[mercer]

So, I know this is a complicated issue that has been discussion with a lot of emotion and even anger. I find it very difficult to make any sense of it all, because it strikes me that in every discussion some crucial things are mixed up so much that the entire discussion strikes me as unproductive most of the time. In single back and forth's, we mix up:

- the meaning of words - the specificity of the argument (say, actor income versus a country versus the global economy) - the ethical assumptions underlying our argument - the actual facts

Personally I've been raised, developed my thoughts and occupy an environment that can be considered strongly on 'the left' of the spectrum (yes, also vague). That said, I really try to properly understand the 'other' side(s).

But it's difficult, considering that my entire world view is built on assumptions, arguments, lines of reasoning that are built on 'facts' and 'knowledge' that is 'leftist'. My left-wing viewpoint is like a realist painting while my right-wing viewpoint is more like a crude child's drawing. So obviously I'm more likely to reject the latter, and judge its proponents harshly, because it seems so stupid and primitive.

So I guess my question is... How would I best go about developing a more nuanced picture of the 'other' side(s) so that I can try to find 'truth' that is not conveniently aligned with my upbringing and current viewpoints, however difficult (or impossible) that might be?

I've been trying to subscribe to blogs that don't align with my views. I've also been trying to look into philosophical views that seem to further this, but I find it difficult because I don't really know what axioms underly these views so alien to me. So I don't always know where to look. I've been trying to respectfully read economic or social arguments (including pg's recent essay) that I have some fundamental issues with, but it all falls apart through sheer complexity and ambiguity (see: the discussions here where half the time people seem to discuss what pg actually said). And whenever some discussion does go into 'facts', I'd really have to read the sources where half the time I would need to study that particular field to even understand the abstract, not to mention that I can't really check the accuracy of these facts in the first place (and we all know that the further we get from the 'natural' sciences, the more ambiguous and slanted these facts become).

Here's the thing. I was raised an Evangelical Christian, and now I'm (basically) an atheist. The difference between these two paradigms is huge. I've believed both these sides with full conviction, so I know in quite a bit of detail how to defend many beliefs from either side. I feel that as a result, I can often pinpoint at which point in an argument things diverge, and I also feel I can reasonably choose in which direction to go. It also feels a bit schizophrenic and uncomfortable.

But the only reason I can do this is that I've basically studied theology and I've been immersed in this now-alien point of view for about 25 years, not counting the period of overlap where I was very confused about matters.

Obviously I cannot do that with an issue such as this. So what can I do, aside from try to assume that the viewpoint alien to my own is probably not as stupid or superficial as it seems? How can I assess a commenter's viewpoint when I don't have any knowledge of their background, honestly, or expertise as a person (which I do feel is important. we need to take shortcuts at some point).

It's incredibly frustrating, but I don't want to get stuck in convictions that I just happen to have chanced into, basically.

[bsbechtel]

It might be good to explore some of the books that are considered classics with regards to free market capitalism. Adam Smith's writings, along with Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, will give you a much more nuanced understanding of the philosophies behind the ideas of the 'right'. The Road to Serfdom is one I would suggest starting with. I think you will find some much more powerful arguments for right wing economics from these authors than you will find in most of today's writing on the subject as well. I think it will help you think about the issues more clearly and independently as well (by better understanding both sides), to come up with your own arguments. IMHO, I've tried reading what are considered 'classics' of left wing economics, and fail to find the same nuance, or arguments that are materially different from what is written today. Of course this could be just my own opinion, so I would love to hear your views after reading.

[mercer]

You know what, I'll actually do that. Would 'The Road to Serfdom' be accessible enough to someone who has a relatively broad general knowledge, but is mostly versed in psychology?

This might sound strange, but is there any chance you would be willing to check up on my resolve in about a month? Just a quick email would be enough. It's just that with everything else going on in my life currently, I'm likely to forget even if I set a reminder or task...

(and I understand if you don't feel like doing this of course)

[bsbechtel]

I set a reminder on my phone for a month from now. I'll do my best to follow up. TRTS is grounded in political/economic philosophy, as it was written before economics had the analytical rigor it has today. Don't let that fool you into thinking it is out of date and incorrect. Many things in the field of economics and politics can't really be accurately measured (how do you really measure how much a 1% tax increase affects future innovation and entrepreneurship, if those innovations don't exist yet?) That being said, if you can handle dense psychology books, you might need to re-read a few paragraphs and sentences multiple times to get it, but you'll probably be fine.

[edanm]

What a great question! I hope I can help.

The biggest differences in economic debates are not between people who have different viewpoints. The biggest differences are between people who have actually studied economics and know what they're talking about, and most people, who are saying things that don't make sense, and basing most of their arguments on misunderstandings and wishful thinking.

I find that just reading a lot of "real" economics from real economists will usually make everything you read much, much clearer, whether you come at it from the "left" or the "right". I also tend to find that most economists are significantly to the "right" of the standard populace, which would make it even better for your needs. (This could just be my biased reading habits, but I think not - I have other thoughts on the subject but they're not for now).

Now, how can you go about reading real economists? The best way is to actually study economics, which you can do either via online videos (plenty of them available) or reading a textbook. I recommend Mankiw's "Principles of Economics" textbook, it's very readable.

If you don't have the time/inclination for reading a whole textbook, the next best thing is to read more "introduction to economics" books. A few that I highly recommend:

1. Basic Economics - Thomas Sowell. Brilliant book, was my first introduction to real economics. Most people will say it's heavily biased to the "right", so could be good for your usecase, but keep it in mind.

2. Naked Economics - Charled Wheelan. A bit shorter and lighter than Sowell, but a great book. I think it's a lot more balanced.

3. Great Courses courses on economics (audiobooks). A good one to start with is "Economics" by Timothy Taylor.

After this you can dive deeper into specific questions/areas you care about, e.g. there are brilliant courses by the Great Courses on how the stock market works, etc. Very useful to know what's actually going on in the world.