Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24
  1. Collapse Details
    #21
    Rockin the Boat
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles CA
    Posts
    2,944
    Default
    immunity to others' opinions.

    combatentropy, I suppose the biggest factor in my reaction is the fact that I tend to see arguments and opinions more purely on an intellectual plane. But if someone thinks that when you express a different view, it is an *attack* on them it can spiral into a quarrel instead of an argument and it all goes into tangents. That's why I so often urge people to focus on the argument - and as vigorously as possible - and not on the person who makes the argument.

    I believe a lot of it is genetic.


    I suppose there can be a genetic component to how we react to stress, such happens when being attacked - there's a variety of reactions. But I think there is a cultural component insofar as associating an argument with hostility or an attack in the first place. It need not be so. If we all agreed that we are all pursuing knowledge, we wouldn't feel defensive in holding a view which we can sense has been shown to be wrong. Partisanship and the "my side right or wrong" is the cultural conditioning that sees intellectual disagreement as an attack. If we changed that, we might change many people's reactions to being exposed to different points of view.

    I'm not saying this is easy, but the alternative is that partisanship and hostility can lead to very unfavorable outcomes. If you warn someone that there's a cliffside behind the bend in the road and they keep barreling forward because they regard your warning as a hostile opinion, they might plunge to their deaths. This is not hypothetical. The completely unnecessary politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic is an example - folks who intentionally expose themselves to dangerous situations because they think the virus is a hoax and then die or have family members die is an example. False claims about masks undermine trust. Both sides need to recognize their part in making this so hostile. The virus is our common enemy. We should be able to exchange views on how best to defend ourselves. Sometimes you hear the optimists say things like "well, humanity would come together in common cause if we were attacked by aliens, so why can't we come together otherwise" - but I'm not sure we would come together if aliens landed and were attacking us. There'd be a lot of "fake news" and "hoax" and "but they're the good guys and are killing only the bad guys and I'm gonna join them" and so on. It seems very ingrained. There used to be an old principle in public life "politics stops at the water's edge", meaning whatever disagreements we might have internally, we wil all present a unified front toward other countries - this principle expressed by a politician in 1947, sadly no longer obtains. It's no longer valid. Now, we see various sides - and I'm not taking a side here or pointing fingers in only one direction - who are happy to collaborate with our enemies to suit their partisan aims. That's how empires fall. That's how the British were able to colonize big countries in Asia back in the day. When the toxic partisanship goes so deep, you make the country weak enough that it can be dominated, because you'll find those who welcome the enemy. That's the danger we are in now, we are becoming FATALLY partisan.

    I wish we were not so divided. And I think one thing that would help immensely, is if we could be conditioned to not think of arguments as personal attacks. "What is the best way to confront this pandemic?" "well, let's look at the evidence, you tell me your views and I'll tell you mine and we'll both look fairly at the arguments". And so on for every issue. Yes, it's a bit idealized in these times, but if we give up on all ideals, then all that's left is the darkness and no hope. To me, a vigorous argument is an expression of hope and faith in what is best in humanity - the fearless pursuit of knowledge.


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    10,121
    Default
    I argue less. IMO mainly argument is failing to understand the shoes someone else sits in.

    A simple example Gh4 good camera?

    For me - no ND, 8 bit small chip poor colour science.

    For my 15 year old mate just getting started.. sure very good.

    Actually my 15 year old mate just bought a P4k .. again I camera I would argue as unusable (again no ND ect) but that was I choice he came to with me.

    -----------


    I think the big argument i would have is people who lowball. I would argue that we should all charge enough to have some kids and buy a house. People who are not onboard that with I have an argument with.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #23
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,993
    Default
    What I love arguing about the most, is when someone selectively quotes half of a sentence, and then tells me what I said. Love spending the afternoon trying to correct that. ;)


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #24
    Default
    Great response, OldCorpse! I wholeheartedly agree.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •