Deborah Tannen’s Observation that The Argument Culture Has Been Brewing for a Long Time

Deborah Tannen, The Argument Culture (1998), well before social media took over:

This is not another book about civility. “Civility”suggests a superficial, pinky-in-the-air veneer of politeness spread thin over human relations like a layer of marmalade over toast. "This book is about a pervasive warlike atmosphere that makes us approach public dialogue, and just about anything we need to accomplish, as if it were a fight. It is a tendency in Western culture in general, and in the United States in particular, that has a long history and a deep, thick, and farranging root system. It has served us well in many ways but in recent years has become so exaggerated that it is getting in the way of solving our problems. Our spirits are corroded by living in an atmosphere of unrelenting contention— an argument culture.

The argument culture urges us to approach the world— and the people in it— in an adversarial frame of mind. It rests on the assumption that opposition is the best way to get anything done: The best way to discuss an idea is to set up a debate; the best way to cover news is to find spokespeople who express the most extreme, polarized views and present them as “both sides”;the best way to settle disputes is litigation that pits one party against the other; the best way to begin an essay is to attack someone; and the best way to show you’re really thinking is to criticize.

Our public interactions have become more and more like having an argument with a spouse. Conflict can’t be avoided in our public lives any more than we can avoid conflict with people we love. One of the great strengths of our society is that we can express these conflicts openly. But just as spouses have to learn ways of settling their differences without inflicting real damage on each other, so we, as a society, have to find constructive ways of resolving disputes and differences. Public discourse requires making an argument for a point of view, not having an argument— as in having a fight."

Continue ReadingDeborah Tannen’s Observation that The Argument Culture Has Been Brewing for a Long Time

Facebook Safe Usage Product Warnings

I recently watched the new documentary, "The Social Dilemma." which has inspired me to cut my usage of Facebook. Rather than simply scold myself to cut FB usage, I decided to create more detailed guidance for myself (and anyone else who finds this useful):

Facebook Safe-Usage Product Warnings

A. Use FB no more than 10 minutes per day (extra time allowed for posting content I create and for exchanging private messages). Set a timer. This limited use will function like the rule many people use for potato chips: Put a handful into a small bowl instead of gobbling them out from the full bag.

B. Before any FB session, remind myself that FB is a valuable and useful platform with serious hidden dangers. Thus, using FB is like using a dangerous consumer product where the manufacturer failed to attach necessary usage warnings.

C. Remind myself that FB has been meticulously designed as a highly-sophisticated manipulation engine. In the short run, FB is addictive. In the long run, FB encourages us to think like teams instead of as individuals and this it is ripping our communities apart.

D. Only use FB intentionally, never out of boredom, out of habit or thoughtlessly. Don’t use FB unless I’m using it consciously. Avoid using FB when I’m tired or fatigued, because these are times when I am especially prone to go down the FB rabbit hole.

E. Before using FB, always ask myself whether there is a better use of my time, such as directly reaching out to a friend or choosing my own next thought process.

F. Do not access FB from my phone.

G. Keep all FB notifications turned off, except for private messages.

H. Use FB for several defined purposes only. If I stray from these purposes, turn FB off.

1. Checking out what is up with people I know well. 2. Interacting with thoughtful people. 3. Reading and sharing interesting, inspiring and light-hearted posts. 4. Connecting with special-interest FB Groups that I have consciously chosen to join. 5. Keeping an eye on FB Events that I might want to attend. 6. Sharing my photography and articles I’ve written at Dangerous Intersection. 7. Sharing well-written articles that I have found outside of FB.

I. Whenever on FB, I should strive to use the same tone and degree of kindness that I use when communicating with someone in person.

J. My FB friends will mostly be feeding me a steady diet of articles that reenforce my existing opinions. Therefore, I need to remind myself to always look beyond FB to seek out diverse sources of information, including news sources that are not in my comfort zone.

K. Repeatedly remind myself that FB’s algorithms delude users into believing that those with differing opinions are idiots who we are entitled to treat rudely.

L. Whenever I sense that I am caught in a cycle of doom-scrolling, I should shut off FB.

M. Always vet articles for accuracy before sharing anything on FB.

N. Remind everyone I meet to watch the important new documentary: The Social Dilemma.

Continue ReadingFacebook Safe Usage Product Warnings

NYT Rethinks the Factual Basis 1619 Project

Bret Stephens has given the 1619 Project a much-needed sober factual analysis revealing that the Project is laced with ideology. To its credit, the NYT has printed Stephens' critique. Serious historians are thus getting a well-deserved moment in the sun. Here's an excerpt from Stephens' article:

An early sign that the project was in trouble came in an interview last November with James McPherson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “Battle Cry of Freedom” and a past president of the American Historical Association. He was withering: “Almost from the outset,” McPherson told the World Socialist Web Site, “I was disturbed by what seemed like a very unbalanced, one-sided account, which lacked context and perspective.”

In particular, McPherson objected to Hannah-Jones’s suggestion that the struggle against slavery and racism and for civil rights and democracy was, if not exclusively then mostly, a Black one. As she wrote in her essay: “The truth is that as much democracy as this nation has today, it has been borne on the backs of Black resistance.”

McPherson demurs: “From the Quakers in the 18th century, on through the abolitionists in the antebellum, to the Radical Republicans in the Civil War and Reconstruction, to the N.A.A.C.P., which was an interracial organization founded in 1909, down through the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s, there have been a lot of whites who have fought against slavery and racial discrimination, and against racism,” he said. “And that’s what’s missing from this perspective.”

In a lengthier dissection, published in January in The Atlantic, the Princeton historian Sean Wilentz accused Hannah-Jones of making arguments “built on partial truths and misstatements of the facts.” The goal of educating Americans on slavery and its consequences, he added, was so important that it “cannot be forwarded through falsehoods, distortions and significant omissions.”

Continue ReadingNYT Rethinks the Factual Basis 1619 Project

We Love it That Two (Count’em) Two Cartoon Dimensions Pretend to Describe Complex Political, Racial and Economic Systems

When you last purchased a car or a phone, it was probably an important purchase for you, so you considered many aspects of the product, including cost, function, aesthetics, performance and many other things. When we deal with complex things, we are rightfully motivated to carefully consider many such dimensions. Most of us dig deep into these many factors before making such purchases. The same thing occurs when considering a long-term romantic partner. Most of us will consider dozens of factors before settling into such a relationship. In fact, if we failed to do such a careful analysis, our friends and family would consider us to be reckless. Complex issues demand complex and nuanced analyses.

We don’t use this same degree of care when it comes to evaluating the types of politics. Instead, we jam all the possibilities onto a one-dimension line containing endpoints of “left” and “right.” We do this despite the fact that people are complex and they fall into many dimensions of political attitudes. If you were to gather 100 random self-declared “Conservatives” into one room (or 100 “Liberals” or 100 “Libertarians”), you will have a rich diversity of thought, and you’d starkly see this, if only you take the time to get to know these people. For some reason, however, we are willing posit a simplistic binary single-line political analysis, despite the rich multi-dimensional complexity of political thought in the U.S. This lazy shortcut invites us to talk in cartoons. It invites us to talk about “those Conservatives” or “those Liberals” with hubris.

David Nolan is one of the many people who sensed a big problem with this left-right way of thinking. He offered a two-dimension chart that capture much more complexity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart Many others have offered more nuanced (and I would argue, more accurate) ways to characterize political outlooks of our 300+ citizens, but the traditional and highly inaccurate one-dimensional (Left-Right) still dominates the political and journalistic landscape. We seem to prefer simplistic over accurate.

We’ve got the same problem with many other categorizations we blithely make. I resist categorizing people in terms of “race,” because long experience has proven to me that the way a person looks has very little to do with who they are. Using immutable physical traits as a proxy for one’s a stereotyped content of character often wildly inaccurate. When I evaluate a person for character, I consider many factors, dozens of dimensions, such as the “Big Five”:

• openness to experience (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious) • conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. extravagant/careless) • extraversion (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved) • agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. challenging/callous) • neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. resilient/confident)

I consider manny other dimensions, including creativity, credibility, grit, acts of altruism, credibility and intelligence, and intelligence can be broken into many sub-categories. For instance, Psychologist Howard Gardner argues that there are multiple types of intelligence, such as:

  • Musical-rhythmic and harmonic
  • Visual-spatial
  • Verbal-linguistic
  • Logical-mathematical
  • Bodily-kinesthetic
  • Interpersonal
  • Intrapersonal
  • Naturalistic
  • Existential

Gardner’s declaration that these are separate intelligences is controversy in psychological circles. That said, these traits that he describes are some of the things I consider when evaluating another person, regardless of any “race.”

There are dozens of other dimensions I might use when evaluating any other person, but many people are willing to divide other people into “white” and “Black,” as though this is a meaningful way to evaluate another person. Making these “racial” distinctions is as absurd as embracing astrology--using a person’s birthdate as a proxy that persons personal character. To me, it seems bizarre and absurd to divide people into colors. That said, I live in a country where far too many people are enthusiastically willing to judge each other on this single simplistic dimension of “white” verses “Black,” despite the fact that this binary is an even cruder measure than the American political spectrum because it’s not a spectrum at all. It is a switch that is flipped from “white” to “Black,” with nothing in between, even though millions of “inter-racial” people exist. What a bizarre stilted binary, on so many levels! How is it possible that this racialized way of dividing people has any intellectual or political traction in modern times?

Here’s another popular binary: socialism versus capitalism. Many people are content to jam complex economies into one of these two boxes despite the overwhelming complexities and nuances of all existing economies. As though libraries are not filled to the brim discussions of the complexities of every economic system, where not a single real life system is declared to be purely socialist or purely capitalist.

I’ve been thinking about these false and limited ways of thinking for a long time. I was reminded of this issue when listening to The Portal, Eric Weinstein’s excellent podcast on Schrodinger’s Cat and the false-binary ways the many people find acceptable for discussing numerous social issues.

Why are we so willing to self-limit the way we think about obviously complex issues? Is it laziness? Gullibility? Social Pressure? We urgently need to reconsider our willingness of categorizing these complex issues, because our one-dimension cartoons are poisoning our ability to talk with one another.  This cartoon-talk is destroying our democracy.

Our willingness to think in terms of these cartoons would seem like an obvious problem for anyone willing to stop and think for even a few minutes, but many of us continue to embrace these cartoonish ways of thinking unabated, perhaps following the lead of our news media, social media and politicians. How can we convince people to stop and smell the nuance? How does one effectively declare that The Emperor has no Clothes in such an intransigent social environment?

Continue ReadingWe Love it That Two (Count’em) Two Cartoon Dimensions Pretend to Describe Complex Political, Racial and Economic Systems