[jolmg]

It can go both ways. Bad actors can simplify because it leads to indifference, by way of generalizations. "black" = "bad", "illegal immigrant" = "gang member". It's how racism works.

> The “good” side therefore needs to fight that complexity with simplicity and empathy.

Empathy, yes. Simplicity doesn't normally lead to empathy; complexity does.

[Cyph0n]

But “Black = bad” is not a simple argument because you cannot make that argument without backing it with a bunch of convoluted nonsense (complexity). Likewise with illegal immigration.

Racism never was (and still isn’t) simple. There were entire scientific fields developed to justify racial hierarchy. Nazism was similar.

[jolmg]

black = bad is the generalization, not the argument. The argument tends to be to just look at the number of incarcerated black people. That's simple.

> you cannot make that argument without backing it with a bunch of convoluted nonsense (complexity).

Unfortunately, the one listening is the one that determines how much complexity you need. Some people are convinced more easily than others. In the end, people tend to believe what they want.

[Cyph0n]

> In the end, people tend to believe what they want.

Agreed. My point about complexity vs. simplicity does not apply to people who are coming in with strong, preconceived notions. Because how would a simple argument convince them of a generalization otherwise?

Expanding on this, the point I was making is that Complexity is dangerous for those who are genuinely interested in trying to understand a topic or are simply on the fence. Just muddy the water until they lose interest and you’re golden.

The antidote to that is simplicity and empathy: start with the core issue and frame it in terms the audience will empathize with. In fact, I think this is also how you deal with the aforementioned group who are easy to fall into the trap of oversimplification; you just have to find a way to simplify things differently :)

[miki123211]

I think this often tends to fall along political lines.

In my experience, the left tends to like simple stories ("we are poor and the capitalists are rich, so just take their money and give it to us", "if people love each other, they should be able to marry, no matter the gender"). The right tends to like complex explanations ("taking money from the rich destroys the incentive structure required for effective resource allocation", "gay marriage makes gay people happy, but destroy the Christian values on which the western society was build, and therefore may have unpredictable consequences").

Neither approach is right or wrong. The left tends to oversimplify and prioritize surface compassion above all else (the communism case), but sometimes the simple argument really is the right argument (the gay marriage case). The right tries to show off how smart and sophisticated their arguments are, and how "it's not that simple". Sometimes they get it right (such as in the communism case), but they very often try to find a "but actually" explanation where one is not warranted (the gay marriage case).

[jolmg]

It's probably more that one person understands their own views better than they do those of others, regardless of the particular views of each. Meaning, they perceive the other's views as simple and their own as complex.

A leftist can equally say that a rightist likes simple stories ("if the poor want to be rich, they should just apply themselves", "less developed countries are such because their race (DNA) results in inferior IQ"). The left tends to like complex explanations ("we don't live in a perfect meritocracy for one to just apply themselves. There's various complex societal issues preventing that stemming from racism, sexism, inherited trauma, classism, differing values from working-class cultures, etc. Some of it can be seen as maybe unintended but real covert oppression by the upper classes, which leads to a sense of societal responsibility instead of just simple surface compassion.", "Countries may be less developed because of a plethora of reasons, including historical events that lead to different issues and compounding effects, cultures that value other things over those that lead to personal economic growth (e.g. people that couldn't imagine leaving their aging parents to care for themselves or be left with strangers instead of personally becoming their caregivers), etc. Intelligence doesn't exist on a one-dimensional spectrum as measured by IQ. IQ itself probably doesn't only depend on DNA. It's possible your environment and personal history also influence it. If the belief comes from statistical reports on the average IQ by country, it's also possible it's due to brain drain from emigration.")

[Cyph0n]

Funnily enough, your comment introduces complexity into what I see as a fairly simple argument. Also, I love how you pulled communism out of nowhere. A centrist would nod along with every sentence :)

[inigyou]

I read that left-wing people are consistently found to be much more able to process conflicting ideas than right-wing people are.

[consensus1]

40 years of experience has taught me that absolutely no one is less able to process conflicting ideas than left wing people are, and it's not close.

[jolmg]

Political extremes will be extreme. Centrists can hold both.

[inigyou]

AFAIK this generally isn't true. About the centrists, I mean. Most self-identified centrists are just moderate right-wingers.

[jolmg]

It's all relative on a spectrum to one's personal perspective, I imagine. Kind of like how most people might self-identify as middle-class, but wouldn't identify others as such when comparing to themselves.