[csours]

Social Media rewards polarized, highly motivated points of view. This isn't a "both sides" thing, it's a human nature thing.

These highly polarized posts never change anyone's minds. They only make people more motivated. It can be good to be more motivated, but the cost is driving a wedge between people who are differently motivated.

So how can tech solve this?

I have no idea, but people can help by having conversations with a few points in mind:

1. You can't change their mind. If your goal is to change someone's mind, you've set yourself up for failure. Facts don't change minds, yelling certainly does not.

2. You must listen. Try to hear principles that you share. Ask questions about what motivates them.

3. Speaking from shared principles and sharing personal stories can help build common ground.

The problem? These things DON'T SCALE. I don't think this works except on a 1x1 or small group level.

I really don't know how tech can address this.

[jimbokun]

I think it has to be a change to the culture.

Many of us have been shocked at the sudden rejection of Classical Liberalism. Preference for free exchange of ideas, objectivity, debate, judging arguments without regard to who is making the argument.

I think those of us who were engaged in that intellectual world, never realized that most people are not invested in these values. So now that everyone has the capability to broadcast their ideas to the entire world, and consume ideas from anywhere in the world, the marketplace of ideas reflect the tribalism that was already there, but not as evident because "The Elite" controlled the discourse in the past.

Trump of course understood all of this intuitively. He almost exclusively debates people, not ideas, and many people responded positively and enthusiastically to that style of discourse.

[csours]

I agree. Kids are growing up with this stuff. I can only hope that helps them build mental defenses; but I don't expect it to happen automatically. I think it will take a lot of effort from a lot of people.

[esyir]

I'd expect the opposite. Growing up indoctrinated doesn't make you indoctrination resistant.

[giraffe_lady]

It's not that I reject those values per se in their intended, theoretical sense. I don't find them a sufficiently nuanced tool when applied to the world, and so reject any framework that depends wholly on them.

For example:

* None of us are making objective judgements about an argument without considering how the speaker affects us. If you believe you're above this, your evaluations are similarly tainted, just as someone who is openly prejudiced against the speaker would be.

* What does "free exchange of ideas" look like in an unequal society? Where are these ideas being exchanged? They got free buses to the venue, childcare, guaranteed time off work to attend? If not then to what extent is this exchange of ideas open to all?

* Debate isn't a value in its own right. The usefulness or correctness of an idea is fairly unrelated to the rhetorical skills of the person presenting it.

I don't really want to debate any of these specifically so won't engage further on them. I raise them just to point out that rejections of classical liberalism aren't necessarily based on rejecting its values specifically, but more its views about the right role of those values in the world.

[jimbokun]

Yes, your comment is exactly part of the problem I am talking about.

You write long sentences and use sophisticated vocabulary, but what you are saying is that the truth or value of a belief or an idea depends on the person speaking or writing it. Not on the quality of the belief or idea itself. This is sophisticated tribalism.

"I don't really want to debate any of these specifically so won't engage further on them."

Of course. Because truth or challenging your own preconceptions are not important to you. Just reinforcing your alliance to your self perceived tribe.

[giraffe_lady]

You said you were shocked by people rejecting classical liberalism. I offered some of the reasons I've rejected classical liberalism.

I don't think it's possible to evaluate an idea purely on its own merits, without considering the people forming, executing, and effected by it. I don't think it would be meaningful if you could.

That may be irreconcilable with your worldview! That doesn't give you a view into my mind or soul and tell me what is or isn't important to me. It's possibly that I don't value what you consider to be The Truth.

Honestly the idea that there even is anything resembling a single objective truth on complex issues is a lot of my fucking problem with liberalism right there.

I'm not trying to say that some people's ideas should matter more than others. I am saying that that is already true in the structure of the world and that we have a responsibility to acknowledge and account for that.

[jimbokun]

This way of thinking is literally killing people.

In the US, among both working class Republicans and working class black communities, many people decided not to get a Covid vaccine because they do not trust the group of people telling them to get it.

The identity of the people telling them to get the vaccine is completely irrelevant. The reason to get the vaccine is the results of the clinical trials demonstrating that it was safe and effective.

Do those groups have good reason to not trust the kinds of people representing "science"? I am sure they do.

But they do not have to trust those people as individuals. They just need to trust the outcomes of the trials.