Internet discussions more often than not drive me bonkers. I’ll mention some data and immediately someone will question and criticize the data. If they’re a more worthy opponent, they’ll ask for specific sources. I usually comply and then add even more data just to further support my argument. The other person may offer data too, but they rarely cite the data and it’s even more rare for them to offer multiple sources. Most “debates” never get past mere opinionated nitpicking.
I mentioned one example in a previous post. I gave specific data and quotes from specific sources and framed it within the larger context of scientific consensus… and the other person acted like it meant nothing at all. As a person who respects facts, I find it odd that many adults (who are potential voters) have such a dubious relationship to facts. If someone shares facts with me that prove I’m wrong, I accept my being wrong and I do further research to better inform myself. This attitude of intellectual humility and curiosity seems not to be shared by many people… or at least not many people I meet online which may or may not be a representative example of the American public (but if I had to guess, I’d think that the average internet user is more intelligent and better informed than the average non-internet user).
I just experienced another example. This one was on Youtube and it was also about the scientific consensus of climatology experts. Youtube has very limited word count for comments which makes intelligent debate a bit constrained, but I was up for the challenge. I first mentioned some facts withou citing them, partly because Youtube doesn’t allow comments with url addresses in them. Some person questioned the validity of my data and offered some other data which they didn’t cite either. I felt lazy and didn’t want to try to figure out where he was getting his data, and I wasn’t in a mood for debating to any great extent. So, I just offered the url addresses (by replacing the “.” with “DOT” which Youtube allows) of several scientific articles and Wikipedia articles (and the Wikipedia articles cited many scientific articles).
My “debate” partner responded by saying that what I was referring to wasn’t peer reviewed and I assumed he must be talking about the first set of data I mentioned. I had been looking at this data recently and I knew it came from the University of Illinois, but I didn’t know if it was or wasn’t peer reviewed. I did a quick websearch and found it had been peer reviewed. This is so typical. If you look at people’s nitpicking, it is often unfounded. I suppose people like this just hope you won’t actually check it out for yourself. Why would this person lie to me just to try to win a debate? It only took me maybe a minute or so to disprove his claim. Does this person normally get away with such lies? Are most people unwilling to check the facts for themselves? Do most people not know how to use a search engine to find information quickly?
The ironic part was this person said the media is always lying. So, I pointed out to him that, whether or not the media was lying, it appeared that he was lying or else uninformed. He never responded back to further challenge me nor to admit to being wrong. His only objective was to “win” the debate at all costs. When it became apparent he wasn’t going to “win”, he simply abandoned ship.
I have an online “debate” like this probably on average of once a week (sometimes less when I’m not in a commenting mood). I don’t go looking for idiots. It’s just that the idiots are often the ones most willing to brazenly challenge any opinion (no matter how factual) that disagrees with their opinion. To be fair, there are also many reasonable people online. My experience, though, that the line between idiotic and reasonable often becomes rather thin when it comes to political and religious ideology. Even when faced with the facts, few people are willing (or able?) to change their mind.
Why is this? I’ve studied psychology enough to realize that humans are mostly irrational creatures, but I’m constantly amazed by how irrational certain people can be. I seem unwilling and unable to accept the fact that most people aren’t capable of intelligent debate. Part of me thinks that if I present the facts in a fair manner and make a reasonable argument that I can expect the same in return. Apparently, I’m the irrational one for feeling frustrated by the inevitable irrationality of human nature.
But I do have reason for my irrational hope for rationality. I occasionally have very intelligent debates with people online and these people even sometimes change their minds when offered new information… I even change my mind sometimes when presented with new information by an intelligent person. Most often these people seem to be more liberal, libertarian or independent-minded.
I’ve found that the only subjects that regularly attract intelligent conservatives are economics and sometimes philosophy/theology, but these are subjects that aren’t as easily determined factually according to scientific research (including psychological research). Conservatives tend to argue more from a perspective of principles that they support with historical examples. To conservatives, the past is where they look to verify a theory or claim. I guess that is fine as far as it goes, but it makes for difficult debating because the attempt to understand principles and history is easily swayed by subjective biases.
For example, many libertarians and fiscal conservatives like to talk about free markets. The problem is that it’s almost impossible to ascertain what this means. The idea of a “free market” is highly theoretical if not outright idealistic. No free market has ever existed. Furthermore, no free market could ever exist because it’s merely a relative label of a market being more free than some other market. There is no ultimate freedom of markets. So, these debates lead off in all kinds of directions such as referencing “experts”. The issue I have with experts in fields such as economics is that expertise is much more subjective in that there is less hard data. Many of the economic models that have been relied upon have been proven wrong. It’s almost impossible to scientifically study markets in that confounding factors can’t be easily controlled.
But even intelligent libertarians sometimes are wary of actual scientific data. Libertarians don’t trust government. Since scientists sometimes get government grants, scientists can’t be entirely trusted either. For some reason, libertarians think corporate sponsored scientists would be more trustworthy.
Conservatives in general are more mistrusting of objectivity. I’m not quite sure what is the reasoning behind this. Some intelligent conservatives I’ve met actually agree with me about humans being irrational and that seems to be their reason for mistrusting objectivity, but this is a more intelligent argument and probably doesn’t represent the opinion of average conservatives.
To be fair, the smartest people of all probably are independents. From the data I’ve seen, independents (and the American public in general) are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. The question is which is the cause? Do smart people tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative? OR do social liberals and fiscal conservatives tend to be smart? Or is there a third causal factor? MBTI iNtuition and FFM “openness to experience” correlate with testing high on intelligence and correlate with high representation in college. Also, these psychological functions/traits correlate to liberal attitudes, but I’m not sure how they may or may not correlate to fiscal conservatism. (There is a nice site about politics and psychological types: http://www.politicaltypes.com.)
Some of the most intelligent debaters will be the MBTI NT types (iNtuition Thinking). I know that INTPs tend to be self-identify as politically independent and I suspect the same would be true for INTJs. NTs probably either vote with Democrats for reasons of social liberalism or with libertarians for reasons of it being a third party, but I some NTs might vote Republican for reasons of fiscal conservatism or else for reasons of principles. I’m not sure how many NTs vote Republican, but polls I’ve seen show that ENTJs are more conservative (probably because TJ – Extraverted Thinking – is their primary function).
So, I can presume that most often, when I’m enjoying an intelligent discussion, I’m probably interacting with a socially liberal iNtuition type. I don’t know what good this knowledge does for me. Maybe it helps me to be more forgivng (this person sure is stupid… it’s too bad they were born that way).
To be more optimistic, psychological research doesn’t show that most people fit in absolute categories. Most people can learn non-preferred thinking styles and learn to develop weak traits. Education should teach people how to use all parts of their mind. The fact that so many people lack critical thinking skills is a failure of our education system and shouldn’t be blamed on individuals. College favors iNtuition types. Most professors and college-level teachers are iNtuition types and most of the coursework is more appealing to iNtuitive types. It’s hard for a strong Sensation type to do well in traditional schooling. Who can blame them that they don’t go to college or have bad experiences at college? Who can blame them for falling prey to the notion that college is controlled by liberal elites?
Considering that the MBTI shows Sensation types represent the largest portion of the population, it is quite sad that our education system has the hardest time reaching this category of person. Sensation types don’t have as much natural talent for abstract thinking and critical thinking. Sensation types are better with concrete information and concrete learning. Too much of higher education deals with abstractions and theories. Dumbing down higher education isn’t the answer. I think we should have more alternative routes of education.
When I was in highschool, my best friend was very much a Sensation type who took many alternative classes involving technology. He was good working with machines and with computers, but he wasn’t extremely smart in terms of intellectuality. Alternative classes served him well in terms of preparing him for a job in the real world. The potential criticism, though, is whether he was prepared for being a well-rounded and well-informed citizen. I suspect not. The highschool I went to didn’t require students take classes in logic and critical thinking. The classes in general seemed rather dumbed down. Unless you were taking college prep classes, you wouldn’t be intellectually challenged.
I feel frustrated. I don’t want to blame the average person for not being well educated, but I do feel pissed off that our education system has failed these people and so created an intellectually inferior society. Even news reporting seems dumbed down for the masses. Shouldn’t the education system and the media, instead, serve the ideal of uplifting the masses by informing them?
Even with intelligent people, I think the education system has often failed. College is less focused on providing a liberal education and created well informed citizens. College has merely become a career path. Many have talked about the problem of specialization of knowledge. People go to college only to become isolated in some particular field and outside that field they may be largely ignorant.
People, whether well educated or not, seem less capable of understanding the larger context. Maybe it’s always been that way. If so, I hope it’s changing. I probably shouldn’t expect the education system to do anything more than create good workers… as that seems to be its primary purpose. My hope is more in the realm of media technology. The traditional media has been failing for a long time, but the new media has been very successful. The most well informed people are those who use the new media to inform themselves. And, because of the new media, the uninformed (be they the average public or the average politician) can no longer spout misinformation without being challenged.
So, to return to the original topic of online debates, maybe a purpose is served by all of the ideological conflict found in the forums and comments sections around the web. The people who weren’t educated well in school get confronted, whether they like it or not, with new information and with actual critical thinking skills. Some people might just become even more ideological in response, but many others will learn to be more intelligent debaters. Even debates where people deny expert opinions may serve a purpose in that a discussion then ensues about the definition of ‘expert’. The question about the new media is whether the positives will outweigh the negatives. The uninformed have the opportunity to become even more polarized and entrenched in their views by isolating themselves in forums of the likeminded, but those who want to be informed have more opportunity than ever to do so… and there are many in the middle who are neither extremely ideological nor extremely motivated to learn.
My hope is that the internet remains an open resource and open platform for public debate. My other hope is that the internet my force the education system to improve by offering both teachers and students to become more well informed. Students now no longer have to solely rely on the information given by teachers, and teachers no longer have to solely rely on the information that was given to them when they were students.
6 thoughts on “Online Debates: Ideology, Education & Psychology”
More political, corporatist graffiti masquerading as intellectualism. Attack the corporation, root it out by its festering soul, undermine it, infiltrate it, infect it, tie it up in knots, steal from it, bankrupt it, protest and agitate and organize. And if it won’t alter itself, radically, then burn it to the ground. Shove your psychology. This is a war. It’s either IT or US. And I choose US.
Do you mind translating that into English? I have no idea what you’re talking about. What is “corporatist graffiti”? And are you claiming any reasonably intelligent argument is intellectual? If so, that is very sad. Are you trying to be an example of precisely what is wrong with our society?
Shove my psychology? It’s not my psychology. It’s the psychology of all humans.
*pssst… guess what? you have a psychology too*
War? Who exactly are you fighting? Are you figting a particular corporation or just the general concept of “corporation”? What is “IT”? Is “IT” an evil entity? And who is “US”? BTW how do you fight this war and how do you know whether you’ve won? What precisely are you going to burn? Is your goal to destroy all of civilization as we know it or just the evil corporatist pseudo-intellectuals?
And what exactly is your point? Do you think that I’m somehow promoting corporations? I didn’t even mention corporations or corporatism? I didn’t even imply anything related to any of that.
I discuss my hope that the public be better educated and informed. And your response is to rant about violence and use empty rhetoric. You choose war? I think you should choose intelligence and intelligibility.
Okay. I just now visited the blog of the above commenter, theothergardener. Basically, this person thinks corporations are basically evil in all ways and have become treated like gods.
I understand. This person is angry. I also don’t like corporations as they rule our society… in what is known as corporatism.
My problem is that, whether or not I agree with someone, this kind of ranting seems unhelpful. It’s just pure rage, a lot of noise without much sense. I sympathize with the emotion and the target of criticism is worthy. But ideology devoid of facts and reason just doesn’t do much for me.
This rage may feel empowering to someone who has felt disempowered. In the long run, though, such rage will either lead someone to burn out or else become a violent extremist lashing out. The danger of the latter is that the lashing out won’t solve the problem.
Corporations aren’t scared of people like this. Corporations are more afraid of people like Derrick Jensen. It’s information that corporations fear. They do everything they can to control information by controlling the media and controlling politcians, by advertising and by using propagandistic front groups.
What they don’t fear is the violence of the extremists. Corporations know how to manipulate public perception and opinion. They take this kind of rage and redirect it as they’re now doing with the Tea Party.
Unstable individuals may lash out violently, but this won’t effect the CEOs. In terrorists attacks, it’s rare for CEOs or even politicians to get hurt. Usually, normal working class people get hurt. Sometimes police and doctors get attacked by extremists (as has happened recently with the rightwing fringe). The corporations themselves are untouchable by most acts of violence. Corporations have to worry more about the violence that might come from other corporations or governments they don’t properly control.
Anyways, rage won’t win you many supporters, won’t convert many fighters to your cause. Rage turns people away and causes them to dismiss your message. The rage is fine in and of itself. Feel the rage and own it. It’s your rage and no one else’s. Rage can be both a strength and a weakness. If you can understand why you’re so angry, then you’re more likely to act in an effective manner. Mindless rage, however, never did anyone any good.
Bullshit. You didn’t bother to read my blog. You didn’t respond to any of the arguments there. I’ve posted more than thirty times on that particular piece. What did you read? The frontpage? Don’t spout off about something you know very little about. And you didn’t respond to my comment either.
I didn’t claim to have read much of your blog. I merely was curious about your perspective. If I misunderstood, then clarify. I’m always willing to listen to cogent rational arguments.
I went past the frontpage to the full piece. There was no argument there. It seemed just to be a rant. If there was some substance mixed in with your ranting, please point it out and I’ll consider it.
I agree I know little about you or your viewpoint. You aren’t the best communicator. I didn’t respond to your comment because I couldn’t understand it. Less rant and more rationality… if you don’t mind. Otherwise, there is nothing to discuss. If you don’t wish to have a rational discussion, I’ll just delete your comments. I have no desire for my blog to be used as a platform for violent speech and ideological rants.