Do we make too many assumptions about why people hold certain views?

Don't know how much interest there is in this subject. It was suggested that I start my own thread for this, so I did.

This is something which I have seen fairly often, especially in discussions of politics, religious beliefs, ethics and fandoms.

Basically, it's my perception that there is a common tendency to look at a group of people behaving in a manner in which one disapproves, or professing to think something which one doesn't approve of, and to think "oh, how evil!" or, if one is feeling charitable but condescending, "oh, how stupid!" When what we should instead be doing is asking them, "What do you think? And why do you think this?". This approach would make it easier to assess the validity of different ideas.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

I am inclined to think so. I am also inclined to think it's a human thing.

And that is why. It's a way of making sense of the world without being overwhelmed or completely fucking lost all the time.

edited 13th Jul '11 5:03:10 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

On the other hand, there's usually no other choice. You can't collect the detailed personal opinions of millions of people, so you just have to go on what evidence you have.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

You mean like how people who question really high age of consents and related laws(illegal to be in porn when 18, but legal to have sex when 16) get branded a pedophile?

Assuming they aren't pedophiles, and just asking out of curiosity...or just can't stand such a "PROTECT THE CHILDREN!!!" law.

edited 13th Jul '11 5:02:01 PM by Shizagee

@ storyyeller: You can't ask everybody, but you can ask people who you meet who are willing to explain their views. If just one of them provides a valid argument in favour of the belief or practice, doesn't that validate the belief or practice itself? After all, to dismiss an argument on the basis that somebody is arguing it for the wrong reason is an ad hominem, which is a fallacy.

@ Shizagee: That sounds like it would be an example, though I'd prefer if we didn't derail into discussion of paedophilia and consent laws here.

edited 13th Jul '11 5:05:21 PM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

I think describing it as thinking of somebody is evil is a disservice to what is really going on. Not that some people don't tactlessly say such things, but I think you're missing the real point which is to examine the ideas held, determine the why, considered the genuineness, and so forth, in order to see what's going on with our fellow human beings. This is part of human nature, because we are dealing with each other, and like it or not, humans are not transparent, they can have depths, and illusions.

Sometimes people do believe the wrong things, or have the wrong ideas, or believe something for the wrong reasons, and objecting to that is not wrong in itself. Their may be methods of doing so which is counter-productive, or harsh, or otherwise flawed, but then there's no good idea anywhere that can't be done in a poor fashion.

How about dismissing it based on the fact that every argument you've seen before is nonsensical or wrong?

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

What's right or wrong depends on where you live though.

And I guess assuming anyone who watches cartoons as little kids is one too....I wonder if theres any place in the world where even adults openly admit to liking cartoons...and not just stuff with adult appeal added in like Shrek.

People make these assumptions because they're all strangers. Why would you take the time to know strangers? They might drop the assumptions if they knew them better, but who walks up to everyone they have a bad first impression on just to know them better?

edited 13th Jul '11 5:08:51 PM by Shizagee

^^ That sounds to me like a reason not to accept it for the time being, not to dismiss it altogether.

Only according to relativism.

edited 13th Jul '11 5:09:22 PM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

This is a really broad question.

I'm a skeptical squirrel

I have seen a certain set of beliefs being quite overtly described in terms of a mental illness, or as a result of likewise problem. Also a common thing is to patronise a mindset one dislikes with the "if only they were taught to be rational they'd think like us".

Not that I'm innocent myself.

"Atheism is the religion whose followers are easiest to troll"

Arguments don't validate beliefs or practices, behaviors do.

Also, not to get technical, but what you're looking for is a sound argument, not just a valid one.

I wrote about a fish turning into the moon.

Well of course everyone thinks "If only they did/knew x y and z, they would think like us." Nobody thinks "Hey, my views are completely wrong and have no basis."

That doesn't make everyone equally right, however.

As far as the OP is concerned, assumptions are usually all we have, and we craft stories about other people based on these assumptions daily. We don't know why other people do what they do or hold certain views, and I sincerely doubt most people know why they do what they do or hold certain views.

Asking them would be a nice starting place, if you have the time, but the idea of taking them at face value when their views conflict with either a) reality or b) themselves is ridiculous. It'd be like if someone told you they went left-right to get to the store- you don't take that at face value, you ask them what the hell they're talking about.

edited 13th Jul '11 6:05:26 PM by deathjavu

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

^^ Nope, I meant "valid". In order for an argument to be sound, the premises must be true. You can't be 100% certain that an argument is sound unless you know the absolute truth.

^ Rather than assuming that their views conflict with reality or themselves, wouldn't it be better to ask them (tactfully) to explain how their views make sense when they appear not to?

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Here's the thing. Does it really matter why people hold certain views? Not really, to be honest. The views in the end are more important than anything itself, and its the views themselves that should be debated.

For what it's worth politically, Lately, I assume that it's just tribalism/culture wars coming into play. This isn't always the case, of course. But it's usually extremely easy to tell a movement conservative from a non-movement conservative these days.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Sometimes the why matters, as it helps to understand the views, and the reasons for it, which in turn may shape your reaction, or even determine how to persuade them.

"And that is why. It's a way of making sense of the world without being overwhelmed or completely fucking lost all the time." - Aondeug

More like a placebo for a "way of making sense of the world..."

Perhaps stuff like this is a sign that the world doesn't make sense. I think just admitting you don't know is better than taking all these shortcuts in logic.

A more fundamental question is why and how we categorize people in the first place. Our categories rarely seem valid. Why do we naturally seem to see a "conservative-liberal" split, rather than a continuous dimension of opinion along which most people are probably distributed in a bell curve? It's like the old saw that there are two types of people: people who divide people into two groups, and no one else. Why is that?

There's real tendencies, when liberals conservatives get together and argue, it tends to make them feel stronger on issues.

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

Since politics in America is forced into a twoway split, people are forced to follow. That means being organized according to how you PRIORITIZE your beliefs, as much as it's about which beliefs you hold.

For example, I agree with Barkey that the right to bear arms is important, but he places higher priority on it than me - I would vote for a left candidate with anti-gun views because other things are more important to me, while Barkey would feel the opposite way.

Since most of us don't fall strictly into one bin or the other as currently implemented, we're forced to prioritize and compromise our less urgent ideals for the sake of attaining our higher ones, and be labeled accordingly. That's just the natural fallout of a political system where third parties aren't viable.

edited 14th Jul '11 6:40:55 AM by Karkadinn

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

@Kark: That a very good description of voter behavior, but that actually wasn't what I was asking about. I'm talking more about the perception that there is an "us" and a "them" on issues that divide people. It's not just political issues, either, or even "issues". I remember reading about an experiment in which the participants expressed an in-group preference based on nothing more than a random assignment to a group.

Some people actually prefer an x/y system of graphing.

Everyone seems to think I'm pro-life because I want God to smite promiscuous women. Actually, I'm agnostic, and pro-life for the same reason I'm going vegetarian.

Me, I'm guilty of seriously believing that fatuous critical theory - postmodernism and so forth - goes hand-in-hand with Marxism. So yeah.

Hail Martin Septim!

EDIT: Wait, I read it and it sounded funny. It sounded like you were saying you wanted God to smite promiscuous women and that was why you were pro-life.

Sorry.

edited 14th Jul '11 9:06:03 AM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

I don't know, but the reason we tend to stereotype is because we know that OUR reasons for choosing something matter more than the other persons, who may well have chosen to hold those views just to irritate us.

There is a very solopsistic vein running through humanity.