I am into the old Stephen Covey advice of "Frist seek to understand. Then seek to be understood." I was watching Russell Brand and Ben Shapiro here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMiug2sZ4Io and was struck how much Brand's style seems to be heavily based on the "first seek to understand" approach. I also think a distinction needs to be made between those who are in the market for someone like Glenn Loury, Robert Wright (when not in Bob & Mickey mode which is much more shall I say infotainment mode), etc. versus just say "people who vote". Those interested in rational deliberative discussions designed to inform or reach a potential solution is probably a very small part of the "those who vote" universe. If Glenn's goal is to build consensus among those who are at least somewhat intellectual and rational thinkers then I am sure a more deliberative mode is the way to go. If the goal is to reach the large group of "those who vote" then I think that is a different matter entirely. As a footnote, it is quite amazing to me that the Brand/Shapiro conversation has over 3 million views to date given the quality of the conversation so maybe I am wrong and "those who vote" are more open to deliberative discussions than I would have thought.
Great conversion. Thought-provoking idea about how to engage with the wokes. Was that not the approach as this ideology was arising? Did they not simply dismiss the teacher who expected more as ignorant or unevolved? How did we get to this place?
I actually see this ultimately boiling down to politics. The left has made this about power, perhaps needing a strategy as union membership declined to irrelevancy. The democrats will not stop identity politics and all the woke ideology wrapped up in it until they start losing elections because of it. This is a gift to the GOP, if they will somehow accept it and avoid committing suicide on the Trump guillotine. Would love to see a ticket of Tim Scott and Daniel Cameron. It would be kryptonite to the democrats’ strategy of division.
Deliberative democracy basically reduces to the idea that citizens' preferences can change as a result of interpersonal dialogue about common goods. This is against the behavioralist assumption that preferences are given and fixed (making dialogue either pointless or manipulative). Although it is rarefied, the closest thing we see to this in our politics may be the (ostensibly "non-political") deliberative processes used by the Supreme Court: The judges write draft opinions, read each others' drafts, and then revise them in light of their conferral. (New Zealand's parliamentary norms are a good example of the opposite approach.)
Plato argued that there is a difference between "eristic" discourse--where interlocutors aim to win at any cost--and dialectical argument, in which interlocutors aim jointly at the truth. So, this is an old and crucial (and of course contested) distinction in political philosophy. For Plato, of course, only dialectic deserves to be called "argument"in the true (philosophical) sense.
Rousseau's account of deliberation, in the Social Contract, has been a source of inspiration for some contemporary "deliberative democrats". As so often with Rousseau, it's a stumbling block, too. See Social Contract book 2, chapter 3.
I get the impression that Glenn and Nikita have been having ongoing offline discussions about how to improve the Glenn Show and this discussion somehow fits into that overall topic.
Without the background it's difficult to make much out of this specific post.
I have some ideas about why deliberative democracy is not the default design of social media as well as tools that would facilitate this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRvERaQAgRM&t
I support (figuratively and financially) everything Bob Woodson is involved in. He's a no nonsense doer who keeps his eye on the ball and avoids endless debate.
It was an interesting exchange. Thank you for sharing. You moved on from the original topic of conversation into a more generic exploration of communication.
Regarding the original topic which was your internal conversation with Bob and the other members of your steering group... It was quite apparent to me that you were all exploring the topic from different ways of knowing. It seemed to me that you were all sort of riffing off of Aristotle's approaches to knowledge.
In today's world the thesis is King. Propositional knowledge ...that is the theory of why a thing operates the way it does is very closely related to the scientific method and therefore in a post enlightenment world has taken on almost universal preeminence in how we view knowledge. That was your train of thought Glenn. To form a theory as to why people engaged in self-destructive behavior as a way to strategize how to change that behavior and thus correct the downstream problems. Bob on the other hand was using knowledge of a more participatory nature. That is using what organically evolves to solve problems within a system. First person observation and participation in problem solving rather than third person theory.
The other gentleman in the group seem to be more focused on procedural ways of correcting the problem utilizing various outside bureaucracies.
These are all different ways of understanding, different ways of knowing and probably all three are part of the solution.
To me that's what made that conversation interesting. In addition all the participants are focused on a single objective. Bringing different ways of seeing a single problem is extraordinarily useful in a situation such as that.
I don't think the above is directly analogous to where you and Nikita went towards the end of this video clip. The two of you seemed to move on to explore the idea of communicating with people who have dissimilar views and objectives and rather than droning on I think I'll leave those comments for another day.
Far too many people come across a debate on an issue and immediately assume that it is Oxford style, one where you are trying to beat your opponents and score points. But the reality is, as you two are getting across in this piece, a group of people are trying to discuss an issue and find the best way forward on it. And everyone has a stake in it, both from the ideas of what is brought to the table along with what is taken away from the table. And we all need to see this and internalize this.
Reading it a second time, and then thinking some, I agree with M. Petrov that looking at the woke like their thinking is infantile isn't gonna bear much fruit. I've never had the "pleasure" of discussing things with someone woke. My views come from logic-backed Instincts/Intuitions. What MAY be worth thinking about is "a couple" things. (Which sometimes turns out to be more than two. ;)
If You can take the frame of reference of the woke person(s), which requires the same listening/feeling You would put into a conversation You were having with someone close to You... Well, You'll bear fruit if You no more than understand WHERE they're coming from. Better position Yourself in debating this person, or maybe someone else down the road. YOUR viewpoints will be enhanced, I guess I'm "saying."
If it were me, I'd try to just plant a SEED of rationality. If You actually CONVINCE the person You're debating, it would be unBELIEVEably great. Don't count on it tho. ;)
Doesn't a lot of it come down to who the AUDIENCE is? And modify approach accordingly?
Some people who would agree with Your views, sometimes need the assurance that they're not sitting out on an island. Someone who doesn't may gain, by osmosis if nuthin' else, the viewpoint that people who disagree with their religion may actually be good people, despite that. May not gain any such-a thing.
All that to say...
If anyone is serious about encouraging change in a direction would, of course, need to look at things as a series of sprints that will turn into a marathon or three. No one race is critical (pardon the unintentional pun ;), which helps relax things. Again, ICBW. TY anyone who bothered to "listen."
My take is a little different of wokeness, maybe off I s'pose. I think there's two different things that might not work so well with the kind of conversation You two are proposing.
AFAIK, being woke means Your close, if not sitting right on top of, religious fanaticism. And "You can't reason somebody outta a position they didn't reason themselves into." Dunno who said that. No matter.
The other thing about The CRT Regime is that, by their own definition, rational thought is secondary to "lived experience." Personally, I think that's by design, to narrow the conversation AWAY from pros and cons and keep it to subjective viewpoints.
I am into the old Stephen Covey advice of "Frist seek to understand. Then seek to be understood." I was watching Russell Brand and Ben Shapiro here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMiug2sZ4Io and was struck how much Brand's style seems to be heavily based on the "first seek to understand" approach. I also think a distinction needs to be made between those who are in the market for someone like Glenn Loury, Robert Wright (when not in Bob & Mickey mode which is much more shall I say infotainment mode), etc. versus just say "people who vote". Those interested in rational deliberative discussions designed to inform or reach a potential solution is probably a very small part of the "those who vote" universe. If Glenn's goal is to build consensus among those who are at least somewhat intellectual and rational thinkers then I am sure a more deliberative mode is the way to go. If the goal is to reach the large group of "those who vote" then I think that is a different matter entirely. As a footnote, it is quite amazing to me that the Brand/Shapiro conversation has over 3 million views to date given the quality of the conversation so maybe I am wrong and "those who vote" are more open to deliberative discussions than I would have thought.
Great conversion. Thought-provoking idea about how to engage with the wokes. Was that not the approach as this ideology was arising? Did they not simply dismiss the teacher who expected more as ignorant or unevolved? How did we get to this place?
I actually see this ultimately boiling down to politics. The left has made this about power, perhaps needing a strategy as union membership declined to irrelevancy. The democrats will not stop identity politics and all the woke ideology wrapped up in it until they start losing elections because of it. This is a gift to the GOP, if they will somehow accept it and avoid committing suicide on the Trump guillotine. Would love to see a ticket of Tim Scott and Daniel Cameron. It would be kryptonite to the democrats’ strategy of division.
Deliberative democracy basically reduces to the idea that citizens' preferences can change as a result of interpersonal dialogue about common goods. This is against the behavioralist assumption that preferences are given and fixed (making dialogue either pointless or manipulative). Although it is rarefied, the closest thing we see to this in our politics may be the (ostensibly "non-political") deliberative processes used by the Supreme Court: The judges write draft opinions, read each others' drafts, and then revise them in light of their conferral. (New Zealand's parliamentary norms are a good example of the opposite approach.)
Plato argued that there is a difference between "eristic" discourse--where interlocutors aim to win at any cost--and dialectical argument, in which interlocutors aim jointly at the truth. So, this is an old and crucial (and of course contested) distinction in political philosophy. For Plato, of course, only dialectic deserves to be called "argument"in the true (philosophical) sense.
Rousseau's account of deliberation, in the Social Contract, has been a source of inspiration for some contemporary "deliberative democrats". As so often with Rousseau, it's a stumbling block, too. See Social Contract book 2, chapter 3.
I get the impression that Glenn and Nikita have been having ongoing offline discussions about how to improve the Glenn Show and this discussion somehow fits into that overall topic.
Without the background it's difficult to make much out of this specific post.
I have some ideas about why deliberative democracy is not the default design of social media as well as tools that would facilitate this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRvERaQAgRM&t
I support (figuratively and financially) everything Bob Woodson is involved in. He's a no nonsense doer who keeps his eye on the ball and avoids endless debate.
It was an interesting exchange. Thank you for sharing. You moved on from the original topic of conversation into a more generic exploration of communication.
Regarding the original topic which was your internal conversation with Bob and the other members of your steering group... It was quite apparent to me that you were all exploring the topic from different ways of knowing. It seemed to me that you were all sort of riffing off of Aristotle's approaches to knowledge.
In today's world the thesis is King. Propositional knowledge ...that is the theory of why a thing operates the way it does is very closely related to the scientific method and therefore in a post enlightenment world has taken on almost universal preeminence in how we view knowledge. That was your train of thought Glenn. To form a theory as to why people engaged in self-destructive behavior as a way to strategize how to change that behavior and thus correct the downstream problems. Bob on the other hand was using knowledge of a more participatory nature. That is using what organically evolves to solve problems within a system. First person observation and participation in problem solving rather than third person theory.
The other gentleman in the group seem to be more focused on procedural ways of correcting the problem utilizing various outside bureaucracies.
These are all different ways of understanding, different ways of knowing and probably all three are part of the solution.
To me that's what made that conversation interesting. In addition all the participants are focused on a single objective. Bringing different ways of seeing a single problem is extraordinarily useful in a situation such as that.
I don't think the above is directly analogous to where you and Nikita went towards the end of this video clip. The two of you seemed to move on to explore the idea of communicating with people who have dissimilar views and objectives and rather than droning on I think I'll leave those comments for another day.
Again thank you for sharing.
Far too many people come across a debate on an issue and immediately assume that it is Oxford style, one where you are trying to beat your opponents and score points. But the reality is, as you two are getting across in this piece, a group of people are trying to discuss an issue and find the best way forward on it. And everyone has a stake in it, both from the ideas of what is brought to the table along with what is taken away from the table. And we all need to see this and internalize this.
Excellent series Doctor Loury.
Reading it a second time, and then thinking some, I agree with M. Petrov that looking at the woke like their thinking is infantile isn't gonna bear much fruit. I've never had the "pleasure" of discussing things with someone woke. My views come from logic-backed Instincts/Intuitions. What MAY be worth thinking about is "a couple" things. (Which sometimes turns out to be more than two. ;)
If You can take the frame of reference of the woke person(s), which requires the same listening/feeling You would put into a conversation You were having with someone close to You... Well, You'll bear fruit if You no more than understand WHERE they're coming from. Better position Yourself in debating this person, or maybe someone else down the road. YOUR viewpoints will be enhanced, I guess I'm "saying."
If it were me, I'd try to just plant a SEED of rationality. If You actually CONVINCE the person You're debating, it would be unBELIEVEably great. Don't count on it tho. ;)
Doesn't a lot of it come down to who the AUDIENCE is? And modify approach accordingly?
Some people who would agree with Your views, sometimes need the assurance that they're not sitting out on an island. Someone who doesn't may gain, by osmosis if nuthin' else, the viewpoint that people who disagree with their religion may actually be good people, despite that. May not gain any such-a thing.
All that to say...
If anyone is serious about encouraging change in a direction would, of course, need to look at things as a series of sprints that will turn into a marathon or three. No one race is critical (pardon the unintentional pun ;), which helps relax things. Again, ICBW. TY anyone who bothered to "listen."
My take is a little different of wokeness, maybe off I s'pose. I think there's two different things that might not work so well with the kind of conversation You two are proposing.
AFAIK, being woke means Your close, if not sitting right on top of, religious fanaticism. And "You can't reason somebody outta a position they didn't reason themselves into." Dunno who said that. No matter.
The other thing about The CRT Regime is that, by their own definition, rational thought is secondary to "lived experience." Personally, I think that's by design, to narrow the conversation AWAY from pros and cons and keep it to subjective viewpoints.
ICBW. TYTY, as allus.