2010-11-30 15:10![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
digitaldiscipline
digitaldisciplineso, some of what got ventilated during the weekend's wandering conversation:
1. a large portion of the social argument that takes place can be boiled down to a handful of factors
- people get invested in their current position to the extent that:
-- they gradually discount the validity, and then existence, of other ones
--- "painted into a corner" doesn't cover it, because the floor is still there, and the paint will dry
--- standing in a tree and cutting all the ones around it down is closer, because then you have no safe way down
---- I cut down trees that people are standing in (and enjoy doing so)
-- any threat to it is met with hostility
--- critical thinking is percieved as a threat
--- introduction of any degree of doubt is percieved as a threat
--- any external questioning of the tenet is percieved as a threat
-- "social ossification" takes place
--- any change is seen as failure or wrongness
---- being wrong is bad
---- being wrong is a sign of weakness
--- change becomes untenable due to all preceeding factors, plus:
---- rigidity becomes brittle
---- constancy is anathema to growth
- applies to:
-- politics
-- religion
--- "doubt is not the opposite of faith; certainty is."
2. when presented with facts:
- any facts that contravene current beliefs are discounted
-- denial of their existence
-- attempts at invalidation
-- inability to include them in argument
--- consciously (eg: global warming denialism, tax breaks on wealthy, etc)
--- subsonsciously (religious dogma)
- any conclusion(s) drawn from the facts that challenge anything in section 1 is discounted
-- (same reasons as above)
-- questioning of those drawing the conclusions
--- motivations / agenda
--- dismissal / lack of credentials
---- whether founded or unfounded
--- ad hominem / bloviation
3. talking heads
- olbermann = / =/= fox folks (y/n?)
-- no
--- uses facts often
--- critical of both sides
--- admits own errors
- maddow
-- older generation doesn't "get" her approach
--- snark and sarcasm may seem unprofessional
--- very much a gen x / gen y voice
-- intensely liberal, not simply a democrat
- limbaugh
-- [long string of epithets and derision unloaded by minister]
-- takes advantage of ignorance of listeners
--- unquestioning loyalty
--- no question of his "facts"
- beck
-- "carnival huckster"
--- plays to crowd
--- runs on ego
--- takes advantage of ignorance of listeners
---- unquestioning loyalty
---- no question of his "facts"
There was more, but it was less formal and not as cut and dried; stuff like cell phones and text messaging technology and whether or not replacing a PDA with a smartphone was the right course to take.
1. a large portion of the social argument that takes place can be boiled down to a handful of factors
- people get invested in their current position to the extent that:
-- they gradually discount the validity, and then existence, of other ones
--- "painted into a corner" doesn't cover it, because the floor is still there, and the paint will dry
--- standing in a tree and cutting all the ones around it down is closer, because then you have no safe way down
---- I cut down trees that people are standing in (and enjoy doing so)
-- any threat to it is met with hostility
--- critical thinking is percieved as a threat
--- introduction of any degree of doubt is percieved as a threat
--- any external questioning of the tenet is percieved as a threat
-- "social ossification" takes place
--- any change is seen as failure or wrongness
---- being wrong is bad
---- being wrong is a sign of weakness
--- change becomes untenable due to all preceeding factors, plus:
---- rigidity becomes brittle
---- constancy is anathema to growth
- applies to:
-- politics
-- religion
--- "doubt is not the opposite of faith; certainty is."
2. when presented with facts:
- any facts that contravene current beliefs are discounted
-- denial of their existence
-- attempts at invalidation
-- inability to include them in argument
--- consciously (eg: global warming denialism, tax breaks on wealthy, etc)
--- subsonsciously (religious dogma)
- any conclusion(s) drawn from the facts that challenge anything in section 1 is discounted
-- (same reasons as above)
-- questioning of those drawing the conclusions
--- motivations / agenda
--- dismissal / lack of credentials
---- whether founded or unfounded
--- ad hominem / bloviation
3. talking heads
- olbermann = / =/= fox folks (y/n?)
-- no
--- uses facts often
--- critical of both sides
--- admits own errors
- maddow
-- older generation doesn't "get" her approach
--- snark and sarcasm may seem unprofessional
--- very much a gen x / gen y voice
-- intensely liberal, not simply a democrat
- limbaugh
-- [long string of epithets and derision unloaded by minister]
-- takes advantage of ignorance of listeners
--- unquestioning loyalty
--- no question of his "facts"
- beck
-- "carnival huckster"
--- plays to crowd
--- runs on ego
--- takes advantage of ignorance of listeners
---- unquestioning loyalty
---- no question of his "facts"
There was more, but it was less formal and not as cut and dried; stuff like cell phones and text messaging technology and whether or not replacing a PDA with a smartphone was the right course to take.
