What is the right balance?

[MorkandMindy]

The problem is we stick too long and too hard with a conclusion we reached somewhere in the past with faulty or too little evidence, or both.

We stick because we may have spoken in favor of it in the past so our reputation rests on it, we may be the father figure and not want to admit we have been leading people in the wrong direction, and there's more insidious causes you mentioned of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.

But we can move slowly and I'd strongly recommend we move slowly towards the middle.

 

[MorkandMindy]

To us we are being strong, standing for our principles, to others we are probably being somewhat stupid.

Moving slowly toward the center is the right thing to do and the only way to engage in constructive dialog and actually fix anything.

If you would rather just posture and argue then keep reading your side's propaganda and repeating the slogans. The rich and powerful know they can keep ripping off everything we have because as long as we fight each other we aren't fighting them.

 

[Ophiolite]

But there is a lot of hope for people of normal intelligence

The problem is information no longer travels from person to person but instead the media pours it direct, unfiltered and unchecked into our brains and we just don't have the time to run even a basic consistency check on it let alone factual checks.

So I'm attacking in myself and to a limited extent in CF, only the biggest and most hazardous bad ideas (bad memes) we are carrying around.

And one of these is that we have to shift to socialism. That is far too drastic a change, we don't need to change everything, but we do need to root out the extensive corruption in our country, and if we did go to socialism the corruption would just follow us there anyway (actually it would already be there waiting).

And as long as the corrupting elements have us arguing they can rob us as they are doing right now.

That is the reason for mentioning 'balance'. When we are polarized at the ends of the spectrum we can only argue, the right place to be is in the middle and we can have a constructive conversation and make wish lists about what we would want to do once we removed the corruption and got to the middle.

In rejecting socialism, or conservatism, or any "ism" one runs the risk (ensures the certainty) that one will trigger the very knee-jerk reactions you are rightly concerned about. A more circumspect approach would be to seek agreement on the outcomes we desire, rather than the methods by which they are to be achieved.

 

[PeachyKeane]

It is laziness that allows people not to see both sides of an argument, that and arrogance, wanting to continue to hold the stand you took, perhaps many years ago, when you started voicing an opinion in politics, having entered from either the right or the left.

I would suggest the right balance is to avoid the errors of each extreme, but exactly where?

That is the tough question.

I'm not sure I follow what the question actually is. Can you rephrase?

 

[bhsmte]

It is laziness that allows people not to see both sides of an argument, that and arrogance, wanting to continue to hold the stand you took, perhaps many years ago, when you started voicing an opinion in politics, having entered from either the right or the left.

I would suggest the right balance is to avoid the errors of each extreme, but exactly where?

That is the tough question.

IMO, it depends on each persons unique psychological needs.

If it is important to a persons psyche, to protect a personal ideology, some will go to great lengths to do just that.

 

[Pommer]

IMO, it depends on each persons unique psychological needs.

If it is important to a persons psyche, to protect a personal ideology, some will go to great lengths to do just that.

It’s hard to think in political terms because it, very often, leads one down rabbit holes that are disconcerting to parse-out and then have to defend.

While someone might be adamantly opposed to asylum-seekers pouring over our border(s), defending the taking of a four-month old baby from the child’s parents (The Youngest Child Separated From His Family at the Border Was 4 Months Old), might be distasteful and therefore “not thought about”.
I can understand that course of (in)action.

So it’s an act-of-will, if one considers themselves to be reasonably “well-informed”, to remain “ignorant” of the situation as it stands; but tain’t “laziness”.

 

[stevil]

It is laziness that allows people not to see both sides of an argument, that and arrogance, wanting to continue to hold the stand you took, perhaps many years ago, when you started voicing an opinion in politics, having entered from either the right or the left.

I would suggest the right balance is to avoid the errors of each extreme, but exactly where?

That is the tough question.

The problem comes from "trust"
Quite often, I find people don't trust the person that they are debating with, they quickly label them as deceitful, ideological at all costs, misguided or uninformed.
Both sides hold that position of their opponent, they both then just state their own points ad nauseam and never listen to the points of their opponent, (not really listen and consider, instead they aim to debunk or ridicule).
It isn't an exercise of learning, or expanding one's own understanding, it is more a futile exercise in trying to prove that the other person is wrong.