There are two things I hate more than anything else in the world, which are more related to each other than they might at first seem: stretching, and hearing the other side of things.
"No pain, no gain" is true, but pain often comes with loss as well. As you illustrate here, to undergo the psychological pain of submitting yourself to the other side - cognitive dissonance can be literally painful! - is a hairshirt in itself. And you could lose friends over it, too? No wonder so few of us do it!
But if you wake at dawn to stretch and tear and rebuild, if you steelman your preconceptions and test them to their limit... then you gravitate towards others who are doing the same.
I've lost people in my life over ideology, too, and I do miss them. But in physical exertion I've found others, and in mental exertion I've found others, too. I hope for the same for you.
"our tendency to reject any account that does not square perfectly with our ideas of who are automatically victims or to discount counter-evidence that might prove the “other side’s” point is really untenable." - Just like in The Rescue Game, as described here: "In the Rescue Game, in other words, whatever a Victim does must be interpreted as a cry of pain. Whatever a Persecutor does is treated as something that’s intended to cause pain to a Victim, and whatever a Rescuer does, by definition, either expresses sympathy for a Victim or inflicts well-deserved punishment on a Persecutor. This is true even when the actions performed by the three people in question happen to be identical." - https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-04-14/american-narratives-the-rescue-game/
I love this: "So now I have to stretch all that, and I hate that. I hate that because I need it, and I hate admitting that I needed to do something for a long time that I didn’t do.
Which is exactly what hearing the other side feels like."
I also found the "epistemic closure" discussion from Jesse Singal's article really interesting. I have personally been thinking about this as a move towards incoherence. Denying or ignoring inconvenient facts, failing to make a case for a position and debate opposition or address valid critiques, doubling down on rhetoric that isn't persuasive (and in many cases, harms the cause in question), and multiple other issues leave me questioning what's actually there, other than orthodoxy and grift.
We've been friends for a few years now, and I can say that you have always seen my side of things, just as I have seen your side of things. We agree at times, and others we are polar opposites. I think that is why we are good friends because we do challenge each other to see points of view other than our own. We also listen for understanding, not just to wait for a pause in the conversation to reiterate our point, or refute the other.
The US is at a point where we aren't listening anymore. We are just waiting to refute the point our adversary is making. I'll tell ya Rhyd, I'm worn out. Where I used to be an ally, I'm now in silent dissent.
Good article, great perspective
"No pain, no gain" is true, but pain often comes with loss as well. As you illustrate here, to undergo the psychological pain of submitting yourself to the other side - cognitive dissonance can be literally painful! - is a hairshirt in itself. And you could lose friends over it, too? No wonder so few of us do it!
But if you wake at dawn to stretch and tear and rebuild, if you steelman your preconceptions and test them to their limit... then you gravitate towards others who are doing the same.
I've lost people in my life over ideology, too, and I do miss them. But in physical exertion I've found others, and in mental exertion I've found others, too. I hope for the same for you.
"our tendency to reject any account that does not square perfectly with our ideas of who are automatically victims or to discount counter-evidence that might prove the “other side’s” point is really untenable." - Just like in The Rescue Game, as described here: "In the Rescue Game, in other words, whatever a Victim does must be interpreted as a cry of pain. Whatever a Persecutor does is treated as something that’s intended to cause pain to a Victim, and whatever a Rescuer does, by definition, either expresses sympathy for a Victim or inflicts well-deserved punishment on a Persecutor. This is true even when the actions performed by the three people in question happen to be identical." - https://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-04-14/american-narratives-the-rescue-game/
I love this: "So now I have to stretch all that, and I hate that. I hate that because I need it, and I hate admitting that I needed to do something for a long time that I didn’t do.
Which is exactly what hearing the other side feels like."
I also found the "epistemic closure" discussion from Jesse Singal's article really interesting. I have personally been thinking about this as a move towards incoherence. Denying or ignoring inconvenient facts, failing to make a case for a position and debate opposition or address valid critiques, doubling down on rhetoric that isn't persuasive (and in many cases, harms the cause in question), and multiple other issues leave me questioning what's actually there, other than orthodoxy and grift.
We've been friends for a few years now, and I can say that you have always seen my side of things, just as I have seen your side of things. We agree at times, and others we are polar opposites. I think that is why we are good friends because we do challenge each other to see points of view other than our own. We also listen for understanding, not just to wait for a pause in the conversation to reiterate our point, or refute the other.
The US is at a point where we aren't listening anymore. We are just waiting to refute the point our adversary is making. I'll tell ya Rhyd, I'm worn out. Where I used to be an ally, I'm now in silent dissent.