How to Tame Extremists

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I 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".

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 v ...[text shortened]... ill relive the same suffering over and over. Is this really in anyone's interest?

no, clearly to us living outside that situation your point is obvious.

however, human nature and the carrying forward of historical grudges, the cumulative effect of generations of feud, of bloodshed, of terrible things done by both sides, are things I have no insight on how to cure.

humans have yet to grow past certain patterns of behavior that motivates them to destroy at least as much and perhaps more than they build.

Hence, Sunstein's thesis.

So, the question I am looking to talk about is as old as civilization itself. We cannot trust people to make good decisions. Who will make good decisions for them?

Historically, I know of no system that does this particularly well as a function of the system's design. However, I do feel that the system that has been tried in the USA has worked better than any other on so large a scale. It is clearly fraught with defects that lead to unintended and untoward consequences. It also creates and perpetuates a host of injustices born of the essentially selfish and parochial nature of the interests served. Yet it generates an amazing amount of material prosperity, even if that comes at a terrible price in terms of non-material quality of life.

While I despised the Corporatism of the Bush years, I'm again apprehensive about what I see as the potential in Sunstein's ideas and his position for the Federal government's Executive Branch to continue its Imperial ways and to branch out even more radically to consolidate and extend its power.

If I had to choose between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, with some reservations, I choose the latter over the former.

Originally posted by Scriabin
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.

Nor have I read this book, but if, as it seems, Sunstein's central idea is that in discussions the extremes only reinforce themselves and no one really is inclined to move to the middle, then I would say that is clearly not a new idea.

Originally posted by Palynka
If the person is not very dogmatic, the arguments will resonate in their heads and they will move to the middle.

But there's no militancy in 'the middle'. Dogma is self-energizing. Momentum and certainty propels the compulsion to have a bearing on decision making. Resonation, in reality, boils down to simplification not to careful consideration. Entrenchment and lack of doubt are seen as political virtues in the public arena, egged on by talking heads. Television has irrevocably altered the form of political discourse and reduced it to a type of entertainment. There's little entertainment to be had in 'the middle'. Enter the dogmatists, stage left and stage right.

Originally posted by FMF
Nor have I read this book, but if, as it seems, Sunstein's central idea is that in discussions the extremes only reinforce themselves and no one really is inclined to move to the middle, then I would say that is clearly not a new idea.

this is a trivial point

Originally posted by FMF
But there's no militancy in 'the middle'. Dogma is self-energizing. Momentum propels decision making. Resonation, in reality, boils down to simplification not to careful consideration. Entrenchment and lack of doubt are seen as political virtues in the public arena, egged on by talking heads. Television has irrevocably altered the form of political discourse and ...[text shortened]... entertainment to be had in 'the middle'. Enter the dogmatists, stage left and stage right.

this is a good point, especially that concerning the effect of TV.

but, to be equally trivial, it is hardly a new thought.

In fact, Obama again demonstrated the rather breathtaking scope of his intelligence, his mastery of the medium, and his unflappability when NBC's Brian Williams asked him if he ever watched the talking heads on cable channels when they talked about him.

Obama said he did not watch them, and then issued in such calm cool tones what one can only describe as a strikeout pitch aimed at NBC and all the others. Obama said he didn't watch MSNBC's Chris Mathews, the liberal host of "Hard Ball," nor Pat Buchanan, the execrable, bigoted "conservative" talking head on that show. Obama said he didn't watch these shows because he didn't learn anything from them. He didn't learn from them because they were mere theatrical set pieces wherein the talking heads play the roles assigned to them and perform as entertainers, not thinkers.

I was overjoyed to hear him say this. I thereupon resolved finally to cut my cable TV subscription to the bare minimum needed for this internet connection and a few HD channels I can't get over the air using an Apple EyeTV.

There really is no more news as I understand the term on TV.

Not only newspapers, but journalism as I practiced it for many years before joining government is dying.

Originally posted by Scriabin
In fact, Obama again demonstrated the rather breathtaking scope of his intelligence, his mastery of the medium, and his unflappability when NBC's Brian Williams asked him if he ever watched the talking heads on cable channels when they talked about him. [...]

[...] ...Obama said he didn't watch these shows because he didn't learn anything from them. He didn't learn from them because they were mere theatrical set pieces wherein the talking heads play the roles assigned to them and perform as entertainers, not thinkers."

Hardly an original answer or new idea. Gus Dur, the first elected President of Indonesia after Soeharto's downfall, used a very similar quip quite often. The press here didn't seem to feel it especially demonstrated a breathtaking scope of his intelligence, his mastery of the medium, and his unflappability, although Gus Dur was indeed a keenly intelligent and unflappable man operating in an extremely complex political domain.

Obama's retort seems like a rather ordinary political hack's retort, if you ask me. I am quite sure Obama has several staff designated to the task of sifting through the upshot and ebb and flow of TalkingheadsWorld, as the President himself is involved in countless theatrical set pieces in which he is trying to manipulate the medium of TV.

Originally posted by FMF
But there's no militancy in 'the middle'. Dogma is self-energizing. Momentum and certainty propels the compulsion to have a bearing on decision making. Resonation, in reality, boils down to simplification not to careful consideration. Entrenchment and lack of doubt are seen as political virtues in the public arena, egged on by talking heads. Television has irrev ...[text shortened]... entertainment to be had in 'the middle'. Enter the dogmatists, stage left and stage right.

Is a "militant middle" an oxymoron? I once wrote a song to express the rage I felt at the people aboard KAL flight 007 killed by a Russian fighter plane, ostensibly because it had strayed off course into Russian territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007

The best I could come up with, describes the frustration anyone would feel who would want to put an end to all the madness, but whose only mechanism of dissent would be the strategy of non-violence.

Flight 007

Its all in the rule book X2
the fighter took one good look
its all in the rule book
the cowboy was not amused
he knew he wouldn't light the fuse

Lucky 7 flying high x2
he had the number of a spy
lucky 7 flying high
he must have missed the warning
he's life flashed up before him!

The 23 book of psalms x2
didn't mention napalm
the 23 book of psalms
the fighter dipped an evil wing
and let loose a heated sting

A lot of good people died x2
the fighter suffered dented pride
a lot of good people died
our hero's in concrete
stood around with itchy feet

They're trying to blow our race x2
so that they can save their face
they're trying to blow our race
so lets be heroes one more time
and drink a glass of red red wine

Fools in a passion play x2
when you gonna learn to stand and say
fools in a passion play
I love my life I love my field
I will not kill I will not yield

Its all in the rule book X2
the fighter took one good look
its all in the rule book
the cowboy was not amused
he knew he couldn't light the fuse

©1983 Myriad Music

Originally posted by Scriabin
no, clearly to us living outside that situation your point is obvious.

however, human nature and the carrying forward of historical grudges, the cumulative effect of generations of feud, of bloodshed, of terrible things done by both sides, are things I have no insight on how to cure.

humans have yet to grow past certain patterns of behavior that motiv omas Jefferson and John Adams, with some reservations, I choose the latter over the former.

Perhaps we need to stop asking why there's so much war and fighting - and instead ask why, in a world with 6Bill+ people, there is actually so LITTLE war and fighting? Nobody writes news stories about all those places where everything is functioning smoothly.

There are lots of places where people from differing backgrounds and ideologies find a way to cooperate and get along with each other. Sunnstein should look into how it is that almost all humans are able to overcome the polarization and live in peace.

Originally posted by FMF
But there's no militancy in 'the middle'. Dogma is self-energizing. Momentum and certainty propels the compulsion to have a bearing on decision making. Resonation, in reality, boils down to simplification not to careful consideration. Entrenchment and lack of doubt are seen as political virtues in the public arena, egged on by talking heads. Television has irrev ...[text shortened]... entertainment to be had in 'the middle'. Enter the dogmatists, stage left and stage right.

Of course, moving to the "middle" would imply the end of militancy.

Momentum and certainty propels the compulsion to have a bearing on decision making. Resonation, in reality, boils down to simplification not to careful consideration.

It's not clear to me what you mean by this. For me, resonation (how I was using it) is important when it takes a degree of careful consideration that is shadowed by the competitive nature of an on-going argument. The fight then is not between your thoughts and the other guy's anymore, but within yourself.

My point was that during argument among "militants", then entrenchment will almost surely occur. However, to my mind, there are (roughly) two types of militancy. One is the dogmatic, propaganda-fuelled militant and the other is a reasoned, non-dogmatic believer in the cause. The latter will be able to defends his beliefs in a rational and coherent way, but the former will inevitably display contradictory beliefs EVEN at a very superficial level.

Now, during the argument, I don't expect even the reasoned militant to recognize any contradictions in his beliefs when pointed out to them. Note that these will not be superficial and so will, in general, be finer points for which it doesn't take a large degree of cognitive dissonance to sweep them under the mental carpet. For these, I think there is hope.

Originally posted by Palynka
to my mind, there are (roughly) two types of militancy. One is the dogmatic, propaganda-fuelled militant and the other is a reasoned, non-dogmatic believer in the cause. The latter will be able to defends his beliefs in a rational and coherent way, but the former will inevitably display contradictory beliefs EVEN at a very superficial level.

I think you are spot on here. However my earlier remarks were based on the anecdote-driven, observation-driven assuption that the reasoned, non-dogmatic believers are not significantly numerous, and not "militant" in the sense that they are willing to hang on as the propagandized militants strut, preen and insist, burning off the oxygen of discourse and attracting the TV cameras.

Originally posted by FMF
I think you are spot on here. However my earlier remarks were based on the anecdote-driven, observation-driven assuption that the reasoned, non-dogmatic believers are not significantly numerous, and not "militant" in the sense that they are willing to hang on as the propagandized militants strut, preen and insist, burning off the oxygen of discourse and attracting the TV cameras.

I think the internet can be even worse, because you can direct where to search. Of course, it takes an even higher degree of self-control to read sites you disagree with, so you'll keep coming back to the places where you only validate your preconceptions.

Forums are a nice exception, though.

Originally posted by Palynka
I think the internet can be even worse, because you can direct where to search. Of course, it takes an even higher degree of self-control to read sites you disagree with, so you'll keep coming back to the places where you only validate your preconceptions.

Forums are a nice exception, though.

When I am back in Britain I read the Daily Telegraph. I read - and listen to - The Economist every week. I take in quite a bit of Fox News and Al Jazeira when I am on the road as a consultant or trainer. I was brought up to believe that consistently reading or exposing oneself to what one disagrees with weathers one's convictions and renews them by way of their actual virtues and realism rather than their intellectual validity or emotional resonance.

Forums are a nice exception, though.

On forums we can Be All That We Can Be or we can Be All That We Cannot Be. The uncertainty can make it tantalizing. People dashing themselves against the rocks can be interesting.

Originally posted by FMF
[b] [...] ...Obama said he didn't watch these shows because he didn't learn anything from them. He didn't learn from them because they were mere theatrical set pieces wherein the talking heads play the roles assigned to them and perform as entertainers, not thinkers."

Hardly an original answer or new idea. Gus Dur, the first elected President of Indonesia in countless theatrical set pieces in which he is trying to manipulate the medium of TV.[/b]

I didn't ask you.

You as usual go about changing the subject.

Now as usual you are on about whether or not the idea was original.

As though that matters .. You fail to appreciate Obama's timing. No one here has ever heard of this Indonesian sage you mention, nor would anyone here care a wit. When the most powerful man in this town takes on all the major broadcast media when he knows he is speaking to the largest TV audience of all programming that night is a sign of being much more in tune, more aware of what is happening as it happens than anyone since Reagan. The man is good on camera and thinks on his feet -- and after 8 years of an empty suit, it is quite a relief.

W wasn't dumb, but his act was to make it seem so. W gave an entirely new meaning to the term "assisted living."

He is running the opposition off the airwaves, making more effective use of the tools of communication than anyone since Reagan. but you call him a hack? no, you are calling ME a hack, and that has nothing to do with what I said -- it wasn't the text of his remark that makes him Joe Cool -- it is the context, the timing of it, how effective it was.

Go ahead, try another non sequitur -- this is not the "Obama isn't original, he's a hack and Scriabin is dumb for thinking otherwise" thread -- go start that one yourself and STFU in here and let us get on with it already.

You are, as usual, irrelevant, immaterial, and unable to contribute anything on point regarding the thread subject.

I propose everyone just ignore you in this thread and the tax thread --let's just proceed without noticing you are even posting. You are like that annoying little nerdy girl on the playground with the thick glasses and bad teeth that always wanted the boys to pay attention to her. She was smart, but really poorly wired, so even the other girls wouldn't let her into their little cliques. And no wonder --

And you call others "odd." Are we having a laugh?

Originally posted by Scriabin
I didn't ask you.

You as usual go about changing the subject.

Now as usual you are on about whether or not the idea was original.

As though that matters .. it matters to you, of course, because you merely spit out nastiness or repeat ideas you represent as your original thought. So you evade or miss the point of things as an exercise in egotism.
r awhile. Waste of my time. I started this to talk about sunstein, not dear little YOU.

awww...

and you two were getting along so nicely for a few minutes there...

:'(

Originally posted by sh76
awww...

and you two were getting along so nicely for a few minutes there...

:'(

see my edits.\

I propose we ignore her.

Let's talk about the subject matter.

Unless, of course, you want to start another thread on how often we Americans elect hacks to the White House?

Even W wasn't a hack -- his dumb mumbling inarticulate cowboy act was pretty good, actually.

Besides, I am really po'd today. Obama is going along with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, taking the easy way out, and proposing to abolish the Office of Thrift Supervision AND the thrift banking charter.

My wife works at OTS and all I can say is we were hoping for another source of stress in our lives, we were getting bored with the other ones.