From: james (james.e.taylor-2@stud.man.ac.uk)
Date: Sat May 17 2003 - 14:50:03 MDT
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 09:15:15AM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
> James writes
>
> > I just replied to your post because it was the latest one
> > that used the terms Left and Right as if they were some
> > reified Thing.
>
> Just out of curiosity, do you consider Hot and Cold to be
> reified Things?
Yes, in the sense that they are useful simplifications of reality. The
Left, like Hot, is not a real thing, but unlike Hot, it isn't useful
either.
> Entrenchment, as you know, happens without labels too.
> When at work, for example, a certain proposal appeals
> to some people and not others, it seems to me that
> almost exactly the same thing transpires. Probably it's
> only when the same teams keep cropping up against each
> other that they acquire labels, but it would be interesting
> to know if the labels really do make things worse. So far,
> I've not seen much indication that they do.
In my (lack of) experience, I've found that the particular labels Left
and Right are used solely as weapons in a fight, not tools in an
argument. Lumping somebody in with, say, The Right, implies they support
a whole lot more baggage than may be the case, usually in the attempted
construction of a straw man.
You're certainly right that having the same teams keep cropping up against
each other might suggest a common cause, but I would be extremely wary
of attributing it to something as simple as traditional models of
political attitudes.
> > Cooperation clearly evolved at some point, memetically or
> > genetically, but the animal instinct to split the world
> > into two simple groups still prevails occasionally. Maybe
> > even most of the time. [Yes!] I consider "Me vs. Him",
> > "Us vs. Them", "This tribe vs. That tribe", "This nation
> > vs. That nation", "This ideology vs. That ideology" to be
> > manifestations of the same thing.
>
> And when it's naturally absent, there often appears to be a
> real need for it, e.g., the intense rivalry between high
> schools, or even siblings, and the parties appear even to
> take steps to create it.
Oh sure, competition and rivalry are fine, but as you point out, we go
out of our way to create a bipolar worldview, even when that may not be
the case. I don't want to say "Let's all be friends! We're all on the
same side!" but there are cases where simplistic one/zero yes/no
right/wrong interpretations just won't do.
> > Whatever the cause is, I believe it is a quirk of natural
> > selection that should, at least in principle, yield to
> > superrationality.
>
> Does anyone believe in "superrationality" in game theory
Ack. Bad choice of word. What I should have said was "a calm detached
perspective" perhaps.
-- James
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 17 2003 - 14:04:16 MDT