Kathryn Schulz gave an interesting lecture (video queued to 9:58, but feel free to watch the entire thing):
I’ve found that I can learn simply by trying to understand why someone disagrees with me. By that, I mean what reasoning they use to reach their conclusions. Of course, the easiest thing in the world to do is to base our opinions only on the stupid people who disagree with us (of course, ignoring the stupid people who agree with us). The real question is “why do smart people disagree?” The point of such an exercise isn’t to reach agreement, but to reach understanding.
NY Magazine has an article about noted NY Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman. An excerpt:
“I brought up the work of the legal scholar Cass Sunstein, now with the Obama administration, who has studied the radicalizing effects of ideological isolation—the idea, born from studies of three-judge panels, that if you are not in regular conversation with people who differ from you, you can become far more extreme. It is a very Obama idea, and I asked Krugman if he ever worried that he might succumb to that tendency. ‘It could happen,’ he says. ‘But I work a lot from data; that’s enough of an anchor. I have a good sense when a claim has gone too far.’
This is the claim of a supreme self-confidence. To say ‘I am anchored in the data’ is really to say ‘I understand exactly what the data mean.’ But it is also the logical extension of a particular view of human nature, one equipped with such a clear view of the way society should be arranged that it can’t comprehend the greed, weakness, and compromise that forestall it. There is society, beautifully. And then there are people.”
Ideological isolation is dangerous because, as Cass Sunstein noted, it leads to extremism and dehumanization of the other side.
This isn’t to say that you have to seek out flat-earthers, but it certainly behooves us to consider the issues that divide us most, and to find ways to have a dialogue with the earnest and intelligent people on the other side. If an idea is popular enough, there will be earnest and intelligent people who disagree. If we can’t find them, we should think of that as a warning light. Being wrong feels just like being right. Don’t let that feeling be your guide. That way lay madness.
No related posts.
I like Paul Krugman. I like that there is someone pushing on Obama from the left who writes for the NYT. I even like that he brings out the rhetoric to persuade people.
A critique on Krugman for being extreme should point out some cases where he is wrong on things. the example given in the article was that Krugman wanted to nationalize some banks. How is that wrong? As far as I can tell this would have meant that US would have cheaply acquired some banks that are now much more valuable. As it is, the guarantees of the US government to the banks have resulted in a free ride for the bank shareholders and executives.
I am not saying Krugman is infallible nor do I think he would be the type of person to graciously admit that he was wrong when he was wrong. I just think he is pushing the conversation in the right direction.
If you think that Obama is anywhere near the center, and that Krugman 2.0 is not extreme (as opposed to Krugman 1.0, who was a serious and highly-respected economist), you are ideologically isolated to a degree I would scarcely have imagined possible.
Wait, what, you think Obama is left-wing?
Are you aware of life anywhere outside the U.S.? I ask this question in all seriousness.
I can learn simply by trying to understand why someone disagrees with me.
Is that why you call Obama a socialist?
This is an argument that I really dislike (although I understand the why of it :) ).
Obama is absolutely a “socialist.” Disagree? Check the definition of socialism. He’s not full blown, but then, no one ever has been. Europe is more socialist than the US, but we’re not far behind. Almost all democrats and most republicans have strong socialist leanings.
I understand that socialism has a social stigma so no one can admit being socialist and remain in politics, but I really wish that would change. It’s absurd that people have to jump through rhetorical hoops to avoid stating the obvious.
All right, but it seems to me that on your blog you use “socialist” as exactly that sort of epithet, the kind that suggests Obama shouldn’t be in politics.
my blog? umm, you’ve got me confused with someone else.
Unless you’re referring to JohnJ, in which case criticize away. He says he likes it.
Oops, you’re right. Sorry.
I maintain that he demonizes Obama on his blog (not to mention referring to himself as a “Johnny Reb”), which makes him somewhat ill suited to deliver this kind of plea for tolerance. If he is truly trying to understand the mentality of people on the “other side” (anyone to the left of Robert E. Lee?), he isn’t doing a good job.
Even leaving aside that, are there in fact two valid sides to every argument? There are many bright and earnest people who support Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, for example; does Johnny Reb truly believe dialogue with those people would accomplish much?
So just to be clear, you have no problem with the idea that ideological isolation leads to extremism and dehumanization of the opposition? I apologize for failing to recognize that you were trying to discredit anything I say by trying to point out that I have a position with which you disagree. Please, try again and I promise to be appropriately offended this time. I suppose you also wanted me to be impressed by the fact that you found my blog by clicking on my name. I’m not ashamed of the positions I hold. At least I can articulate reasons why I hold them, something that 95% of people, including those who agree with me, can’t seem to do.
My point is that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. You’re right, ideological isolation makes people more extreme, but you’re wrong when you hold yourself up as an example of successful anti-extremism.
And why would I expect you to be impressed that I clicked on the link that you chose to put here?
If the point is valid, then who I am really doesn’t matter, does it?
Only one of your points is unrelated to who you are as a person. Your abstract point, that isolation leads to extremism, is hackneyed but correct. But you also make a claim about your personal ability to see other people’s points of view. I would suggest that that claim is invalid and in fact you have not actually learned a great deal from contemplating others’ points of view, as evidenced by your intemperate attacks on Obama on your blog (saying “we’re all in this together” is proof of a socialist agenda?) and your claim that Paul Krugman demonstrates extremist thinking because he disagrees with you and, to quote one of your likely heroes, he believes that what he believes is right. What economist wouldn’t claim to be “anchored in the data” or capable of interpreting it correctly? For what other purpose do economists exist? For that matter, how do you know that Krugman is “ideologically isolated”? You don’t know whom he talks to or what he reads.
But it doesn’t matter: Krugman is an example of creeping extremism because he disagrees with you.
The quote about Krugman is pulled from NY Magazine. As far as I know, this magazine has not been attacked for anti-liberal bias. You make a good point about how everyone believes they’re right, else why would they believe it? (There’s actually a funny scene from House in which Cuddy accuses him of always thinking he’s right, and he responds, “I don’t think I’m always right. I just find it hard to operate from any other premise.”)
I was kind of hoping that point would be addressed somewhat by Schulz’s lecture. Being wrong feels just like being right. That’s why it’s probably a good idea to seek out intelligent people who disagree with us if we want to learn more about a given issue. Some ideas, such as flat-eartherism, probably aren’t worth worrying about. But I think one more or less objective measure would be to consider those ideas that are most popular. If we can maintain a dialogue with intelligent people who hold contrary views on those ideas, that, I think, could help anchor us away from extremism.
I think you’re right, though, that we are all moderates in our own eyes, just as we all believe that we’re right about what we believe. But surely it’s worth the effort.
Thanks for your comments.
Krugman doesn’t read a lot of conservatives:
Some have asked if there aren’t conservative sites I read regularly. Well, no. I will read anything I’ve been informed about that’s either interesting or revealing; but I don’t know of any economics or politics sites on that side that regularly provide analysis or information I need to take seriously. I know we’re supposed to pretend that both sides always have a point; but the truth is that most of the time they don’t. The parties are not equally irresponsible; Rachel Maddow isn’t Glenn Beck; and a conservative blog, almost by definition, is a blog written by someone who chooses not to notice that asymmetry. And life is short …
I really don’t see the problem with that. I don’t read a lot of conservatives either.
Excellent post. This is something that I’ve also tried to do, both in person and on the internet. It really bothers me when I can’t understand why someone is disagreeing with my viewpoint. If I can’t fully comprehend their reasoning, then I worry that I have a “blind spot” that could mean that I’m wrong.
It has always seemed to me that no one should ever be 100% certain of anything.
I like this, it’s true. I’ve begun to start assuming I’m almost always wrong, in just everything, not to doubt myself but to check myself. It’s okay so far.
The speaker in the video offered three explanations why someone may be wrong… (1) ignorance (2) idiocy and (3) evil, and having eliminated all three for most of the people you disagree with, offered NO OTHER ALTERNATIVES, which I feel invalidated much of the rest of what she said. Ignorance? None of us are blessed with perfect knowledge, and two people with the same knowledge can come to different conclusions by filling in the gaps differently. Idiocy? you don’t have to be stupid to make really big mistakes in reasoning. Evil? You can know exactly the way the wind blows, figure out exactly how to use it to your own advantage and then lie lie LIE about your own motives; selfishness is universal and shame over your selfishness and an unwillingness to admit it are too. But also, no matter how we try to be, like Klugman or one of the big-name atheists, totally rational and fact-based, there is in every one of us some assumptions that guide our behavior and how we react to what we do learn. And they can and regularly do make us wrong in the eyes of others. And sometimes just plain WRONG. Cognitive dissonance. It’s not just for member of the other political party.
I don’t think she offered three reasons why others may be wrong. She said these are the three reasons we use to explain why others disagree with us.
I’ll tell you another thing that’s really interesting is talking with someone who agrees with you and then finding out that why they think idea A is a good idea is totally different than why you think it is.
Pingback: dazelie » at work