[lacampbell]

I wish once people realised this, they had the courage to apply this to their own dearly held beliefs, particularly political or social ones - how many of those are just lies repeated ad nauseum that clearly aren't true?

But I think most peoples reaction is just to say "Yeah! that's totally what those other people do that our side never does because we're right.".

[dilemma]

Have you applied it to your own beliefs? Which ones? Do you no longer believe in them?

[lacampbell]

I have. I'm not going to mention which ones as that would cheapen the general message, which is bigger than politics. And yes, I no longer believe them.

[xapata]

No it wouldn't cheapen the message, it would illustrate it. I'm also curious which ones.

[aptwebapps]

'Cheapen' might not be the right word but it wouldn't certainly tend to hijack it. As soon as you get specific people start debating the specifics.

[xapata]

The devil is in the details.

[gramstrong]

I've got two for you, from both sides: "Fake News" and "Muslim Ban".

[dilemma]

What about your current beliefs? Why not apply it to them too?

[novalis78]

Triangulation. Take in news sources from opposite sides of the political (scientific etc) spectrum and take them all in in equal size/depth. They'll repeat their own message to make you believe you are "on the right side of the issue" but with triangulation both brainwashing attempts cancel out.

[ralfd]

My only problem with that is that I get frustrated and contrarian with every side.

[novalis78]

I think that's a positive. More Socratic.

[desireco42]

Once you do, you no longer look at the world the same, but also don't have in common with majority of the people. It is a little bit like waking up from Matrix. :)

[cryoshon]

>But I think most peoples reaction is just to say "Yeah! that's totally what those other people do that our side never does because we're right.".

to guard against this, as soon as i am aware of a catchphrase or common talking point, i mentally deconstruct it and find the truth. frighteningly, the most commonly repeated verbiages are, should we say, misleading.

but lean a little closer, stranger, and i'll whisper the truth into your ear: the "two sides" are unequal in their abilities for evaluative thought, self righteous zealotry, and dogmatism. an honest attempt at critical evaluation will go nowhere if your evaluating apparatus is garbage.

[cgriswald]

> but lean a little closer, stranger, and i'll whisper the truth into your ear: the "two sides" are unequal in their abilities for evaluative thought, self righteous zealotry, and dogmatism. an honest attempt at critical evaluation will go nowhere if your evaluating apparatus is garbage.

The very fact that both sides are convinced there are two sides suggests this is a false statement. The "sides", really the false divisions and classifications, are some of the biggest lies ever told. In any case, any inequality between them is not the problem. By way of analogy, if two glasses of water have unequal amounts of fecal matter with neither being even close to zero, wouldn't it be better not to drink either of them rather than suggest one is better than the other?

[chillwaves]

We have two political parties in the United States. Do you believe the voters for each side are at parity in their ability to understand reality? Do you believe it is helpful to suggest people choose neither?

[cgriswald]

The idea that having two de facto political parties means there are only two sides and you have to pick one of them is part of the lie. You do understand you can vote for Democrats for one office, Republicans for other offices, write your own name in for a third office, vote Green for a fourth office, and completely abstain on a final office when you either dislike both candidates or feel to ill-informed to cast a vote, right? But "choosing a side" goes way beyond voting, and in this election both 'sides' choose to vote against a side, not for one.

And as for disparity in the understanding of voters of these fictitious sides, the side that likes to claim the other side is uneducated and ignorant is, statistically speaking, less educated. That, too, is part of the lie.

[astrange]

We're closer to having one, since the smart people like to convince themselves not to support the second one through sophistry.

[Al-Khwarizmi]

If with the second one you mean the non-ruling party, it actually got more votes in the presidential election than the ruling party.

[astrange]

You need to win all the small elections you can, from senator down to county dogcatcher, and not just win-but-lose the big one. Think of it as promoting internally.

[cryoshon]

in reality there area bajillion sides. it's just an easy construct that people will understand at least two of those.

[rdtsc]

> the "two sides" are unequal in their abilities for evaluative thought, self righteous zealotry, and dogmatism. an honest attempt at critical evaluation will go nowhere if your evaluating apparatus is garbage.

The good news is that you don't even have to worry about the "other side" just worry about the things that you believe. That was the point.

Also unlike hard sciences and logic the fact that there only two sides and one must be in either one, is also a thing to evaluate.

So you're right. First there is a need for a meta-evaluation, is my evaluation apparatus even working and how would I test if it is.

[lacampbell]

but lean a little closer, stranger, and i'll whisper the truth into your ear: the "two sides" are unequal in their abilities for evaluative thought, self righteous zealotry, and dogmatism. an honest attempt at critical evaluation will go nowhere if your evaluating apparatus is garbage.

Of course everyone will think the two sides are unequal, with the side that isn't theirs getting the worst of it.