Ryan Harkins’ Comment of the Day is not so much about the inspiring post as it is a meta analysis of the dynamic of commenting at Ethics Alarms generally. I loved the comment the second it appeared, and now seems a particularly propitious time to post it, in light of some recent threads
Here it is…
***
There is something I think is missing in the dialogue between conservatives and liberals. Certainly one aspect of it is that new commenters come into the fray relatively fresh, by which I mean they haven’t (as far as I can tell) spent any time reviewing Jack’s enormous output on the blog. Before I ever dared to comment, I spent time reading through a chunk of Ethics Alarm’s history to see what Jack had already previously said on certain topics. I read the comment policy. I read through the rationalization list. And I still get blindsided every now and then by the fact that I haven’t fully imbibed what Jack has written here.
I do think just jumping into the fray and shouting “You’re wrong, here’s why!” even when there are good arguments to be made is foolhardy, because it ignores the layers and layers of nuance that have been developed on the blog over many years.
And this leads to the central observation I’m making. One way of describing how any of us looks at the world is through our biases, but biases are just one part of the entire paradigm each of us exist within. Every foundational belief, every bias, every opinion, every experience, every bit of accrued evidence builds up this paradigm. Convincing someone from a different paradigm of something that runs counter to that paradigm is difficult because it involves breaking down that entire paradigm. Sometimes that does happen; that’s why people convert from one religion to another, or stop supporting one economic model for a radically different one, or change political parties, or decide that string theory isn’t the grand unified theory it has been touted as. But in an initial engagement with someone, the likelihood of getting someone to shift his paradigm from a few simple exchanges is highly unlikely.
There is too much history there to overcome in a just a few paragraphs. And I say this to both conservative and liberal commentators alike. There’s a decent amount of understanding of our differing paradigms on Ethics Alarms because we have dialogued a fair amount. But when someone new steps in, not only do they not realize the paradigm into which they are entering, but also the commentariat here does not know what paradigm these newcomers bring with them.
The struggle between the veteran commenters and [now banned commenter] Not A Lawyer really exemplified this. Not a Lawyer could not conceive of why Jack and so many commenters would rush to defend Trump and vilify Biden, but the simple explanation is that the case for tolerating Trump and rejecting Biden has been built bit by bit over years, and there is a great deal of background behind every assertion that Not a Lawyer did not know about or understand. Similarly, the reaction against Not a Lawyer was harsh in part because he brought in the same tired talking points that have been roundly discredited over years of blogging and commenting, but also in part because no effort was made to understand what Not A Lawyer’s paradigm really was.
I think the argument over the high turnover in Trump’s administration versus the low turnover in Biden’s exemplifies this. Not a Lawyer brought it up as something he reasonably thought was a good metric, and was immediately batted down. It may have seemed laughable from the viewpoint of the veteran commenters, because the problems Trump went through just finding good help, and the very style of leadership Trump has shown, provide reasonable answers to his high turnover. Similarly, the DEI reasoning so in vogue in the Biden administration point to why even people who should be replaced have not been. But looking deeper, there is validity to what Not a Lawyer is pointing out. The amount of common wisdom out there says that people don’t leave bad jobs, but rather because of bad bosses is ample. In general, we do agree that bad bosses drive people people away, and that bosses who create a toxic atmosphere in the workplace, are poor leaders. Why would Trump, then, in this case get a pass? Without understanding the paradigm, it does seem incomprehensible. But then, we don’t tend to understand the paradigm which sees DEI as a positive thing, nor comprehend how anyone could not place results high up on the reasons for hiring or firing people.
I know I’m echoing a lot of what Extradimensional Cephalopod has worked on when he talks about building a common vocabulary and working on understanding each other and working to mitigate each other’s fears as a means of conflict resolution. I know there’s not a lot of interest into trying to extend such effort toward commenters that come in with nothing more than “Orange man bad!” diatribes, and I can appreciate not wanting to waste time on people who will not listen at all. The question is how to discern between the shrill shriekers and those who legitimately want to debate and extend their thoughts and experiences into the conversation. I think Not A Lawyer was in the latter category, and I hope he’ll rescind his self-ban and request to be reinstated again. That being said, any commenter coming onto the blog should be willing to give his points and then let the conversation move on instead of belaboring every point to death.
I’m belaboring this point about paradigms right now because I’m surprised at the reaction from the Left on Biden’s debate performance. My stance that Biden met expectations, only to have so many people shocked at his performance and crying “the sky is falling!”, is jarring. Or more simply, I’m shocked at their shock. In order to begin to understand that shock, I had to consider that for many, the debate was one of those pieces of evidence that could not be reconciled into their paradigms. The debate fit my paradigm just fine, because I have long bought into the “right-wing conspiracy theory” that Joe is suffering dementia and has been slipping for years. But for many on the Left, this was something that was incredibly at odds with everything they had experienced or been told by those they found credible. Like many faced with such a jarring contradiction, they were thrown out of sorts and had to face up to a reality they hadn’t considered. But even now, we’re seeing the ad hoc arguments cropping up to try to reconcile what they observed with their paradigm, because paradigms are not easy to shift.
I guess to wrap up, my fundamental point is that we should probably try a little harder to get new commenters to explain their paradigms, and to provide new commenters with more details on our paradigms before piling on. I appreciate having people I fundamentally disagree with forcing me to justify my positions, and at least ask whether I really do know what I think I know.
__________________
I’m back for the briefest of clarifications. In my experience studying leaders and leadership styles, I have concluded that the correlation between being a good boss and an effective leader is very, very weak. Weak Presidents have been wonderful, caring bosses, and strong Presidents have been cruel and intolerant bosses. Brilliant, strong-willed and goal-oriented leaders are often hard to work for, and that’s why they tend to value loyalty. Looking at my other sphere, show business, some of the very best, successful and most admired film and stage directors could mist accurately be described as monsters….but people wanted to work with them because they new the final product would be something they could be proud of, and they put up with objectively terrible working conditions.
Ethics Alarms 
Ryan, the Democrats have come to consider any Republican winning the presidency an existential threat to (they say) the country. But of course, it’s simply a threat to their holding onto the presidency and all they think that entails. That’s their paradigm, plain and simple. All the arguments they make are simply interchangeable widgets. There’s no point responding to them, they’ll just toss out another, infinity (as Pee Wee Herman would say). It’s not argumentation, it’s whatever the rhetorical equivalent of littering or laying down a smoke screen or jamming a radio frequency is. If you engage with them, they’ve won.
I believe Ryan has explained a great deal in this post. There are a couple of points I would like to expand upon. The first is that we embrace information that gives us comfort and a sense of security. We often reject information that makes us have to consider that we may be wrong. As a consultant, I have found that many clients want to have their ideas validated instead of getting alternative opinions on strategy. I have a friend that almost always asks for my advice on a particular way of doing something then proceeds to tell me why his original thinking is the best way.
The second reason why we reject information is quite rational but will lead us away from critical thinking. That reason is the need for affiliation. Groupthink emerges from an unwillingness to challenge the basic ideas of the group to which we wish to belong.
Ryan stated, “The amount of common wisdom out there says that people don’t leave bad jobs, but rather because of bad bosses is ample. In general, we do agree that bad bosses drive people people away, and that bosses who create a toxic atmosphere in the workplace, are poor leaders. “
Is it possible that such common wisdom is the product of people unwilling to accept any blame for why people feel the need to leave and employer and that the “toxic atmosphere” is a result of their own unwillingness to adapt to the bosses requirements?
To ask that question requires a willingness to accept responsibility for one’s own behaviors.
Moving on. If we ask why so many in metro regions lean Democrat I think the answer is relatively simple. A majority benefit directly or indirectly from government spending.
If we examine the political leanings of those in the counties surrounding the DC area we will find that they lean toward progressive liberalism who favor larger government influence in our lives. This is not to suggest that all citizens in those areas are social progressives but I will argue that it is highly unlikely that you will find conservative people in social/professional gatherings publicly challenging the thoughts and ideas espoused by the majority in the group. They will stay quiet to avoid becoming a pariah in that group. I know that I am guilty of this as well. This self-censorship by the minority is relied upon by the majority to quell dissent and used by the minority to protect their economic interests.
The question is who among us has the guts to be the Rosa Parks of the 21st century willing to confront the same type of thinking of the 1960’s toward the ideological minority. Getting uppity involves risk and most people don’t want to take that risk. The need to be part of a group is a powerful demotivator which is why Trump supporters are treated as extremists and fascists by those who vehemently oppose Trump. My reference to Rosa Parks and the civil rights movement is not to create an equivalence but merely to show that it takes courage to face off against the majority thinking and when sufficient numbers exist (creating an affinity group) more people will follow.
Recently, one commenter referenced the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 as Trump’s roadmap to fascism. Specifically, the commenter stated
“. . . And specifically about P2025, their own website states “Our goal is to assemble an army of aligned, vetted, trained, and prepared conservatives to go to work on Day One to deconstruct the Administrative State.”
This includes the firing of hundreds, maybe thousands, of personnel in favor of appointed toadies, who will be expected to spew the party manifesto at every opportunity, even if there are better qualified people for the positions who don’t salute the Project 2025 flag.
Here the quote was then interpreted to mean that the method would include the firing of hundreds or thousands of personnel. The projection in the latter part of the paragraph is telling. Obviously he wants people who agree with his world view remaining in those roles, or at least he believes that larger government is better than smaller government. My question is what makes conservatives toadies but not progressive ideologues in the same role?
Either way Project 2025 is going to be used as a cudgel to scare people who rely on big government for their economic livelihoods into rejecting any information that may undermine the progressive narrative. In fairness, Trump’s claim that illegal immigration will take Black and Hispanic jobs is also a scare tactic.
I contend that most of those who left the Trump administration did so in order to maximize their long-term economic interests and social standing in government circles. Initially, they joined the team believing they would be able to mold him in their image and when that failed they left voluntarily or were fired. There was a ready market for Trump antagonism to which these discarded members could find a home that would offer them comfort, money, prestige and more importantly preserve their professional credentials after Trump is gone.
“Before I ever dared to comment, I spent time reading through a chunk of Ethics Alarm’s history to see what Jack had already previously said on certain topics. I read the comment policy. I read through the rationalization list.”
Ditto. I think that a number of our drive-by commentators would benefit from doing the same.
And building a common vocabulary, I think, is essential for conversation, lest we have the same old arguments over what a fascist is, what a Nazi, what the nebulous white nationalist/white Christian nationalist is and, of course, what woke is.
Ditto as well. I was terrified to post that first comment…mostly because the host and the responders have such an incredible knowledge base, and I feared I would sound like an imbecile, which I manage to do on occasion. I STILL read the comment policy from time to time as a reminder.
Anyway, Ryan, your thoughts were outstanding…as usual, and the COTD was well-earned.
Wish there was a way I could see all my comments in order. I showed up on a Walking Dead post, a year after it was published, to opine about a particular episode. Based entirely on a google search of
“walking dead” AND “ethical analysis”
Because the conclusions of a particular episode annoyed me.
“building a common vocabulary and working on understanding each other and working to mitigate each other’s fears as a means of conflict resolution”
I’ll stick with my vocabulary – which was the common vocabulary of both sides of the aisle until virulent, America hating radicals commandeered the Democrats, changed the vocabulary and then demanded to be treated like some sort of good faith partner at the negotiating table.
If they want a common vocabulary, it’s still here.
I guess more specifically I could say we spend a little more time understanding what each of us means when we use specific terms. The problem of conflating ideas or masking unpopular concepts behind more benign terms is, it seems to me, largely a liberal phenomenon. I fully agree it helps them with the motte-and-bailey style of argumentation they really like. But spending some time making sure we mean the same thing when we use a term makes the motte-and-bailey fallacy very apparent and harder to use, and maybe helps us all know a little better how each of us is thinking.
Ben Shapiro is right about this for sure and he’s the most argumentative of the right wingers. He constantly asserts the need to be sure an opponent is fully confident in their own definitions just for clarity that people aren’t arguing past each other.
From a more practical point of view and the architect’s mantra: “a problem thoroughly defined is more than halfway solved”- the more you compel an opponent and yourself to define your terms AND define the values from which you are arguing-
To more obvious it becomes when a particular argument doesn’t align with its own premises or fit with its own values or just outright sounds absurd or monstrous.
“The struggle between the veteran commenters and [now banned commenter] Not A Lawyer really exemplified this. Not a Lawyer could not conceive of why Jack and so many commenters would rush to defend Trump and vilify Biden, but the simple explanation is that the case for tolerating Trump and rejecting Biden has been built bit by bit over years, and there is a great deal of background behind every assertion that Not a Lawyer did not know about or understand.”
Maybe, instead of a FAQ page, there should be a FRA page. A Frequently Rebutted Argument page, filled with thorough arguments rebutting the same old useless talking points.
Well said, and thanks for the shout-out, Ryan!
It only takes a few simple concepts to quickly identify the points of disagreement between paradigms. With this basic foundation, we can cut through people’s assumptions and biases to address the heart of the argument. When someone uses motivated reasoning, it helps to address the motivation.
For example, most arguments in support of politicians who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy are covering up a fear of what happens if someone else is elected, so it’s often more effective to address that concern before taking a look at the evidence of untrustworthiness.
One of the great things about this process is that it works unilaterally. You can use it on anyone you meet without them having to learn anything about how the process works.
Old Bill: If Democrats consider a Republican president an existential threat, then let’s translate that concern into foundational concepts and figure out how to address it. When people don’t know what to say to make their problem stop, they panic and flail around for anything that looks vaguely like a rational argument. When we offer a suggestion they can recognize as some kind of solution, we offer them a lifeline that they can grab and stop panicking.
Chris Marschner: Helping people challenge themselves is an important part of many constructive solutions. We can present new information in ways that don’t make people feel bad for not already knowing it, and we can help people feel confident in applying the new things they learn. We can even assert our concerns in ways that others can respect and that encourages people to build on our common ground, instead of inviting fear and opposition.
The Values Reconciliation Workshop I’ve been developing is still welcoming testers from Ethics Alarms. With the skills from the workshop, you’ll be able to get people to listen and take you seriously. You’ll inspire them to think critically about problems and be more cooperative in solving them. I’d love to see what you do with it!