Petition The Lord With Prayer

by pyrrho

It has long been my belief that you could not convince anyone online of anything. That's extreme, the sort of rule that admits a lot of little trivial exceptions, but in general it holds. The rise of the popular use of online communication and of the political blogosphere pretends to threaten my theory, and frankly, I don't know its real status but from what I see things are unchanged and I suspect they will remain so, for it is not a feature of just the net.

A great philosopher once made the point that he could not, in fact, really enlighten his readers, for the readers would not understand anything he said except that which they had already more or less formed in themselves. If he spoke an idea that made a reader think, "aha! yes!", that was a matter of him having expressed something such that the reader recognized his own belief.

But this is not to say that people don't change as a result of their reading and conversation, not at all, it's to put the emphasis on how and why they change and who does the changing, people change themselves.

"People never change" is a popular cliche, and yet, people do nothing but change, the actual truism is "people never stay the same", and what is really meant by "people never change" is, "I couldn't change her" and similar.

If we are open to changing ourselves then the information we get from others, their facts and opinions, their arguments and refusals all inform that process of change. You may owe someone thanks, but not for changing you, rather for helping you change yourself. If it seems a subtle difference, think again, there is a world of difference between doing something for someone and helping them do it for themselves.

I believe if we all knew it was really the latter that we were doing online, it would change our approach because building a house and expecting someone to move into it is different from helping them build their own house.

Comments

[Ryan Somma]

I must agree with the philosopher to some extent. I have often found those arguments most convincing that compliment the ideas and experiences already in my head.

I engage online discourse not to persuade others to my opinion dramatically, but to get them to acknowledge little things. Then, with a thousand little changes over a long period of time between two people, they come closer to a consensus.

Unless those two people are pyrrho and Averoes... then it's like watching a showdown between the irressitable force and immovable object. (That was a joke, I see you guys concede points all the time.)

: )

[G-Do]

I go online to learn.

[Winston Smith]

Sorry, I thought this was a poem by Jim Morrison.

[Hubris]

A short prayer:

May authors of posts include their name in the post.

Amen.

;)

[JD]

Fascinating. Based solely on my own personal experience, I can attest that rarely does an online discussion change my mind on a given topic. I do find that the discussion generally expose differing perspectives, alternative points of view, and additional information that I probably would not have run across on my own.

I does seem that on some days, I go online to reinforce my beliefs, and visit those sites that in the past, have shared my political perspectives. On other days, I find myself wanting to know how the "other side" is thinking, so I wander around in atrios, Twinkie Boy, Drum, Yglesias, etc ... swamps to find out how much of a warmonger I am today, or to what degree I am becoming a Nazi.

There have been times where my perspective has been changed by an online discussion. I remember clearly one thread on spinsanity where I went from being accused of being a homophobe and a bigot to actually understanding, and to a certain extent, agreeing with the position that began as the opposite of mine. So, I guess all I am saying is that if people with to actually discuss a topic, rather than toss around names, labels, and accusations, there is a certain amount of ability to alter perspective, given the ability of the actor to be willing to change their perspective.

To paraphrase either Averroes or pyrrho, it is not necessarily such a good idea to become married to an idea. I would add that getting married, period, is not such a good idea, unless you can afford to give away in excess of 50% of all of your current and future possessions ;-)

I can state, in all certainty, that since the demise of spinsanity, when I wish for rational conversation, this is my destination of choice. I have not posted or commented much recently, since I am more dum than a box of rocks, and felt that any of my attempts would pale in comparison to some of the fascinating discussions Av and pyrrho have been participating in.

You two remind me of me and my ex wife. We would argue for so long that at some point, if somebody stopped us and asked us why we were arguing, neither one of us would know what started it. Actually, she started it by nagging at me, constantly, but you get the drift of what I am trying to say.

[Kav]

I think that if we put Averroes and Pyrrho in a room together it would start out civil, then the shouting would start and the wild gesticulations followed by mad passionate love-making. Followed by more shouting...

I love you both fellas :-)

J.D. none of us buy this:

since I am more dum than a box of rocks

its just a weak attempt to make us go easy on you. Your deliberate misspelling of 'dumb' was the dead giveaway! ;-P

[JD]

Kav,

So very true ... in all reality, I am not as dum as a box of rocks, I am dummer than a box of rox.

[Winston Smith]

Or dummer than a bocks of rox?
JD:
1. You ain't dumm.
2. Been there, and it's more like 70% of all of your current and future possessions.

[Mark V.]

In my view the purpose of participating on these boards is not to change anyone’s opinion, but to submit one’s own arguments and counter-arguments to scrutiny of others. This way we can clarify our thoughts and also learn to present our arguments more precisely and effectively. This process may result in a modification of our understanding of the subject, and sometime even a change some views. It is somewhat unfortunate that group discussions quite often turn into mere dialogs.

Averroes provides a very useful service here by quickly recognizing and pointing out weaknesses of our arguments. On the other hand, his style also is destructive to a rational discussion by his penchant to attack every single weakness of our writing, often more perceived than real, no matter how unessential to the point being made. This often results in lengthy posts in which numerous sentences are repeated, analyzed and disputed, while the main subject is set aside. Another galling aspect of Averroes’ argumentation is his hypocrisy (which he admits), when he does himself what he accuses others of doing. I have found that the best way to deal with this is to be amused by it.

[pyrrho]

winston,

well, back when I was in seminary they told me I could petition the lord with prayer. Petition the lord with prayer? YOU CANNOT PETITION THE LORD WITH PRAYER!!!!

The soft parade had begun and then this monk out of nowhere buys me lunch.

-pyrrho

hubris,

um, I was just trying to see if you were still paying attention?

is that credible?

[pyrrho]

Ironic that my comment was anonymous.

[pyrrho]

JD,

It is possible to change... "There have been times where my perspective has been changed by an online discussion."

I have changed A LOT by my online conversations over many many years now.

The way I made my point can come across as "it's pointless"... in fact, it's almost a litmus test, the stronger someone thinks that's my point, the more I take it that they feel it's only worthwhile if you can educate others directly -- to compell them to a better idea.

Most here get the point, it seems, as you did too (I'm just mentioning this dynamic to help emphasize that yes we change as a result).

But there is a subtlety here that is similar to the dynamic between passive and active verbs. You can always replace an active verb with a passive version, and grammatically the sentence "means the same thing" but as we know it doesn't convey the same thing overall. Passive verbs move implicit responsibility around, thus, when the lamp is broken and you ask the kids what happend, "I was over there and IT FELL". "It fell? What did IT do to fall?" Turns out "it" had the child knock it off the end table. Damn lamp should be more careful.

So with change as a result of conversation... you change yourself because you find quality data in the conversation, or a new perspective comes available, maybe not even from the other participants so much as from your own reaction to their arguments.

And why it's important is because when it's time to get all tough and loud mouthed it's something to stop and consider... if we get irate with the hope to finally compell the other person, that's pointless. The only reason really to get irate in a conversation is to make clear where you stand and how firmly, it's not compelling.

To be really compelling and convince people requires arguing from their assumptions, which is a sort of dishonest activity, manipulative, unless you admit right off that these are not your values but you are employing them because you understand their appeal for the person you are talking to.

I know this perspective has made me more civil over time, though Av might not think so.

[G-Do]

...it is not necessarily such a good idea to become married to an idea...

Any intelligent agent in an uncertain world is faced with a so-called "exploit-or-explore" dilemma. That is, does the agent become "married to its ideas" and engage in behaviors that it knows will yield benefits (exploit), or does it attempt to discover new behaviors that will yield even greater benefits, even though trying new behaviors is potentially dangerous (explore)?

This is one of the central themes in the sub-field of AI called reinforcement learning. There is (so far) no reasonable solution to the exploit-or-explore dilemma. Facile models encourage the agent to explore less as it gets older - unfortunately, this method only works well for agents in smaller worlds.

I imagine that the reinforcement learning model has interesting applications to the pursuit of political ideologies. I am not familiar enough with the literature to know whether anyone has tried to do this. People certainly seem to run up against an exploit-or-explore dilemma in politics, as JD has just pointed out, so the model seems like it might fit.

A good sanity-check question to tell us if the model fits is "what are the actual benefits people derive from holding political philosophies?"

Any takers?

[Winston Smith]

Great question!

[Shinobi]

I don't remeber where this quote came from but the basic jist is that "I try not to have beliefs, I try to have ideas, beliefs are much to hard to change." and I agree with that.

I find it interesting though how people are occasionally peanalized for changing their minds on topics. (heh peanal..) It seems that society rewards more people who have unshakeable opinions based on foundations of gravel than it does individuals who are open to new points of view and to changing their minds. But, I could be wrong, obviously.

Though I am not smart enough to answer G-Do's question.

[pyrrho]

I suggest a rule where shinobi and JD stop saying they are not smart enough... it makes me feel stupid.

[pyrrho]

g-do, that's a very interesting suggestion.

a lot of this is actually about timing, I think.

nothing is certain, but some things are more certain than others... I personally believe in questioning any knowledge, belief, idea, on a continual basis.

HOWEVER: it's a matter of timing, you may believe that a criminal can be rehabilitates, but during the execution of a crime is not the time to worry about that at all. You may be willing to question your knowledge that life is not just a dream, but not while rock climbing.

The fact is we need to make decisions and those moments are when we decide to take knowledge as accurate or not, and at that point, faith in a notion becomes just as sure as faith in solid knowledge, and after that moment one can compare and question again.

E.g. trust in a friend is something you do at the given moment, though of course your trust may fail to pay off, or things may change in the future. These are the acts of faith in all "knowledge".

for the record I'm totally too stupid to say this, but far too stupid not to say it, and just stupid enough to not particular care how stupid I am.

cheers.

[JD]

pyrrho : If it is any indicator of how dumb I am, I was completely unable to even begin to decipher the underlying meaning of "for the record I'm totally too stupid to say this, but far too stupid not to say it, and just stupid enough to not particular care how stupid I am". Guess that makes me dum as a board.

[pyrrho]

aha JD,

I trapped you, no, that proves you are smart, you have to be dumb to understand it.

AHAH!

[JD]

G-do : Fascinating idea/question. Though the whole AI thingie is so far removed from my ability to begin to comprehend it, at a base level that is a great question.

After pondering that question, I cannot come up with one tangible benefit to holding a political philosophy. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zifr.

My beliefs do not make me a better person than those that think differently than I. They do not make me smarter, more caring, more productive, more anything.

In the end, all it amounts to is an internal dialogue about how one single, solitary, lone individual views one of many political landscapes.

It makes you wonder why people get so agitated and downright nasty about other perople's perspectives.

Browsing the web today, I found out that militias and Timothy McVeigh would be today's mainstream conservatives. I found out that Republicans love racism. I found out that many on the right think that the remarks from Kerry and Dean border on treason. It makes one wonder what the point of all the vitriol is.

Why must people go over the top in blasting those that think differently. Does O-Dub think that I am going to come to my senses and realize that I have been wrong for decades because of something he posts? Does Hinderaker think that somebody on the left is going to read one of his posts and realize the error of their ways?

I have probably strayed too far from the topic, and rambled enough for the time being ...

[pyrrho]

more proof you are smart, JD.

I agree fully, I have plenty of opinions, but my take on things doesn't make me better, nor worse. The number of conflict which really may need to be resolved this way is few, there is an unexplained hypersensitivity.

People have a sense someone has to be blamed, and chose their classical ideological "opponents" to blame.

I actually believe there is some fault and problem to address... but civil war isn't going to address it.

really, more and more, I'm sure that great American ideas are made of American Conservativism and American Liberalism engineered to operate together... the good ideas for america will borrow from both traditions (and more than just those two)...

people get very partisan and feel/claim it's from loyalty to principles or ideas, but really, it's loyalty to the group, the party, and that's pure poison.

[JD]

I just realized that when I want to hear politics in more civilized environs, I tend to go to Hubris' site, and another pseudo comedy site. How sad is it that one migrates to sites that have their basis in humor to find rational political discourse?

[JD]

I am the first to admit that in my initial forays into the realm of the blogs, (I cannot bring myself to use terms like blogosphere) that I was a fire-breathing liberal-hating conservative. I like to think that I have outgrown that, or maybe I am just blissfully ignorant.

I no longer think that those that do not share my perspective are actively rooting against the best interests of our country. I guess I have arrived at a point where I can read something from Atrios, Drum, et al. and in the past, my blood pressure would have sky-rocketed, and I would have been banging out insults and venom. Now, when I read something like that, I think to myself, well, there is a perspective that is far different than your own, and wonder how they arrived at that position.

Loyalty to a principle or ideal does certainly seem better than loyalty to a group. That is the precise reason why I question my traditional Republican vote, but have yet to find an alternative that most closely aligns with my internal and invidual perspective.

[Averroes]

Mark: "Averroes provides a very useful service here by quickly recognizing and pointing out weaknesses of our arguments."

And that is all i ever intend to do, Mark. I usually start with the notion that people on bloigs are not interested so much in some conclusion but in sorking together to find some sort of truth.

I have been forced to reevaluate that prejudice. In fac5t, i think the sociology of the blogosphere actualluy encourages the flocking of sheep to fold. no matter how unfounded one's ideas, one can always find someone in agreement on some blog. Unlike me, I believe most people are actually encouraged in their belief by finding others who share it. I can't imagine why that would be. To me, that causes immediate doubt.

At any rate, the blogoshpere seems to encourage a splintering of thought into faiths and sects, all defended against heresy with great sanctimoniousness. All this causes me sadness more than anything. Even somthing relatively mild like INDC causes me sadness in its predictability.

"On the other hand, his style also is destructive to a rational discussion by his penchant to attack every single weakness of our writing, often more perceived than real, no matter how unessential to the point being made. This often results in lengthy posts in which numerous sentences are repeated, analyzed and disputed, while the main subject is set aside."

Yeah, like the time the relefvant points were how Bush cqame to say the 16 words, and if Wilson had any argument for his claim, and I spent a bunch of time discussing the meaning of 'agenda,' and insisting that Wilson's report of Mayaki's meeting was NO evidence, (but he reported it anyway), when none of that had any bearing on whether the CIA approved the words in the speech, or whether Wilson could really have had "knowledge and experience" that allowed him to say conclusively, as he did and has and continues to do, that Bush (or someone) lied about the intelligence in the 16 words. i emember that.

In fact, I still don't think you've got me on point there, mark.

Wait...Am i remembering that right?

"Another galling aspect of Averroes’ argumentation is his hypocrisy (which he admits), when he does himself what he accuses others of doing."

Yes, mark, i occassionally fall into doing what you do consistently. That is true. i always admit it. Sometimes i do so sardonically.

You, on the other hand, NEVER admit to what you are doing. in fact, my bet is that you will continue that here.

You may not realize how frustrating it is to discuss things with you, mark, when your sole purpose is to avoid the truth at all costs.

At least, i think that is ojn your agenda. Wait. maybe i can't say that. Do you have a "formal list" of things you do here? Written down, printed in fancy lettering? Maybe 'agenda' is the wrong word. Do you know that my first wife pronbounced it 'agender?' She had an agenda, that one. you know, she wanted the rules of basketball changed because, she said, they discriminate against women! Getting rid of all discrimination against women was on her agenda to be sure, except, of course, we aren't sure if it was an agenda, becasue, you see, she never formally wrote it down, so it must be somethng else, which mark will tell me....

Now, what is it we were tqalking about

Oh, yeah, you were accusing me of telling you how scientific articles were written, becasue that wwas exactly on the topic of the 16 words and how they came to be, so yyou felt compelled to avoid the topic by spending three posts ranting about my evils in telling you how scientific articles were written (turns out i hadn't, of course, but why bother with that when you can avoid the topic).

Then, when you got breathlessly close to the actual topic, you decided that it was important to argue that you don't believe the WINPAC analyst when he said that the reason he wanted the attribution of the words to the British becaszue their paper was already unclassified, and he wanted to avoid revealing men and methods by referring to US intelligence, which, i agreed, was a little far fetched, but you said he was maybe lying or that the SSCI was, but, if you look, the evidence that the CIA sacts this way on a regular basis is everywhere (Like when the redact a number in a sentence like "it was one of [deleted] reports . . .") and so on that basis it is not so unusual, but all this, of course, has nothing to do with the question at hand as to whether Bush (or someone) was twisting the intelligence when saying that iraq had sought uranium in Africa, but it was a good way to avoid the real point.

Which, if i must say so, seems ALWAYS to be your agenda...oops, there's that word again.

Perhaps this time you will look in the pargraph above and lead us into an argument about the word 'basis.' I could tell you that i've played many basses while providing the harmonic and rythymic basis for the group sound, and, again we can ignore whatever point you want us to ignore.....