Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
|
Exactly what I had in mind.
People self-segregating into comfortable, self-reinforcing and radicalizing "outlook ghettos" that exclude any ideas that might possibly challenge their world view. Humans are tribal by nature and if all you surround yourself reinforces your starting position, eventually anybody who differs become "other", alien, and by definition, *wrong*.
The whole 1%-99% narrative is built off that: just like the piracy debate, among other "controversies" where people "talk" past each other, slinging arguments from their cast-in-concrete bunkers, using selective "statistics" to simplify complex issues out of all resemblance to reality.
Faced with contradictory data or opinions, the instant emotional response is to go after the messenger and their motivations to delegitimize their position without having to consider it. And its not a new phenomenon by any stretch; it's just more visible in our age of internet "annonimity".
Too much rationalization, not enough rationality. (See above quote-fest.)
Which is one reason I think Goodkind might be on to something; "name and shame" is an emotional attack rather than a coldly legalistic one. Not sure it'll have much of an effect, but when faced with people who instinctively shrug off rational appeals...
Surely there must be *some* way to get through the bunker mentality?
