One step further: "Because we think they think we are..." Turtles all the way down.
An honest answer to "Why do your opponents disagree with you?" probably has to begin "Because they think we are…" rather than "Because they are…."
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Shouldn't it be "Because I think they/we are..." ? One can't really know what others are thinking
-
You can when they tell you.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Or perhaps just ask them... "Come, let us reason together..."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
We can slip too far towards relativism, where we lose sight of the fact there is real truth in the world. Q: "Why do your opponents not think human-caused climate change is real." A: "Because they are ignorant about climate science."
-
A. Because they think we are overreacting and climate change is a hoax.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You can say "Because they are…." and still remains honest IF you know well your opponents...so once again Context. the story here is that you are judging them because you THINK you know what they have in mind and the context behind their story
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think the point Paul is trying to make is that bridging this divide starts with trying to understand those on the other side of it. "They are" just widens the divide. "They think we are" is beginning to exercise some empathy. Doesn't mean you must agree, just understand.
-
It is hard when people cannot agree on baseline facts though. Of course people have different ideologies. We've had that since the beginning of the Republic. But when they are lead by someone who tells thousands of lies, how can we come to agreement?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think, more often than not, the answer is "because they identify with a different tribe". Therefore, it is more efficient to change an opinion by identity manipulation than fair discourse.
-
I.e. the opinions of one's opponents are likely to be rationalizations. Counterarguments will result in either more rationalizations, or will be flatly ignored via doublethink. It can be minimized in specific contexts (e.g. academic papers), but otherwise I think it's rampant.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.