Understanding the enemy, how social media absolutely ruins this understanding of the enemy, what to do about it, and an admission that I may have strawmanned?...
>As it turns out, when Twitter reaches into the almighty algorithm and pulls out the content that’s going to make you stay on the app the most, it’s probably going to be something that makes you angry. Anger is the best human emotion for keeping the app in your mind.
Do most people like feeling angry? Or do they like feeling...self-righteous? What if people stay on Xwitter not because anger is an inherently-rewarding sensation, but because it gives them a reason to pat themselves on the back for being a good person while those other people are repugnant evil-doers who kick puppies before breakfast every day?
Oh yeah, this is a great interpretation. There’s a certain sense of “I can’t believe that people are so evil, unlike me, a good and sane person” in viewing insane takes on the internet.
1. Bad arguments help inoculate us against good arguments. If you see someone arguing in favor of something and they sound idiotic, it’s not necessarily fair to assume the position itself is idiotic. That’s one way to help avoid weak-men.
2. Supposedly r/ChangeMyView is actually a really good place for real, productive, good-faith discussions, although I’ve never tried it myself.
3. If you want to find a good representative of a topic, find someone you have intellectual common ground with, who shares similar beliefs/interests but differs in this one. Get them to explain the argument to you. It’s much easier to be understanding in that context.
Great points. I especially like 3, it might be the best way to place the belief into a worldview and make the image in your head feel rich if you can find someone smart that you disagree with.
I think that people also just like being emotionally engaged by content. Think of people who watch true crime to feel scared, or people who watch gore to be horrified. Some people just want to feel something.
It’s better for this than most places, but still depressingly bad. By which I mean that if I go there looking for people engaging in genuine communication, not talking at each other or warring with strawmen that exist in their heads, I tend to become depressed and wish that I hadn’t.
It’s better if you use it for apolitical topics, where people don’t already have a ready-made picture of “who my enemy is” which they’re looking to pick a fight with. On subjects that they do, very often rather than litigating the actual point they’re supposed to be arguing, they focus on attacking the perceived positions of that imagined enemy. If the other person engages as if this constitutes a real discussion, they’ll continue to attack, but if the other points out that they’re not actually putting forward the positions the other person is arguing with, and would rather have a discussion based on positions they actually hold, very often their interlocutor will just declare “fuck it, downvote and move on” rather than engaging further.
That’s not to say that there’s never any worthwhile discussion to be had there, but I’ve personally found it to be fairly demoralizing, as it corrodes my sense of productive discourse being possible on volatile political subjects.
Very fair when it comes to the hunt for truth, as that’s all that matters, but some baileys and slogans are more egregious than others. Like I said yesterday, “no ethical consumption under capitalism” sucks, and “defund the police” is also really bad. Compare it to something like “no kings” which I like a lot, actually.
Reddit’s easy to get echo-chambery on, but I think r/slatestarcodex and r/changemyview as another commenter said are interesting. Substack is probably better for political discourse, though. Reddit just perfectly dodges the problem of Twitter, where even if you only want to follow sports people, For You mixes in insane people. Reddit you don’t have that issue. But if you want intelligent takes from people you disagree with, I concede that here is pretty good.
Disclaimer: I exaggerated language a bit for effect
You give two reasons to try and understand enemy in your essay: 1) to find truth 2) to find where you belong. I think, though, that these two goals might contradict each other.
What is really great great of Scott's "Shiri scissors" is that it shows that you may start charitable and in good faith, like your opponent, honestly want a good outcome, think they also generally want to do good, and still, after arguing, end up as mortal enemies. Remember how it goes? The guy didn't start by thinking Shiri was irredemably evil. He thought she was honestly mistaken; then he though David was lying; by the end of essay, after arguing for hours and thinking about it even longer, he is so enraged by the thought that he is willing to be arrested for punching Shiri.
If stakes are high, questions you explore are many, and you figure out you just have fundamentally different ideas about how the world works (do you think resistance is justified when enemy crossed your border, shells your cities, and murders and kidnaps your people? Well, I know someone who thinks Ukraine should surrender to minimize casualties.), you may not so much found better where you belong, but find instead many places where you don't belong. After the exhaustive argument, your good-faith assumption that there was a common ground was replaced by understanding you don't have enough. It happened to me. Judging by number of independents, it happened to many people.
Incompetence? Their incompetence is killing people! The dumbness, the bad consequences of what they do, the suggestions based on complete unability to comprehend that their worldview is insane, that they can't see obvious reasons why they are wrong, and that their irresponsible actions hurt people is so outrageous. You may have met plenty of opponents with good intentions, kind and compassionate people - and still think their incompetence so gross it might as well be evil.
I think Noah Smith is right. It was easier to coexist before social media allowed us to read and understand the worldviews of completely different people. From purely intellectual standpoint, I love exploring the other side, because it does help you find the truth. But it hardly would make you happier, more united or better belonging.
This is a good point. Sometimes their takes are so horrible that you don’t understand, and the one thing this essay is DEFINITELY not against is the incompetence of the people doing horrible things. And as I’ll detail in my incoming post about being friends with people you disagree with politically, the people in power doing the horrible things deserve all the condemnation they get.
I’m reminded of my 2nd favorite Scott post of all time, Varieties of Argumentative Experience. If you end up having an intellectual, good faith argument with someone, which you’re able to if they’re friends in real life, then you’ll come out feeling like they’re real people. I am NOT saying make friends with people you disagree with on the internet, though. Do not go to r/conservative and say “wow you guys have some good points, anyone interested in discussing.” But maybe by trying to understand people’s motivations online we can pseudo-understand their emotions and fears that led to this point
>As it turns out, when Twitter reaches into the almighty algorithm and pulls out the content that’s going to make you stay on the app the most, it’s probably going to be something that makes you angry. Anger is the best human emotion for keeping the app in your mind.
Do most people like feeling angry? Or do they like feeling...self-righteous? What if people stay on Xwitter not because anger is an inherently-rewarding sensation, but because it gives them a reason to pat themselves on the back for being a good person while those other people are repugnant evil-doers who kick puppies before breakfast every day?
Oh yeah, this is a great interpretation. There’s a certain sense of “I can’t believe that people are so evil, unlike me, a good and sane person” in viewing insane takes on the internet.
A few notes:
1. Bad arguments help inoculate us against good arguments. If you see someone arguing in favor of something and they sound idiotic, it’s not necessarily fair to assume the position itself is idiotic. That’s one way to help avoid weak-men.
2. Supposedly r/ChangeMyView is actually a really good place for real, productive, good-faith discussions, although I’ve never tried it myself.
3. If you want to find a good representative of a topic, find someone you have intellectual common ground with, who shares similar beliefs/interests but differs in this one. Get them to explain the argument to you. It’s much easier to be understanding in that context.
Great points. I especially like 3, it might be the best way to place the belief into a worldview and make the image in your head feel rich if you can find someone smart that you disagree with.
I think that people also just like being emotionally engaged by content. Think of people who watch true crime to feel scared, or people who watch gore to be horrified. Some people just want to feel something.
Re ChangeMyView:
It’s better for this than most places, but still depressingly bad. By which I mean that if I go there looking for people engaging in genuine communication, not talking at each other or warring with strawmen that exist in their heads, I tend to become depressed and wish that I hadn’t.
It’s better if you use it for apolitical topics, where people don’t already have a ready-made picture of “who my enemy is” which they’re looking to pick a fight with. On subjects that they do, very often rather than litigating the actual point they’re supposed to be arguing, they focus on attacking the perceived positions of that imagined enemy. If the other person engages as if this constitutes a real discussion, they’ll continue to attack, but if the other points out that they’re not actually putting forward the positions the other person is arguing with, and would rather have a discussion based on positions they actually hold, very often their interlocutor will just declare “fuck it, downvote and move on” rather than engaging further.
That’s not to say that there’s never any worthwhile discussion to be had there, but I’ve personally found it to be fairly demoralizing, as it corrodes my sense of productive discourse being possible on volatile political subjects.
Dang
I find there's value in understanding others' mottes, and no value in understanding their baileys.
And no one is going to print their motte on a Sonic the Hedgehog keychain...
Very fair when it comes to the hunt for truth, as that’s all that matters, but some baileys and slogans are more egregious than others. Like I said yesterday, “no ethical consumption under capitalism” sucks, and “defund the police” is also really bad. Compare it to something like “no kings” which I like a lot, actually.
“But it’s much more doable on Reddit to subscribe to the good subreddits”
Which ones are the good subs, in your opinion?
Reddit’s easy to get echo-chambery on, but I think r/slatestarcodex and r/changemyview as another commenter said are interesting. Substack is probably better for political discourse, though. Reddit just perfectly dodges the problem of Twitter, where even if you only want to follow sports people, For You mixes in insane people. Reddit you don’t have that issue. But if you want intelligent takes from people you disagree with, I concede that here is pretty good.
Thanks!
I’d probably add that, as a liberal, I find some value in r/askconservatives.
Disclaimer: I exaggerated language a bit for effect
You give two reasons to try and understand enemy in your essay: 1) to find truth 2) to find where you belong. I think, though, that these two goals might contradict each other.
What is really great great of Scott's "Shiri scissors" is that it shows that you may start charitable and in good faith, like your opponent, honestly want a good outcome, think they also generally want to do good, and still, after arguing, end up as mortal enemies. Remember how it goes? The guy didn't start by thinking Shiri was irredemably evil. He thought she was honestly mistaken; then he though David was lying; by the end of essay, after arguing for hours and thinking about it even longer, he is so enraged by the thought that he is willing to be arrested for punching Shiri.
If stakes are high, questions you explore are many, and you figure out you just have fundamentally different ideas about how the world works (do you think resistance is justified when enemy crossed your border, shells your cities, and murders and kidnaps your people? Well, I know someone who thinks Ukraine should surrender to minimize casualties.), you may not so much found better where you belong, but find instead many places where you don't belong. After the exhaustive argument, your good-faith assumption that there was a common ground was replaced by understanding you don't have enough. It happened to me. Judging by number of independents, it happened to many people.
Incompetence? Their incompetence is killing people! The dumbness, the bad consequences of what they do, the suggestions based on complete unability to comprehend that their worldview is insane, that they can't see obvious reasons why they are wrong, and that their irresponsible actions hurt people is so outrageous. You may have met plenty of opponents with good intentions, kind and compassionate people - and still think their incompetence so gross it might as well be evil.
I think Noah Smith is right. It was easier to coexist before social media allowed us to read and understand the worldviews of completely different people. From purely intellectual standpoint, I love exploring the other side, because it does help you find the truth. But it hardly would make you happier, more united or better belonging.
This is a good point. Sometimes their takes are so horrible that you don’t understand, and the one thing this essay is DEFINITELY not against is the incompetence of the people doing horrible things. And as I’ll detail in my incoming post about being friends with people you disagree with politically, the people in power doing the horrible things deserve all the condemnation they get.
I’m reminded of my 2nd favorite Scott post of all time, Varieties of Argumentative Experience. If you end up having an intellectual, good faith argument with someone, which you’re able to if they’re friends in real life, then you’ll come out feeling like they’re real people. I am NOT saying make friends with people you disagree with on the internet, though. Do not go to r/conservative and say “wow you guys have some good points, anyone interested in discussing.” But maybe by trying to understand people’s motivations online we can pseudo-understand their emotions and fears that led to this point