguments for the other side better, and to understand how others could have those opinions (other than due to imputed ignorance, stupidity or malice), and maybe to have clarified and refined my own reasoning by needing to carefully and calmly expound upon it to somebody who doesn't already take it for granted.
On less common occasions, I can see that I have been somewhat persuasive and that can feel good; or I can feel myself somewhat persuaded (by good arguments that make sense even when considering my own existing arguments in a different direction). To my mind, both of those are a win, rather than persuasion being a win and being persuaded as loss.
One piece that may help is being forgiving of others and of myself, for having held a perspective I now consider untrue or less likely to be true. We were doing the best we could, and it's more important to remain appropriately open to rethinking things, than to blame somebody for past positions.
Adam, you say that you have not described yourself as conservative. I was inspired by something Coleman Hughes said a while back, to the effect that he does not identify as conservative or liberal, because he feels that one's identity or self-perception being tied to an ideology creates inflexibility. If changing your opinion due to changed evidence or reasoning, entails challenging or threatening your very identity, then it gets hard to be mentally flexible.
So I do not identify as liberal or conservative, though I may agree with relatively conservative people on one issue and with relatively liberal people on another. I see no advantage of adhering to a party line on issues, versus deciding each issue on its own merits as best we can decipher them. Being independent, I am free to agree if I truly am persuaded, without any need to nominally or publicly agree just to remain in the tribe.
So you can imagine how much I have enjoyed hearing from both of you.
You should join the next livestream next week. Thursday 8 PM EST.
Thank you 😊
I resonate with this comment.
I will mention that I've gotten involved with the organization "Braver Angels", which works to reduce affective polarization, which I might summarize quickly as despising those with different opinions rather than just disagreeing with them. It doesn't seek to move everybody to the middle or change minds, but to have more constructive dialogue with less social fragmentation.
I have found the discussions, with some participants in the Braver Angels events but especially with the other volunteers I encounter, to be a breath of fresh air. Stating an opinion or assessment which somebody else disagrees with is much more likely to result in curiosity about how I have come to that view, and respectful description of their own thinking, rather than immediate denunciation (when compared to most discussion today). I fear that the forces tearing the country apart may prove stronger than an organization like Braver Angels can counter, but in any case on a personal level it's rewarding to spend time with a less dogmatic group than the base of either political party today.