[ExI] Explaining Unusual Beliefs (was Fascist America)

[Jef Allbright]

On 10/6/07, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:

> My brother is a cultural anthropologist and I've been exposed to that
> point of view a long time. Indeed, the first criticism I had of libertarianism
> (and I'm still at least half-libertarian) is that it entirely fails to take culture
> into account.

An astute observation, and one I didn't realize we share.  I thought
you claimed devout Libertarianism.

Further to your point, I'd say it's about blindness to the essential
structure supporting their individual efforts.  Much as an arrogant
software engineer, proud of his creations, might extrapolate to grand
visions of what he might achieve if not held back by the regressive
forces surrounding him, with little regard for the adaptations baked
in to the editors, compilers, OS, microcode, hardware, and the people
and institutions (and deeper) from which these grow.

On the other hand, which is worse, Libertarian fixation on maximizing
personal liberty or the liberal ideal of one agent: one equal vote?
Both lack the dimensionality necessary for success in the bigger
picture.


> Moreover, the progress of EP over the last 30 years further diminishes
> the relevance (and plasibility), it seems to me, of the basic views
> espoused by cultural anthropologists. There does seem to be a basic
> *human nature*.  We all share a greater amount of behavior than was
> appreciated 50 years ago.

Like a tree with roots firmly grounded in its interactions with a
consistent (but always only incompletely knowable) "physics", each of
the individual leaves can find a basis for pragmatic agreement at some
level.  Therein lies the seed of a pragmatic politics of private
choices and public consequences.


> > A lot of people make what they believe are intelligent statements about the
> > thoughts and motivations of other people.  But, IMHO, if you want to learn
> > why other people think the way they do, you have to put yourself in their
> > position (if not literally, then at least figuratively).  That is, if you
> > cannot walk in their shoes, then at least read and listen to what they are
> > exposed to.

The degenerate case exemplified by the all-to-common practice on these
discussion lists of one aiming to attack the points of another, all
the while being unable to effectively summarize the other's position.
True understanding entails encompassing, rather than undermining, the
understanding of another.


> Well, that's certainly valuable advice. This does have to be checked out
> before anything.  E.g., to take an extreme example, what *made* the
> mass-murderer go on a rampage? What could cause me to climb a
> tower and begin picking random people off with a rifle?  Who knows,
> maybe if we listen to her story and try to understand her anger, we can
> sympathize.  But the chances aren't good.
>
> > I'm sure some individuals on this list can tell you that not every
> > "conspiracy theory" is a paranoid delusion - take the case of a Church
> > ganging up on an outsider and trying to have him imprisoned or murdered.  It
> > would be easy to scoff at such a story.  To the people who experience such,
> > their particular viewpoint is forever changed, and may now be "aberrant"
> > (i.e., departing from the "norm"), but that does not make it incorrect.
>
> That's for damned sure!
>
> Still, *after* we've checked out trying to see the situation from someone
> else's viewpoint, trying to understand the environmental cues to which
> he responded and the cultural influences to which he was exposed, there
> are still many unexplained cases. In some cases, the people are just clearly
> wired very differently.

Each person's model of reality is entirely valid, to that person. Thus
the protracted debates where one party aims to shoot holes in
another's model, while being unable to effectively describe the
target.


> In other extreme cases, people who are otherwise entirely normal have
> a pronounced tendency to believe almost every conspiracy theory they
> hear (I'm certainly talking about no one on this list).  That's one thing
> that needs accounting for.

The same non-linear responses tuned in the environment of adaptation
are naturally susceptible to being pushed into auto-immune behavior,
whether in the body or the mind.


> Another is a single individual who is almost
> always sensible from the majority's viewpoint, but has one or two
> pet-peeves that seem incomprehensible. This latter case evades any
> comprehensive explanation that I can offer.

Like a child raised in an abusive home becoming a bully in turn?  Or
perhaps closer to home, one who has been bullied tending to view any
sharply pointed criticism as bullying?

- Jef