[notacoward]

> Everybody knows where the other echo chamber is.

Brilliant. Thank you for that excellent summation, and no, I'm not being the least bit sarcastic. That's awesome.

> I have no idea how to fix this.

Neither do I, really, but let's not jump to the solution before we're done with the diagnosis. Here's an idea: critical thinking is overtaught. Yes, over. I know the common belief is that there's not enough critical thinking out there. I've said it myself many times, but it's a bit of a "little knowledge is dangerous" kind of thing. I see a lot of people, especially in tech, who know just enough critical thinking to pick apart someone else's argument, find its logical flaws, name its fallacies, then dismiss the whole thing. What they never did - what they've never been taught to do - is listen. Yes, it's a skill, and thus learnable. Very little of what people say is completely right or completely wrong. None of it comes without context. Take the OP, for example. There's sure a lot of Bernie butthurt there, but it's there for a reason and there are other nuggets of truth to be gleaned from it as well. Even the most deplorable Trump supporter has something to teach us, though perhaps unintentionally. Critical thinking is awesome, but sometimes we need to put off the critique of falsehood until we've looked for some truth.

[mannykannot]

Listening to the other side is part of critical thinking, so I do not see how a lack of it may result from overteaching critical thinking. It might be a result of superficially teaching critical thinking, which could result in people being able to name fallacies but not be able to see them.

[notacoward]

Where did you get the idea that listening - really listening, not just mining for quotes you can refute - is part of critical thinking? Where is it taught that way? Where is it practiced that way? They're both valuable and important skills, but they're pretty much independent of one another and too rarely both present in the same person.

[mannykannot]

Ha! - if you are suggesting that I mined your post for something to refute, I would argue that you presented that point as being central to your reply to the second quote that you picked from Qznc's post (and I also think it was central to that reply, so I don't think I am taking it out of context.)

I actually went so far as to do a little search into how others defined critical thinking, and they uniformly included being informed and fact-based. It seems unlikely to me that one can participate informedly in a debate without having really listened to the other participants.

Given how prevalent and easily accessible that view of critical thinking is, I am curious as to what informed your apparent view that this is not part of critical thinking.

[notacoward]

> if you are suggesting

I am doing no such thing. There was nothing in what I said to suggest that it was directed at you specifically. This would be a very bad time to construct a strawman.

> hey uniformly included being informed and fact-based

"Informed and fact-based" is not the same as listening to one's opponent. I wasn't talking about what tools can be used to rebut another's argument; I was - pretty clearly - talking about listening to it before the rebuttal starts. You've pretty much just proven my point.

[mannykannot]

If I had unconditionally stated that you had suggested that, you might have a small point, but I think it is a plausible possible reading and that there's nothing wrong with getting it out of the way, one way or another.

Your response to my position misses my point. You questioned where I got the idea that critical thinking encompasses listening, and what you wrote or thought you were saying up to that point is immaterial to that question. You distinguish between an initial time of listening and a subsequent time of rebuttal, but listening itself involves thinking, whereby one understands and evaluates the information, and it is from that that any rebuttal begins.

BTW I agree with much of what you have written recently about the election, especially your point that Bernie also lost, and with regard to the idea that markets are the solution to everything.