Re: The Presidential Election

Posted by Russ Abbott on Nov 04, 2012; 3:03am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/The-Presidential-Election-tp7580914p7580926.html

Haidt has a nice TED talk based on the book.

My sense is that a lot of it is emotional--rather than rational--for a lot of people. Nick, how did your experiment go?

We might do the experiment here. One standard way of proceeding is to paraphrase (in as positive a way as possible) the position of the person who just spoke. That would demonstrate that the new speaker at least understands the position of the previous speaker.

A second approach (which does not preclude the first) is to be as honest as one can about the emotional content of one's own position. E.g., "I favor X because not-X makes me feel icky."

Anyone care to suggest a topic and start? Nick, Jochen, how about one of you.

 

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

  Professor, Computer Science
  California State University, Los Angeles

  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
  Google voice: 747-999-5105

  Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

  vita:  sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

  CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________ 

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Jochen,

 

At this week’s FRIAM meeting, we talked briefly about politics and it was clear that there was some disagreement around the table.  We were about to let it go, on that ground, when I decided, spurred by my newly embraced pragmatist ideology, to beg that they all put their minds for 5 minutes to the question, “How do we go about having a conversation with people with whom we disagree?  A conversation that would actually get somewhere.” 

 

Our usual way of proceding is what I call “FogHorns on a Shrouded Bay.”  Each individual sounds off while the others listen politely or check their email on their cell phones.  That goes around the circle a couple of times, and then people just drop the topic and go on to something else. 

 

On the whole, most people I know would rather be force fed castor oil than be convinced to change their minds.

 

So, back to you, Jochen.  Is it truly different where you are?  Have you ever sat in on a political discussion in which anybody ever changed his or her mind?  How did that happen? 

 

Nick

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 3:20 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Presidential Election

 

Interesting read. Sometimes we wonder why other peoples voting decisions are fundamentally different from ours even if all good reasons speak against it. Are they backward or brainwashed? Jonathan Haidt has written a book named "The Righteous Mind" where he argues that people don't really listen to arguments or reasons. Guided by their emotions, they often come to a quick conclusion what is good or bad, and this decision is in accordance with their worldview and their moral system (regardless how skewed it may be).
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

-J.

Am 03.11.2012 21:18, schrieb Roger Critchlow:

Here's how backward the conservative heart of america beats:

  http://www.thebaffler.com/past/the_long_con

-- rec --

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org