The Other Side is not dumb
-
Very interesting take on current polarization of ideologies in western society, and how it plays out in social media. It is a longish article, but I found it worth the time.
https://medium.com/@SeanBlanda/the-other-side-is-not-dumb-2670c1294063#.3xzf8igwo
I'm curious what y'all think.
-
I always say to my most fervent friends that there are 50% of the populace who feel 100% the opposite of them.
Interesting article.
-
@BRRABill said in The Other Side is not dumb:
I always say to my most fervent friends that there are 50% of the populace who feel 100% the opposite of them.
Interesting article.
You always say... what to them?
-
My first thought is that I don't experience false consensus bias. I typically assume that almost no one agrees with me.
-
One thing that I've noticed is, and this is on both sides of many arguments, that people tend to not only not be able to make the argument for the other side, but not even for their own. I've had many an argument where I had to say "so your point is actually...." and they say "Oh, yeah, I guess it is, I never really thought about it that much."
-
Something that I've definitely found in a huge number of these cases (often including in IT technical discussions) is not that the other side was dumb (nor am I suggesting that that was an assumption) but that when you really dig in and spend time getting to know the sides that what tends to be the difference, in my experience, is not actually a difference in thought process to arrive at goals - but rather an ethical or value difference at the core that causes different people to have different end goals.
This is why I've found, for example, gun control, abortion, immigration and similar debates to have no use for logic. Both sides have logical arguments but often one side or the other or both don't state what their goal or value is.
We had the gun control discussion here on ML and it was eye opening and I think that days of "arguing" produced something incredibly valuable... an understanding of the different goals of the two sides. Basically everyone who favoured gun ownership shared a goal that mostly centered around control as a priority. And everyone who favoured gun limitations had a goal that centered around limiting violence as an priority.
Because the two basic priorities were different, one side arguing logically for why guns should be free or constrained made no sense of difference to the other side.
To take this to an IT discussion... imagine two people arguing over choosing RAID 10 or RAID 6, each things that their own view is all that matters but one only cares about capacity and the other only about performance. One keeps showing why RAID 10 is faster. And the other keeps showing that RAID has more capacity. Both is taking their own goal and reaching a logical conclusion. What they both need to realize is that they don't share a goal.
-
@scottalanmiller said in The Other Side is not dumb:
Something that I've definitely found in a huge number of these cases (often including in IT technical discussions) is not that the other side was dumb (nor am I suggesting that that was an assumption) but that when you really dig in and spend time getting to know the sides that what tends to be the difference, in my experience, is not actually a difference in thought process to arrive at goals - but rather an ethical or value difference at the core that causes different people to have different end goals.
This is why I've found, for example, gun control, abortion, immigration and similar debates to have no use for logic. Both sides have logical arguments but often one side or the other or both don't state what their goal or value is.
We had the gun control discussion here on ML and it was eye opening and I think that days of "arguing" produced something incredibly valuable... an understanding of the different goals of the two sides. Basically everyone who favoured gun ownership shared a goal that mostly centered around control as a priority. And everyone who favoured gun limitations had a goal that centered around limiting violence as an priority.
Because the two basic priorities were different, one side arguing logically for why guns should be free or constrained made no sense of difference to the other side.
To take this to an IT discussion... imagine two people arguing over choosing RAID 10 or RAID 6, each things that their own view is all that matters but one only cares about capacity and the other only about performance. One keeps showing why RAID 10 is faster. And the other keeps showing that RAID has more capacity. Both is taking their own goal and reaching a logical conclusion. What they both need to realize is that they don't share a goal.
That is pretty much the point of the article as I understood it. That people can have logical, reasoned bases for their conclusions. I may not agree with their framework, but their diverging opinion does not immediately allow for a conclusion regarding their intelligence.
-
Reminds me of a funny joke:
There's two classes of fascists: the fascists and the anti-fascists -
Here is another real world example that I have run into...
In discussing "kids" being sent off to college with parents I have explained the cost and risk involved and how statistically their kids will never earn enough in their careers to make college have been worth it. But the response doesn't match that logic, knowing that their kids will have worse lifetime earnings they keep arguing that they have to go to college.
Why do we reach this impasse?
In all cases where this has happened (where they didn't change their minds or stop discussing) the result ended up being the same. And that result was that I was (and am) presenting the value proposition of college as it pertains to careers, income, stability and retirement. But the parents are not. The parents, and I've had this said directly, are prioritizing college over its expected results. In other words, the means justify the ends.
As one parent proudly told me, she would rather he son be a homeless, jobless college graduate than a rich, happy, successful non-college graduate. Actually said that.
To her, the priority was college degree over all things. Why? I have no idea. But it is something that I have found to be a commonality in many discussions. University for its own sake. This is a key reason why there is no way to have a rational conversation between the pro-college and non-college discussion groups because they simply have different goals. One is looking to succeed in their careers and the other wants to go to college.
-
As one parent proudly told me, she would rather he son be a homeless, jobless college graduate than a rich, happy, successful non-college graduate. Actually said that.
Now this is... odd.
As with many things, the situation is a bit different here. One of our most urgent problems is over-education. Craftsman can earn similar to or even more than graduated here. 100 EUR per hour for an electrician? Possible. But more and more young people graduate instead of learning a well paid job like the above.
-
The issue comes from the mindset of no child left behind, college is the "dream" a better life by being educated.
People confuse education at college, and education from the workforce.
You can get a great education by working at an electricians for example, and become a licensed electrician in only 2 years, while getting paid to be there the entire time.
In college, you pay to be there, are forced to study things which likely have no real world bearing on your future career and are often saying "WTF am I doing here this is STUPID"
Edit:
YesMany aren't motivated to go find a job. -
@DustinB3403 said in The Other Side is not dumb:
The issue comes from the mindset of no child left behind, college is the "dream" a better life by being educated.
People confuse education at college, and education from the workforce.
You can get a great education by working at an electricians for example, and become a licensed electrician in only 2 years, while getting paid to be there the entire time.
In college, you pay to be there, are forced to study things which likely have no real world bearing on your future career and are often saying "WTF am I doing here this is STUPID"
Yes aren't motivated to go find a job.
I'd argue that those other things have a lot more value then the actual career training you get from college. An intermediate economics and psychology course can go a long way. If you want to be formally educated for education sake then those courses are fantastic. College is good for that but not good for career advancement and expertise, unless it is a requirement for those careers.
-
@coliver said in The Other Side is not dumb:
@DustinB3403 said in The Other Side is not dumb:
The issue comes from the mindset of no child left behind, college is the "dream" a better life by being educated.
People confuse education at college, and education from the workforce.
You can get a great education by working at an electricians for example, and become a licensed electrician in only 2 years, while getting paid to be there the entire time.
In college, you pay to be there, are forced to study things which likely have no real world bearing on your future career and are often saying "WTF am I doing here this is STUPID"
Yes aren't motivated to go find a job.
I'd argue that those other things have a lot more value then the actual career training you get from college. An intermediate economics and psychology course can go a long way. If you want to be formally educated for education sake then those courses are fantastic. College is good for that but not good for career advancement and expertise, unless it is a requirement for those careers.
My point about the No child left behind initiative is that some children will grow up to not be educated, no matter what.
I'm not saying to just cut them lose, but I am recommending that some form of trade school replaces primary schooling when it becomes apparent that a "normal" education isn't working.
-
@thwr said in The Other Side is not dumb:
As one parent proudly told me, she would rather he son be a homeless, jobless college graduate than a rich, happy, successful non-college graduate. Actually said that.
Now this is... odd.
My impression is that it is actually common, possibly normal. Which is the opposite of how my group of friends think, which means I have the opposite impression than the source article in the OP would suggest. But by and large I see this in effect a lot including in the parents of my friends and even in the parents of my family members on both sides. So often even knowing that college will probably destroy their children's futures they push them very hard because they prioritize college over later careers.
-
@thwr said in The Other Side is not dumb:
As with many things, the situation is a bit different here. One of our most urgent problems is over-education. Craftsman can earn similar to or even more than graduated here. 100 EUR per hour for an electrician? Possible. But more and more young people graduate instead of learning a well paid job like the above.
Same as in the US. Instead of becoming skilled, many people go to college. One could easily argue that trades are for the smartest and most skilled, college for the intermediate, and minimum wage work for those that can't do either.
-
@coliver said in The Other Side is not dumb:
@DustinB3403 said in The Other Side is not dumb:
The issue comes from the mindset of no child left behind, college is the "dream" a better life by being educated.
People confuse education at college, and education from the workforce.
You can get a great education by working at an electricians for example, and become a licensed electrician in only 2 years, while getting paid to be there the entire time.
In college, you pay to be there, are forced to study things which likely have no real world bearing on your future career and are often saying "WTF am I doing here this is STUPID"
Yes aren't motivated to go find a job.
I'd argue that those other things have a lot more value then the actual career training you get from college. An intermediate economics and psychology course can go a long way. If you want to be formally educated for education sake then those courses are fantastic. College is good for that but not good for career advancement and expertise, unless it is a requirement for those careers.
What is very important to understand with college is that... the purpose of college is that other stuff, education for education's sake. Going to college in the hopes of improving career aspects is flawed because that's not the goal of the university system.
-
@DustinB3403 said in The Other Side is not dumb:
@coliver said in The Other Side is not dumb:
@DustinB3403 said in The Other Side is not dumb:
The issue comes from the mindset of no child left behind, college is the "dream" a better life by being educated.
People confuse education at college, and education from the workforce.
You can get a great education by working at an electricians for example, and become a licensed electrician in only 2 years, while getting paid to be there the entire time.
In college, you pay to be there, are forced to study things which likely have no real world bearing on your future career and are often saying "WTF am I doing here this is STUPID"
Yes aren't motivated to go find a job.
I'd argue that those other things have a lot more value then the actual career training you get from college. An intermediate economics and psychology course can go a long way. If you want to be formally educated for education sake then those courses are fantastic. College is good for that but not good for career advancement and expertise, unless it is a requirement for those careers.
My point about the No child left behind initiative is that some children will grow up to not be educated, no matter what.
I'm not saying to just cut them lose, but I am recommending that some form of trade school replaces primary schooling when it becomes apparent that a "normal" education isn't working.
Even trade school is a waste to a huge percentage of the population. Think about all of the people who will never do anything more than flipping burgers - they would benefit most by not wasting time in school and starting to earn a living earlier. The earning potential of a burger flipper goes way up if they start doing so at age 14 instead of at age 22. That's a huge amount of "putting money away for their future" potential, especially if they still lived at home without expenses until they were eighteen.
-
@scottalanmiller said in The Other Side is not dumb:
@DustinB3403 said in The Other Side is not dumb:
@coliver said in The Other Side is not dumb:
@DustinB3403 said in The Other Side is not dumb:
The issue comes from the mindset of no child left behind, college is the "dream" a better life by being educated.
People confuse education at college, and education from the workforce.
You can get a great education by working at an electricians for example, and become a licensed electrician in only 2 years, while getting paid to be there the entire time.
In college, you pay to be there, are forced to study things which likely have no real world bearing on your future career and are often saying "WTF am I doing here this is STUPID"
Yes aren't motivated to go find a job.
I'd argue that those other things have a lot more value then the actual career training you get from college. An intermediate economics and psychology course can go a long way. If you want to be formally educated for education sake then those courses are fantastic. College is good for that but not good for career advancement and expertise, unless it is a requirement for those careers.
My point about the No child left behind initiative is that some children will grow up to not be educated, no matter what.
I'm not saying to just cut them lose, but I am recommending that some form of trade school replaces primary schooling when it becomes apparent that a "normal" education isn't working.
Even trade school is a waste to a huge percentage of the population. Think about all of the people who will never do anything more than flipping burgers - they would benefit most by not wasting time in school and starting to earn a living earlier. The earning potential of a burger flipper goes way up if they start doing so at age 14 instead of at age 22. That's a huge amount of "putting money away for their future" potential, especially if they still lived at home without expenses until they were eighteen.
The trouble here is that no 14 year old knows that they are only going to have the potential to flip burgers their entire life.
Everyone hopes to do more, so to take away that chance isn't fair.
-
@DustinB3403 said in The Other Side is not dumb:
@scottalanmiller said in The Other Side is not dumb:
@DustinB3403 said in The Other Side is not dumb:
@coliver said in The Other Side is not dumb:
@DustinB3403 said in The Other Side is not dumb:
The issue comes from the mindset of no child left behind, college is the "dream" a better life by being educated.
People confuse education at college, and education from the workforce.
You can get a great education by working at an electricians for example, and become a licensed electrician in only 2 years, while getting paid to be there the entire time.
In college, you pay to be there, are forced to study things which likely have no real world bearing on your future career and are often saying "WTF am I doing here this is STUPID"
Yes aren't motivated to go find a job.
I'd argue that those other things have a lot more value then the actual career training you get from college. An intermediate economics and psychology course can go a long way. If you want to be formally educated for education sake then those courses are fantastic. College is good for that but not good for career advancement and expertise, unless it is a requirement for those careers.
My point about the No child left behind initiative is that some children will grow up to not be educated, no matter what.
I'm not saying to just cut them lose, but I am recommending that some form of trade school replaces primary schooling when it becomes apparent that a "normal" education isn't working.
Even trade school is a waste to a huge percentage of the population. Think about all of the people who will never do anything more than flipping burgers - they would benefit most by not wasting time in school and starting to earn a living earlier. The earning potential of a burger flipper goes way up if they start doing so at age 14 instead of at age 22. That's a huge amount of "putting money away for their future" potential, especially if they still lived at home without expenses until they were eighteen.
The trouble here is that no 14 year old knows that they are only going to have the potential to flip burgers their entire life.
Everyone hopes to do more, so to take away that chance isn't fair.
Tons know. I'd guess by far most of them know. I knew tons of people in high school that knew perfectly well that middle school was the "peak" of their careers, that they had Petered out (via the Peter Principle) and that what they were able to do at that age (short of heavy lifting items) was all that they would ever be able to do.
-
@DustinB3403 said in The Other Side is not dumb:
Everyone hopes to do more, so to take away that chance isn't fair.
No, not everyone does. Many don't hope to do more. And even for those that hope to do more, many cannot do more. No one is taking away their chance to do more, but by forcing them to go to high school you have taken away their chances to do the most with what they have. It is already unfair to those that struggle the most. The system is currently designed to punish those with the least abilities.
