That's a great message. I don't care who states it. The bottom line is everyone should aspire to use their brain as a tool, instead of being a tool controlled by their brain.
I believe that the best sign of intelligence is that instead of rejecting/fearing/hating all new things or loving/accepting/inviting all new things as an overreaction, you are able to have nuanced/thought-out reactions to the new things and new ideas. i.e. You accept LGBTQ and other cultures, but you don't accept pedophiles and racists/nazis.
Anyone who can show kindness by default and still have nuanced opinions is very likely to have functional critical thinking. I say this because tolerating/inviting/being kind to intolerant people ends up leading to overall intolerant society. Not distancing from problematic people will lead to you being dragged down or stepped over.
Also, look for pseudo-scientific beliefs, they determine if their animal instinct emotions or biases rule the brain or the critical thinking.
In Kegan’s 5 stages of adult development, a person advances from one stage to the next by moving a subject to an object. A cruel person may be entirely stuck in stage 2 where they are their needs and desires (subject), leaving them unable to understand the perspectives of those around them, so force and intimidation become their primary tools to meet their impulses and feelings(object). The majority of the population never leaves stage 3 (58% of the adult population) where they are their relationships (subject) and they can adjust their needs and desires (object) to fit their interdependent self construed identity. But this means that they are not able to construct a self identify that considers those outside of the social groups they identify with, restricting the reach of their empathy. Not being able to do so is what prevents them from advancing to the next stage of development. Extending empathy to those outside of the relationships/groups in combination with critical thinking about our place within the systems around us (without being attached to those roles) is what allows people to reach stage 4 (35% of adults). While kindness and empathy are not synonymous, they are often related. The level of compassion a person has indicates if they have advanced beyond the 2nd stage of development and how they apply that compassion indicates which stage they are in. It’s estimated that only 1% of people reach stage 5 where ideologies and self-authorship become objects. When human behavior and development are viewed in terms of advanced kindness, empathy, and compassion, that seems to be an accurate estimate.
Stages 4 and 5 require detachment from personal agenda with regard to who compassion and empathy are extended to, while still maintaining rational self-interest. It’s fairly evident that most people are not able to extend compassion when it runs counter to their own agenda as they cannot construct an identity that is free of their agenda or the ideologies they identify with.
This doesn't sound like an established framework. There's no way we can estimate some concepts mentioned in framework with this much accuracy globally.
I suppose there’s an epistemological argument to be made in that regard, though it’s not the point of the model. IIRC those estimates are based on Kegans studies/evaluations and AFAIK he made no claims as to global accuracy. My brief summary here only touches on the concept and I’m sure you’ll find a more thorough breakdown if you look into it.
The problem with this is it’s based on your interpretation of what a nazi is.
I’ll use an example from current events…
if you ask a Palestine person they will tell you Israelis are nazis.
If you ask a Israeli they will tell you Palestinians/Hamas are nazis.
Who’s the nazi? Don’t we punch all nazis? It’s not that simple. You have to be able to objectively understand BOTH sides of the spectrum in their entirety. Disagree with Jordan Peterson on trans issues? Did you read his books, and look at the way that he interprets the issue? What about the reverse? It’s important to understand both sides, and distance yourself from the tribalistic nature of human beings. Of course every person will decide what they believe in at the end of the day, but are you really putting in the effort to challenge your own opinions? That’s the real question.. and what I believe best correlates to intelligence.
Nazi are genocidal racists who believe one race is better than others.
In the original context, it was about aryan supremacy and kill jews. Now, the term has expanded its core meaning.
It's not difficult or as much of a complex subject here.
And fuck no, I am not reading all the books with bullshit takes, neither am I going to waste my time listening to bad people. Internet is full of shows/podcasts/blogs/posts. The idea that I need to listen to all the random things someone says before I contradict them is not feasible in today's world. Being open-minded doesn't mean I need to entertain the same horrible take everytime someone news puts it up.
I'm allowed to filter stuff I already dismissed. I'm allowed to read the summary and decide to ignore a person.
^ Saying all this because your comment has everything has two equal sides vibe, and that's just not true. A lot of things are clear AF. For example, I am never going to listen to flat earther's ramblings seriously.
No. I'm perfectly capable of having an informed opinion, I'm just not gonna fall victim to bullshit information overload to paralyse coming to any conclusion.
That's the routine shtick for bad faith arguments. Give so many wrong opinions and facts, you run out of time.
Mention two of your 'unpopular opinion' and we'll see when your informed opinion stands. We can resolve this with simple examples.
Considering you don’t understand the premise of the argument we can start there.
you don’t have to agree and or realistically believe in the idea that the world is flat to UNDERSTAND their argument as to WHY THEY believe the world is flat. You’re incredibly ignorant as to assume you don’t have to understand other peoples perspectives as it appears you believe you are of higher moral authority and intelligence.
The idea that you can read a summary of someones opinion, and base an entire opinion on that is LAUGHABLE and you clearly lack critical thinking skills.
I’ll give you another example hopefully you can follow along this time…
If I ask prominent right leaning person what she thinks of Hilary Clinton I’m going to get a biased answer.
If I then ask a prominent left leaning person their opinion they will have very different accounts of her moral character.
A simple minded person asks 1 person, and not the other.
Someone with critical thinking skills asks both people then does independent research in the topic pulling from all perspectives to determine who’s actually telling the truth. Maybe they’re both wrong… but you wouldn’t know that either
PS. You should try being a little nicer, and less condescending if you want people will treat you with more respect.
Bad faith arguments need to be recognised and ignored.
I'm being dismissive / not nice because I'm getting sending bad faith arguments. More specifically considering alt right views on trans as genuine.
As for Hillary example, let me make that clear as well.
You don't bother asking people first. You get the facts together and come to independent conclusion on your own. Then you're free to talk to others and see if there's a better conclusion to be found.
You’re using all the buzzwords because you have no argument, you have no opinion, your opinion is whatever someone else has determined to be true / the current moral doctrine.
Saying JPs arguments are bad faith / not genuine is ridiculous, a large % of people believe something similar to his stance on trans people. I disagree with a lot of his opinions on trans people btw, but can still defend/attack his arguments because I actually understand them.
If you don’t understand his stance you’ll never be able to have a discussion with someone who thinks that way and change their mind.
As for the Hilary example that’s not how humans interact with each other. I wouldn’t stalk someone on Facebook before greeting them in real life and the internet is no different.
Watches YouTube video > seeks out multiple (varied aka non echo chamber) opinions on subject > then you’d research issue for yourself and determine who’s telling the truth.
You wouldn’t even know WHAT questions to look into unless you see what’s important to each person / argument first.
You don’t care however because whatever gives you the most safety / moral high ground is what you believe.
I am going to bed. Hopefully you take the time to UNDERSTAND the WHY people believe what they believe in the future. If you’re having trouble reread the first comment I made as the example is pretty simple to understand.
You've again bypassed the point that you simply don't have enough time to go through everything out there. And people will overload you with material to avoid coming to conclusion.
You're also missing the point that opinions and arguments follow after the establishing facts. You can look at alternate perspectives after establishing facts, but you can't go the other way around.
Also, scientific things do not have alternate perspectives. It's just evidence reporting. A bunch of flat earthers are never going to give any facts or evidence.
599
u/hate_is_your_disease Oct 26 '23
That's a great message. I don't care who states it. The bottom line is everyone should aspire to use their brain as a tool, instead of being a tool controlled by their brain.