Not just mistaken, but malicious.

[cantata]

I'm going to quote myself from another thread, because I think this is actually an important question.

What is with that common assumption not only that the people with whom one disagrees are mistaken, but also that they are malicious?

Why is it that people on both sides of an argument frequently assume that the people on the other side are not only wrong in their views, but that they have a malign intent? Why do people find it so hard to believe that their opponents in a debate might be sincerely mistaken? Instead, there are all sorts of claims made about agendas and unpleasant motives.

I tend to believe that most people are trying to do the best thing. We all just disagree about what the best thing is. Debate would perhaps be much calmer, much more civil, much more friendly and enjoyable for everyone, if we could all walk a mile in the moccasins of our esteemed opponents, and try to understand that almost every one of us is utterly sincere in the things that we say, and we do not have ulterior motives. We want to do what we believe is right or best or most beneficial. We want to uphold the principles or values that we regard as the most important. We all care about these things!

We are but fragile, flawed human beings. We are all of us prone to confirmation bias, to responding with emotion before reason, to making assumptions about our fellow debaters. Can we all try to recognise this and be nice to one another once in a while?

 

[Beanieboy]

Do you believe in the war? I don't. I believe those who are for it are misled and lied to, and easily led astray through fear tactics and branding loyalty, and it isn't for "freedom" or "democracy" or "WMD". I think the bottomline is it is flexing military muscle, and mostly concerned about oil. And for that, almost 100,000 people are dead.

So, sometimes it's true.

The opposition to gay marriage was similar to the struggles we had in the 70s and 80s, when the conservative, often Christian, opposition, wanted to uphold the ability to discriminate in housing, employment and healthcare. WWJD

 

[cantata]

Do you believe in the war? I don't. I believe those who are for it are misled and lied to, and easily led astray through fear tactics and branding loyalty, and it isn't for "freedom" or "democracy" or "WMD". I think the bottomline is it is flexing military muscle, and mostly concerned about oil. And for that, almost 100,000 people are dead.

Well, I was talking more about people on Christian Forums, to be honest, rather than the folks pulling the strings. Most people here who support the war are of the sincere (and, in my view, mistaken) belief that the war was the morally right choice.

I suspect you're right about the motives of the people who gave the orders, but most people here are not in those sorts of positions. They are laypeople trying to do the right thing. Even prejudiced people are usually sincere in their (mistaken) belief that their prejudice is not a prejudice, but is grounded in fact. That's how confirmation bias works.

 

[Beanieboy]

There was a study where two groups of BoyScouts were camping in the woods. At one point, each Scout Master told the boys that there was another group camping. Soon, the other group became a rival. They hated them. They played tricks on them, and talked about how and why they hated them so much.

Then, the two boys were brought together to do an activity together. At first they were very weary of the other, but by the end of the day, they had made new friends, and like the other camp very much. They even asked if they could do another activity with them again before the end of the week.

If you have an "us" vs. "them" mentality, you can't expect more than animosity of the other, and thinking they are plotting against you.

People like Pat Robertson, the evil Leprechaun, will tell you that homosexuals are trying to recruit your children, demand that they believe that homosexuality is good and normal, regardless of what you teach your kids, that they are predators after your kids, etc. They are illustrated as Christian Propaganda's monsters, subhuman, that are simply demons made flesh, trying to take away the very institution of marriage.

Then, people, not having to challenge that ridiculous notion because they don't associate with any gay people, believe it true. Gay Gangs! Next! On Fox.

People are amazingly gullible. Monorail.....Monorail......Monorailllllll!

 

[Holy Roller]

This is a very freaky phenomena, and I noticed it all the time at richarddawkins forum, where everyone (Atheists) thought I was up to something.
Ditto with the Atheists here, too. They always think I'm up to something.

 

[Beanieboy]

I talked once about a really traumatic event (I was mugged and my head was split open), to have a poster say that he didn't believe that really happened, and I was only using it to garner sympathy. It was pretty insulting, since I was told that I was lucky to be alive.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Sometimes it is simply being mistaken and sincere but more often than not it isn't about integrity or ethics. It's about pride, arrogance, self-esteem, and belonging to a clique. Sodom and Gomorrah is a perfect example because there is absolutely nothing in scripture referencing homosexuality and we have positive evidence as to why the cities were destroyed. Yet, the false witnessing continues. Why? How could so many people be "honestly mistaken" even after being shown homosexuality is never cited as a reason in scripture? I appreciate the OP's attempt at facilitating dialogue but it's at the risk of enabling cognitive dissonance in favor of a shiny appearance. I agree we don't need to assign evil motives but that is taking it a step too far because it isn't calling people "evil" or "malicious" in pointing out hypocrisy, lack of evidence, or why an argument is extremely thin.

 

[TeddyKGB]

This is a very freaky phenomena, and I noticed it all the time at richarddawkins forum, where everyone (Atheists) thought I was up to something.
Ditto with the Atheists here, too. They always think I'm up to something.

Is it possible that the title "Atheist hunter" might negatively influence first impressions?

 

[acropolis]

It doesn't make much sense to me. When dealing with strangers, I have to make assumptions about them based on myself and everyone else I know. Which leads me to assume that the vast majority of people are not malicious, they just have different interpretations of benevolence. Though it is hard to understand how some conclusions could be reached by benevolent people.

 

[revanneosl]

Orson Scott Card (yes, pace, I know. he's a Mormon. he's a heretic. He's also a way smart author who thinks deeply about the interface between religion, philosophy, and global socio-political dynamics) wrote a book a couple of years ago that spoke to just exactly this phenomenon.

To quote from the Afterward:

"A good working definition of fanaticism is that you are so convinced of your views and policies that you are sure anyone who opposes them must either be stupid and deceived or have some ulterior motive. We are today a nation where almost everyone in the public eye displays fanaticism with every utterance.
It is part of human nature to regard as sane those people who share the worldview of the majority of society. Somehow, though, we have managed to divide ourselves into two different, mutually exclusive sanities. The people in each society reinforce each other in madness, believeing unsubstantiated ideas that are often contradicted not only by each other but also by whatever objective evidence exists on the subject. Instead of having an ever-adapting civilization-wide consensus reality, we have become a nation of insane people able to see the madness only in the other side."

 

[quatona]

Hi cantata, that´s something that I have spent a lot of thought on.

I'm going to quote myself from another thread, because I think this is actually an important question.

Why is it that people on both sides of an argument frequently assume that the people on the other side are not only wrong in their views, but that they have a malign intent? Why do people find it so hard to believe that their opponents in a debate might be sincerely mistaken? Instead, there are all sorts of claims made about agendas and unpleasant motives.

I tend to believe that most people are trying to do the best thing. We all just disagree about what the best thing is. Debate would perhaps be much calmer, much more civil, much more friendly and enjoyable for everyone, if we could all walk a mile in the moccasins of our esteemed opponents, and try to understand that almost every one of us is utterly sincere in the things that we say, and we do not have ulterior motives. We want to do what we believe is right or best or most beneficial. We want to uphold the principles or values that we regard as the most important. We all care about these things!

We are but fragile, flawed human beings. We are all of us prone to confirmation bias, to responding with emotion before reason, to making assumptions about our fellow debaters. Can we all try to recognise this and be nice to one another once in a while?

"Mad or bad" (stupid or malicious) - or even "mad and bad" - often seems to be the first emotional response when people have a thoroughly different reality than ourselves. I tend to think that this experience is one of the most frustrating ones we can have. It stems from the almost natural assumption that there must be one reality that just needs to be explored, and we all should come to the same results, with a bit of effort. Everything else would be scary. It´s an almost existential thing.

"I am being absolutely clear in what I say, but the other person doesn´t understand me. Is he stupid? Then, my point is not hard to understand. He obviously doesn´t want to understand me." (This is also reflected in the oh so beautiful label "willfull ignorance").
Next: "I have no clue what he is saying, he is obviously talking nonsense. Is he so stupid or is he deliberately obsfucating so that he doesn´t have to admit he´s wrong?"

"I can´t believe he says this -> I can´t believe he thinks this."

The frequent conflation in the use of right=good and wrong=bad may also play its part.

Bottom line:
I am frustrated; the experience that there´s not only disagreement but no common ground where I feel there must be and should be.
"Mad" and "bad" are the first options that come to mind. Everything else (like "we could both have a point, within the frame of our different realities") would turn my world upside down. So I won´t even go there.
"Mad" (stupid) and "bad" (malicious) are both unfavourable assumptions about the other person. Whether I call him stupid or bad makes no difference - he will perceive it as an offense. Both leave me helpless. Both don´t leave much space for continuing productively, constructively. "Mad" is a completely dead end. "Bad" at least leaves the option that I can teach the other person something and show him his evil ways. With the assumption "stuupid" I don´t give allowance for his capability of seeing he is wrong (he´s stupid, after all). So I´ll generously give him the benefit of the doubt that he´s just malicious.

 

[quatona]

This is a very freaky phenomena, and I noticed it all the time at richarddawkins forum, where everyone (Atheists) thought I was up to something.
Ditto with the Atheists here, too. They always think I'm up to something.

Now that you have successfully assigned this phenomenon to just one group (needless to say: a group you don´t belong to) - do you also have an explanation for it?

 

[David Brider]

I'm going to quote myself from another thread, because I think this is actually an important question.



Why is it that people on both sides of an argument frequently assume that the people on the other side are not only wrong in their views, but that they have a malign intent? Why do people find it so hard to believe that their opponents in a debate might be sincerely mistaken? Instead, there are all sorts of claims made about agendas and unpleasant motives.

I tend to believe that most people are trying to do the best thing. We all just disagree about what the best thing is. Debate would perhaps be much calmer, much more civil, much more friendly and enjoyable for everyone, if we could all walk a mile in the moccasins of our esteemed opponents, and try to understand that almost every one of us is utterly sincere in the things that we say, and we do not have ulterior motives. We want to do what we believe is right or best or most beneficial. We want to uphold the principles or values that we regard as the most important. We all care about these things!

We are but fragile, flawed human beings. We are all of us prone to confirmation bias, to responding with emotion before reason, to making assumptions about our fellow debaters. Can we all try to recognise this and be nice to one another once in a while?

I always tend to assume the best of other people. Admittedly, there are some folks who, after debating with them for a while, I'm convinced do have some sort of malicious intent (possibly to the extent of being Poes). But nevertheless, I try to remain reasonable and polite with them.

It's difficult, though.

David.

 

[quatona]

An interesting aspect:
Once we have come to a conclusion on the malicious nature of a person (or any other negative trait), we are likely to take anything the person says or does for a confirmation. Especially in a situation where we have only written words.

Here´s a funny experiment researchers made once:
They arranged an appointment between two fairly well reknowned psychiatrists, and beforehand told each of them that the person they will meet had been diagnosed schizophrenic and suffers from delusions to the point that he thinks he is a fairly well know psychiatrist, and asked them to give their diagnosis after the meeting.
:chuckle:

 

[cantata]

This is a very freaky phenomena, and I noticed it all the time at richarddawkins forum, where everyone (Atheists) thought I was up to something.
Ditto with the Atheists here, too. They always think I'm up to something.

Would you not say that both atheists and theists are similarly suspicious of their opponents?

(The assumption that only atheists do it is a prime example of confirmation bias!)

 

[keith99]

Why is it that people on both sides of an argument frequently assume that the people on the other side are not only wrong in their views, but that they have a malign intent? Why do people find it so hard to believe that their opponents in a debate might be sincerely mistaken? Instead, there are all sorts of claims made about agendas and unpleasant motives.

Perhaps part is the mode of debate? If your oponent is mistaken what do you want them to do? Might it be honestly look at their own position? If they feel you are mistaken wouldn't they want the same from you? But if neither side is willing to reexamine their position then the other side (quite rightly) views them as stuborn and not willing to have real discourse.

It doesn't take long to go to viewing the other side as having some ulterior motive.

Unless the step to actually examining ones own position and really listening to arguments from the other side is taken the road will almost always lead to this animosity.

 

[MarcusHill]

Whenever I get into an abortion debate, I always take pains to point out that everyone agrees that unfertilized sperm and ova are not human beings with human rights, and that babies that have just been born are. The contention is where on the journey from one to the other do those rights come into play, and there is no objectively "right" answer to that.

When discussing atheism, I'm always clear that, whilst I don't believe in any gods, I do not maintain that it is certain that there are no gods, and thus my god-count of zero could be incorrect. In fact, I go further and say that sufficient credible evidence would cause me to change my mind.

I try to be reasonable in everything I do (literally, basing my decisions on reason and logic) and to see explicitly what my underlying assumptions are. This means that in many situations I can get down to the fundamental points of difference and simply agree to differ. However, there are some situations where people are just plain wrong (mad, bad, stupid or ignorant), notably creationists.

 

[cantata]

Whenever I get into an abortion debate, I always take pains to point out that everyone agrees that unfertilized sperm and ova are not human beings with human rights, and that babies that have just been born are. The contention is where on the journey from one to the other do those rights come into play, and there is no objectively "right" answer to that.

Well, I can't say I really believe in human rights. That's very diplomatic of you, though.

 

[MarcusHill]

Well, I can't say I really believe in human rights. That's very diplomatic of you, though.

Good point, and that's one of the implicit assumptions I was talking about. In this case, it's my belief that human beings have a right to life, and it would take some convincing to move me on that one.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

There was a study where two groups of BoyScouts were camping in the woods. At one point, each Scout Master told the boys that there was another group camping. Soon, the other group became a rival. They hated them. They played tricks on them, and talked about how and why they hated them so much.

Then, the two boys were brought together to do an activity together. At first they were very weary of the other, but by the end of the day, they had made new friends, and like the other camp very much. They even asked if they could do another activity with them again before the end of the week.

If you have an "us" vs. "them" mentality, you can't expect more than animosity of the other, and thinking they are plotting against you.

People like Pat Robertson, the evil Leprechaun, will tell you that homosexuals are trying to recruit your children, demand that they believe that homosexuality is good and normal, regardless of what you teach your kids, that they are predators after your kids, etc. They are illustrated as Christian Propaganda's monsters, subhuman, that are simply demons made flesh, trying to take away the very institution of marriage.

Then, people, not having to challenge that ridiculous notion because they don't associate with any gay people, believe it true. Gay Gangs! Next! On Fox.

People are amazingly gullible. Monorail.....Monorail......Monorailllllll!

The above proves that the "Us versus Them" is real and no bridge will ever bring the two sides together.