Understanding what parts of an argument you dislike are actually something you can agree with seems like a valuable thing to keep in mind. The post is well written and easy to understand too. I probably won’t do this any more than I already do though.
What I try to do isn’t so different, just less formal. I usually simply agree or disagree directly on individual points that come up through trying to understand things in general. I do not usually keep in mind what the current score is of agreement or disagreement is, and that seems to help not skew things too much. I do feel no pressure to just ignore the parts I disagree with for a while though.
I think your descriptions of reasons in favor of social norms are very well reasoned. How much does the original sound like your version of the argument? Is this their argument in your words, or your related argument?
Whether or not you should have included your bit on ‘weirdos’ based on your rules, I think it was good analysis on them too.
I’m not personally a conservative (independent, relatively centrist but unusual politics, and I would actually self identify as a weirdo), but I think that one of the biggest problems in my country (America) is that the people trying to change society don’t put in the effort to figure out the reasons why things should stay the same, thus completely destroying any cost-benefit analysis of the policies they propose. Often the policies could be made much better and much more practical with just a little understanding of it. Thus I usually have little choice in what politicians I support.
There are an awful lot of reforms that could make things better, but instead we focus entirely on ones that do not, because the reformers don’t bother to know they’re doing so, and wild changes are more interesting to think about (to me as well). We should reform the whole not knowing the reasons to avoid reforms thing first.
To the extent the reformers actually listen to actual conservatives and understand their reasons, that does help.
What I try to do isn’t so different, just less formal. I usually simply agree or disagree directly on individual points that come up through trying to understand things in general.
I don’t think you need the agreement-extent game then :) This more formal approach is probably helpful for people like me who tend to go on the offensive in face-to-face interactions.
How much does the original sound like your version of the argument? Is this their argument in your words, or your related argument?
Most of what I wrote is my version of the argument. The two quotes I included are the extent to which Peterson presents his position. The video was on a somewhat different topic, so it’s not surprising that he didn’t explore it too deeply. He probably has a more elaborate explanation of his position somewhere on the web.
I think that one of the biggest problems in my country (America) is that the people trying to change society don’t put in the effort to figure out the reasons why things should stay the same, thus completely destroying any cost-benefit analysis of the policies they propose.
I have a similar impression of European politics (though there’s probably less polarization than in the US). I agree that it’s a fatal flaw!
Understanding what parts of an argument you dislike are actually something you can agree with seems like a valuable thing to keep in mind. The post is well written and easy to understand too. I probably won’t do this any more than I already do though.
What I try to do isn’t so different, just less formal. I usually simply agree or disagree directly on individual points that come up through trying to understand things in general. I do not usually keep in mind what the current score is of agreement or disagreement is, and that seems to help not skew things too much. I do feel no pressure to just ignore the parts I disagree with for a while though.
I think your descriptions of reasons in favor of social norms are very well reasoned. How much does the original sound like your version of the argument? Is this their argument in your words, or your related argument?
Whether or not you should have included your bit on ‘weirdos’ based on your rules, I think it was good analysis on them too.
I’m not personally a conservative (independent, relatively centrist but unusual politics, and I would actually self identify as a weirdo), but I think that one of the biggest problems in my country (America) is that the people trying to change society don’t put in the effort to figure out the reasons why things should stay the same, thus completely destroying any cost-benefit analysis of the policies they propose. Often the policies could be made much better and much more practical with just a little understanding of it. Thus I usually have little choice in what politicians I support.
There are an awful lot of reforms that could make things better, but instead we focus entirely on ones that do not, because the reformers don’t bother to know they’re doing so, and wild changes are more interesting to think about (to me as well). We should reform the whole not knowing the reasons to avoid reforms thing first.
To the extent the reformers actually listen to actual conservatives and understand their reasons, that does help.
I don’t think you need the agreement-extent game then :) This more formal approach is probably helpful for people like me who tend to go on the offensive in face-to-face interactions.
Most of what I wrote is my version of the argument. The two quotes I included are the extent to which Peterson presents his position. The video was on a somewhat different topic, so it’s not surprising that he didn’t explore it too deeply. He probably has a more elaborate explanation of his position somewhere on the web.
I have a similar impression of European politics (though there’s probably less polarization than in the US). I agree that it’s a fatal flaw!