The White House's top regulator, Cass Sunstein, tackles an impossible task, according to Christopher Caldwell in the June 15, 2009, edition of SLATE.
Caldwell says, "Sunstein has written Going to Extremes, a short book about the nature and roots of extremism. ... He finds that sitting people down to deliberate does not necessarily lead them to compromise or to converge on their mean opinion. They tend to radicalize in the direction of whatever bias they had to begin with."
"The central insight of this book is that deliberation, far from bringing people together, can drive them to extremes," according to Caldwell.
here's the link to the review: http://www.slate.com/id/2219486/pagenum/all/#p2
It is certainly interesting that one who believes these things is now sitting at the very apex of the Federal government's authority to use the power of regulation and regulatory enforcement, is it not?
Originally posted by Palynkaread the article and put your oar in
I predict this thread will end up in several rounds of childish name-calling between Scriabin, FMF and generalissimo.
[self-dispelling prophecy? I can only hope.]
hopefully FMF will start her own thread somewhere else -- I won't post in her threads
what about Sunstein's ideas, that in discussions like these, the extremes only reinforce themselves and no one really is inclined to move to the middle?
I think Sunstein is right that this phenomenon exists, but I've not read the book, so I've no idea what he would do about it or whether his thought on this subject would affect his work at the Office of Management and Budget, and therefore the entire Federal government.
Originally posted by ScriabinIt's fairly obvious that this phenomenon exists. Especially when dealing with dogmatic positions.
what about Sunstein's ideas, that in discussions like these, the extremes only reinforce themselves and no one really is inclined to move to the middle?
However, there is a difference between entrenching the positions within the duration of the discussion and the "longer-run" (so to speak) effect of the arguments presented.
In my anecdotal experience, cognitive dissonance can be overwhelmingly strong in the entrenchment part of the discussion (even among non-dogmatic people, who will come across as dogmatic) but less in the "longer run" part. If the person is not very dogmatic, the arguments will resonate in their heads and they will move to the middle.
The question becomes, of course, of identifying the dogmatic ones from those who merely seem dogmatic.
Originally posted by Scriabinnothing new here.
The White House's top regulator, Cass Sunstein, tackles an impossible task, according to Christopher Caldwell in the June 15, 2009, edition of SLATE.
Caldwell says, "Sunstein has written Going to Extremes, a short book about the nature and roots of extremism. ... He finds that sitting people down to deliberate does not necessarily lead them to compromi ...[text shortened]... ernment's authority to use the power of regulation and regulatory enforcement, is it not?
Are you really surprised that people won't back down even when confronted with facts that are counter to their beliefs?
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaIt appears that it's not the extreme views themselves that are the problem. The bad stuff happens when people obsess about some "enemy" and focus on hating that person or group. This feels good because it "unites the group", but it leads to so many bad things.
It's fairly obvious that this phenomenon exists. Especially when dealing with dogmatic positions.
However, there is a difference between entrenching the positions within the duration of the discussion and the "longer-run" (so to speak) effect of the arguments presented.
In my anecdotal experience, cognitive dissonance can be overwhelmingly strong in t n becomes, of course, of identifying the dogmatic ones from those who merely seem dogmatic.
I think a good illustration was Martin Luther King's approach to his cause. King was clearly "extreme" in his devotion to the cause of civil rights and racial equality. But King was strongly influenced by Jesus' teaching to "Love thy Enemy" -- While he clearly saw the southern whites as being "wrong" on race, he refused to hate the whites and he refused to allow violence to be part of the blacks' effort to overturn segregation. It is really chilling to consider what might have happened had the blacks acted violently against the "hated enemy" - it may well have set off a race war rivalling the Civil War and we today might be talking about America's stalled "racial peace process" in the way we currently talk about the stalled Mideast peace process.
Likewise, what if the Palestinians and-or the Israelis were to take King's approach? -- What if Palestinians and Jews were to love their enemies and sincerely pray for them no matter what? -- What if Democrats and Republicans were to take this approach?
Originally posted by MelanerpesOne might say that King had no choice but to embrace the white man rather than fight him. King wanted the black man to be treated as an equal. Had there been a race war, this would have never happened. In fact, it would have deepend the separation. King was a smart man in many regards but, in reality, he took the only path available.
It appears that it's not the extreme views themselves that are the problem. The bad stuff happens when people obsess about some "enemy" and focus on hating that person or group. This feels good because it "unites the group", but it leads to so many bad things.
I think a good illustration was Martin Luther King's approach to his cause. King was clearly ...[text shortened]... atter what? -- What if Democrats and Republicans were to take this approach?
Originally posted by uzlessyes - it was the only path available -- but in situations like these, the "natural impulse" is to ignore this path and go bushwhacking through the forest of hatred and get totally lost.
One might say that King had no choice but to embrace the white man rather than fight him. King wanted the black man to be treated as an equal. Had there been a race war, this would have never happened. In fact, it would have deepend the separation. King was a smart man in many regards but, in reality, he took the only path available.
Originally posted by Melanerpesthese are all quite different situations where the rather simplistic "love thy enemy" idea is of questionable utility -- especially since it is not human nature to think that way.
It appears that it's not the extreme views themselves that are the problem. The bad stuff happens when people obsess about some "enemy" and focus on hating that person or group. This feels good because it "unites the group", but it leads to so many bad things.
I think a good illustration was Martin Luther King's approach to his cause. King was clearly ...[text shortened]... atter what? -- What if Democrats and Republicans were to take this approach?
people protect their interests, insofar as they can see what's in their own interest.
in an increasingly complex world where such things as securitized mortgage debt and credit default swaps exist, it is understandable that not everyone can discern exactly what their interests are or whose interests they have been unknowingly manipulated into supporting believing those interests are their own.
Hence the long standing joke regarding blue collar conservatives in an imagined hyperbolic but very funny image gathering with their pitchforks and torches in Kansas, marching to the gated communities of the corporate elite and uber rich, flying the black flag and screaming "We are here to cut your taxes!"
Originally posted by uzlesshow much negotiating have you done?
compromise demands a certain retreat from one's current position. If you prefer to call backing down by a different name, have at it.
when you buy a car, for example, and you agree to pay more than you first offered to pay, do you believe that is always a "certain retreat" from your initial position?
1 edit
Originally posted by Scriabinuzless is a binary thinker. In his arguments with me he always expects 0 or 1 and gets confused when I give him an answer in terms of a probability distribution.
how much negotiating have you done?
when you buy a car, for example, and you agree to pay more than you first offered to pay, do you believe that is always a "certain retreat" from your initial position?
Originally posted by ScriabinI agree - it's not human nature to think this way - in fact, pretty much all of Jesus' teachings challenges people to go against "human nature".
these are all quite different situations where the rather simplistic "love thy enemy" idea is of questionable utility -- especially since it is not human nature to think that way.
people protect their interests, insofar as they can see what's in their own interest.
But there is a LOT of utility behind the "love thy enemy" concept. Consider what happens when you pray or wish for good things to happen to your enemies. It forces you to look at things from the other side's viewpoint and consider what they need and want - and they suddenly don't seem so "evil".
The irony is that when a side starts thinking about the other side's interests, it actually makes it easier for that side's OWN interests to advance. Consider the Middle East - is it really in either side's interest to continue reeking violence upon the other? A peace agreement would allow both sides to attain more security and prosperity and freedom. All those walls could be torn down and each side's economy would benefit from the contributions from the other side. But each side would need to make concessions and develop trust. But how can there be peace when each side hates the other so much? How can there be any compromises? A hundred years may pass and a whole new cast of people will relive the same suffering over and over. Is this really in anyone's interest?