TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People

213 点作者 randomname2超过 9 年前

18 条评论

alistproducer2超过 9 年前
IMO, A large part of the problem is people of different political views don&#x27;t talk, face to face, enough. Like in war, it&#x27;s easier to kill a &quot;gook&quot; or &quot;haji&quot; than a person.<p>The Internet makes it easy to dehumanize the other side; they&#x27;re just avatars and words on your screen. It&#x27;s a lot harder to hate an actual person, especially just for having a different opinion than you.<p>[Edited]
评论 #11161039 未加载
评论 #11160732 未加载
评论 #11161459 未加载
评论 #11159555 未加载
评论 #11160037 未加载
评论 #11162235 未加载
评论 #11163419 未加载
评论 #11163344 未加载
emodendroket超过 9 年前
I find the idea that the current level of polarization is unprecedented kind of questionable. McCarthyist purges? The violence of the Reconstruction era, which followed a literal Civil War? Compared to that people calling each other mean names seems like small potatoes.
评论 #11159579 未加载
评论 #11161534 未加载
评论 #11159508 未加载
评论 #11159826 未加载
评论 #11164410 未加载
评论 #11164575 未加载
brightball超过 9 年前
One of my favorite quotes actually embodies this pretty well.<p>&quot;The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.&quot; - F. Scott Fitzgerald
评论 #11159044 未加载
评论 #11162157 未加载
评论 #11159143 未加载
评论 #11158941 未加载
评论 #11161684 未加载
carsongross超过 9 年前
Politeness comes from social solidarity: it is a consequence of social harmony, not a precursor. What if the polarization represents actual, fundamental disagreements on politics and, at root, moral axioms? Being polite hasn&#x27;t done much for the respectable right for the last fifty years.<p>I would rather focus on solutions like secession or federalism that allow groups of people with different and irreconcilable moral axioms to simply leave one another alone to build the social&#x2F;political structures they would prefer.
评论 #11160123 未加载
评论 #11160192 未加载
评论 #11159872 未加载
评论 #11161817 未加载
评论 #11161703 未加载
maxxxxx超过 9 年前
How about &quot;think for yourself&quot;? I notice that when you discuss something with a lot of partisan people they come to a pretty balanced view if the party leadership hasn&#x27;t already staked out a position. But they will make a 180 turn as soon as soon as the official position is out and be totally opposed to the view they have developed previously.
评论 #11159440 未加载
评论 #11160391 未加载
specialist超过 9 年前
The increasing political divide in the US is the direct result of ever more aggressive gerrymandering.<p>Jurisdictions are becoming ever more partisan. So now only the most partisan (divisive) candidates can win their primary election, which then pretty much makes the general election moot.<p>The fix is California style redistricting, where citizens and not politicians are in charge of the process.
评论 #11161843 未加载
评论 #11161207 未加载
评论 #11161262 未加载
评论 #11161002 未加载
bryanrasmussen超过 9 年前
well, first off it says that people distrust people of opposite political parties more than of different races like that&#x27;s a bad thing ( distrusting people because of their beliefs instead of their race seems an improvement to me), furthermore has this data been adjusted for political affiliation and race - do white Republicans, for example, really distrust white Democrats more than they distrust people of other races? Did this study take other parties than the big two into account?
评论 #11158791 未加载
评论 #11159082 未加载
评论 #11158850 未加载
ChemicalWarfare超过 9 年前
Polarization has a very strong tribal component to it. Once you get into the &quot;us vs them&quot; mindset you become the member of the &quot;tribe&quot; purely based on the labels instead of &quot;reality&quot;.<p>At some point in time the label can have a strong correlation with the actual reality,then the label becomes more important than what it actually represents.<p>Politicians exploit this constantly, &quot;us vs them&quot; is what unites their respective camps and promotes loyalty.
vardump超过 9 年前
So, soon it&#x27;s time to elect another scapegoat, a social lightning rod.<p>U.S. presidents seem to get blamed (and sometimes praised) for things they can&#x27;t really control.
评论 #11159193 未加载
评论 #11158834 未加载
评论 #11158755 未加载
norea-armozel超过 9 年前
I can&#x27;t blame the author to trying to focus on the best aspects of how to reach across the political spectrum (even within the same party), but I&#x27;ll be honest and say that some ideas&#x2F;positions are fundamentally incompatible with a liberal society. For example, the current crop of social conservatism to seem to be dead set on putting inspectors at the entrances of public restrooms because of pseudo-fears over transgender people (specifically male-to-female transsexuals). Clearly, it&#x27;s not about protecting children, women, and the elderly. It&#x27;s about shaming a minority into submission since we&#x27;ve been making gains in terms of the national discussion. Hell, the fact that Caitlyn Jenner got some conservatives to rethink their ideas signals that certain virulent ideologies are on their way out. So, all they got left is to demonize. Worse still, there&#x27;s no compromising with these people on such legislation like ENDA. They always want more protection to discriminate in private settings where they would be in violation of existing protected class laws. If such people want to have a seat at the table then they need to stop assuming that transgender people are monsters first and foremost. If that&#x27;s not in their agenda then there can be no depolarization or compromises, ever. You can&#x27;t debate the humanity of another person, either they&#x27;re human or they&#x27;re not.
评论 #11162485 未加载
_archon_超过 9 年前
This is an interesting article, and I think there could be a point made that wasn&#x27;t expressed. I propose that someone who embodies these methods may be much more likely to have others judge them to have intellectual integrity. That was an awkward sentence. I further propose that this acknowledgement is an important aspect of having even highly polarized people have a worthwhile conversation.
评论 #11158875 未加载
agentgt超过 9 年前
I believe many of the problems of polarization are caused by cognitive dissonance [1] in particular &quot;confirmation bias&quot; (the article is sort of light on references to academic social psychology and cognitive behavior).<p>Confirmation bias is often exarcebated with greater choices (as the number of choices brings greater discomfort). An example would be the GOP primaries (ie sheer number of candidates).<p>I also think certain personality types (ie myers briggs&#x2F;jung) have a tendency to behave in a polarized manner. I don&#x27;t think being polarized = stupid as another commenter posted albeit probably being ignorant does have an affect.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Cognitive_dissonance" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Cognitive_dissonance</a>
评论 #11159018 未加载
ultramancool超过 9 年前
I closed this almost immediately because of the giant yellow &quot;this is your free article for this month&quot; banner on the top. Get your shit together web designers, I don&#x27;t need something blaring so everyone in the office sees that it&#x27;s my free article.
评论 #11158926 未加载
评论 #11159352 未加载
评论 #11159592 未加载
评论 #11159494 未加载
评论 #11158835 未加载
seivan超过 9 年前
Well needed article. Trying to follow this more and more. Although it&#x27;s getting harder.
lintiness超过 9 年前
he forgot one: they don&#x27;t watch cable news.
评论 #11158816 未加载
lez超过 9 年前
I am thinking about what could happen if a large company with communication platform engaged in encouraging these rules within their platform. Good world that woulud be.
adwf超过 9 年前
You could also read this is as 7 ways to lose an election ;)
alexashka超过 9 年前
&quot;Of all the mental habits that encourage polarization, the most dangerous is probably binary thinking&quot;<p>Does this article recognize it&#x27;s own irony? It&#x27;s a whole article about &#x27;depolarizing&#x27; as opposed to &#x27;polarizing&#x27; and within it, is the line I quoted above.<p>Here&#x27;s a thought - intelligent people don&#x27;t have these problems and they don&#x27;t need 7 vague bullet points that are impossible to follow.<p>Dumb people lack nuanced points of view - they polarize&#x2F;simplify a great deal because that&#x27;s how humans are - we first learn to think &#x27;hitting other people is bad&#x27;, and only later learn that &#x27;most times hitting other people is bad&#x27;.<p>When do people learn philosophy and different types of fallacies? For most people, the answer is never. How many people grok fallacies, philosophy and have emotional intelligence to boot? Even fewer.<p>Thank god someone wrote an article that by-passes all that though, it&#x27;s just the 10 commandments you need, oh sorry I meant 7 habits...