I wish people would just behave the way they want and allow everyone else to do the same (as long as no one is being hurt).
I've often thought that extreme liberals and extreme conservatives are far more similar to each other than they are to those in the middle. Both groups have a system of fixed, rigid beliefs. Their mind has been made up on an issue before you even begin discussing the topic, and the use of logic and reason fails spectacularly on them. The only difference between them all is that they just happened to be born into different environments, so their particular beliefs are mere manifestations of chance.
I'll ask my friends occasionally, "Why you believe that?", and I'm amazed when I realize that beyond a few brief soundbites, there's no real foundation beneath their viewpoints. Strong emotions but little rationale.
And the problem is that these same people always want to enforce their way of thinking on everyone else. I just don't know why. I'm unsure about almost all of my beliefs -- there's so many variables and so much data behind most of these subject that I'm perplexed about how anyone can be so certain they're right.
Quick tip for identifying people like this: if you are debating with someone and they quickly become emotional, angry, or start using a variety of logical fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies), then you're dealing with someone whose beliefs have no substance. The rules apply both ways though; this tip applies only if you didn't provoke them somehow. (For instance, I can become angry in a debate when someone starts attacking my character rather than my position.)
> Quick tip for identifying people like this: if you are debating with someone and they quickly become emotional, angry, or start using a variety of logical fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies), then you're dealing with someone whose beliefs have no substance.
At this point, it's worth noting that none of Xcelerate's tips are provably true, and his advice is, at best, an anecdotal fallacy. Every single one of his methods for proving that a person's beliefs are baseless are, themselves, baseless.
People become emotional and angry for many reasons, and this is not tightly tied to the underlying rationality of their position. An anti-death-penalty advocate might have a long list of logically sound reasons for their belief (e.g. cost of error, ultimate in government overreach, etc), but they might become emotional because some aspect of state-sponsored executions touches their heart as well. Please do not fall into the fallacy that just because the person you're debating gets emotional that they are necessarily wrong, or that you are necessarily right.
Further, people use logical fallacies all the time. It's very hard to avoid them, unless one has practiced quite thoroughly.
Another common explanation for all of these phenomena is that you're being perceived as a jerk. For instance, if you're the sort of person who says 'I map all of people's beliefs to a single arbitrary dimension and if their beliefs aren't near mine, then they are almost certainly idiots who haven't thought things through and can't accept new evidence', then I'm pretty sure I'm done with you.
I'll ask my friends occasionally, "Why you believe that?", and I'm amazed when I realize that beyond a few brief soundbites, there's no real foundation beneath their viewpoints. Strong emotions but little rationale.
If you get a chance, take a look at Jonathan Haidt's excellent book The Righteous Mind, which is about, among other things, how people come to believe what they do (I wrote a little about it here: http://jakeseliger.com/2012/03/25/jonathan-haidts-the-righte...).
A better strategy in my experience is go up a meta level to something like, "How do people come to believe what they believe?"
>I'll ask my friends occasionally, "Why you believe that?", and I'm amazed when I realize that beyond a few brief soundbites, there's no real foundation beneath their viewpoints.
I was at an event recently, and after it, I was talking to someone who expressed the viewpoint that "the GPL is evil." When I asked why that was the case, he said that he's heard bad things it's done. We talked a bit about what the GPL does, and at the end he said that I was convincing him.
But when he later said "I'm not a fan of Microsoft because they're evil", I knew to just discount his opinion, even though I don't love the company either. If you're knowingly basing your opinion on hearsay without any details, why should I keep engaging you?
I've often thought that extreme liberals and extreme conservatives are far more similar to each other than they are to those in the middle. Both groups have a system of fixed, rigid beliefs. Their mind has been made up on an issue before you even begin discussing the topic, and the use of logic and reason fails spectacularly on them. The only difference between them all is that they just happened to be born into different environments, so their particular beliefs are mere manifestations of chance.
I'll ask my friends occasionally, "Why you believe that?", and I'm amazed when I realize that beyond a few brief soundbites, there's no real foundation beneath their viewpoints. Strong emotions but little rationale.
And the problem is that these same people always want to enforce their way of thinking on everyone else. I just don't know why. I'm unsure about almost all of my beliefs -- there's so many variables and so much data behind most of these subject that I'm perplexed about how anyone can be so certain they're right.
Quick tip for identifying people like this: if you are debating with someone and they quickly become emotional, angry, or start using a variety of logical fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies), then you're dealing with someone whose beliefs have no substance. The rules apply both ways though; this tip applies only if you didn't provoke them somehow. (For instance, I can become angry in a debate when someone starts attacking my character rather than my position.)