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

Yes, clearly. Of course, that approach assumes a certain set of priorities which isn't necessarily shared by all participants in a given discussion. Creation of/participation in discussions, particularly about emotional subjects such as "politics, religious beliefs, ethics and fandoms" is often driven by other motivations in addition to/instead of the pursuit of genuine understanding by assessing the validity of different ideas.

Ultimately, everyone usually tends to assume they are right about everything, whether or not they really have good arguments for their beliefs. The reverse of this is tending to assume that anyone who thinks differently is wrong. Of course it's sensible to ask the people who believe the opposite why they do, but people aren't always sensible, especially when there's a chance that their own views might be successfully challenged. Emotion prevails, and if there's one thing people don't like, it's being shown up as wrong. Socrates was basically executed for showing people up as wrong too often.

"Well, it's a lifestyle"

Indeed...but anybody who thinks they're always wrong, or whatever, runs the risk of being psychologically disturbed. There's line between acceptable doubt and twisting yourself into knots over a lack of belief in yourself.

I'm not advocating assuming that you're wrong. I don't think that's even physically possible, and it sounds presumptious anyway.

@ Tongpu: Oh, right. Excellent point, although obviously trying to hold a sincere discussion with somebody who's arguing in bad faith is frustrating.

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 instead would say that

A person's level of certainty about one of their beliefs may be significantly higher or lower than their level of certainty about one of their other beliefs. And then there are those subjects about which a person knows they lack sufficient information, and so may acknowledge their position to be essentially a guess or refrain from taking a precise position. It seems to me that the highest levels of certainty (and emotional investment either in saving face and/or preserving one's own perception of oneself as correct) are where trouble lies.

edited 14th Jul '11 12:52:33 PM by Tongpu

I think it's a fair assumption that most people are decent people with good intentions and valid reasons for believing what they do.

However, a lot of people find it easy to believe that their political opponents are somehow fundamentally immoral, insane or stupid. That's a destructive tendency that should be eradicated. Yes, some people are stupid, but that doesn't explain ideological or religious differences, because stupid people aren't the ones that build ideologies.

There is some evidence that a significant component of political orientation is inborn, in which case some arguments about ideology just don't make sense any more.

If you can't see why your political opponents hold their position, you shouldn't jump to "those people are weird, something must be wrong with them". It may be that they actually have a very good case for their position, you just don't know about it. It might be that it's just an inborn difference in temperament, the way some people are more or less sensitive to noise or criticism. It may be that you're both equally wrong.

Agreed. Certainty that isn't accompanied by strong evidence and knowledge is a big red flag (though I'm pretty certain the Bible was written by humans only without any "divine inspiration", and don't have that much knowledge about it, so either I don't follow my own principles, or I'd need a clearer notion of "strong evidence". Hmm.)

edited 14th Jul '11 1:39:58 PM by SlightlyEvilDoctor

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

@SED: the "theyre evil" argument isnt helped when the other party tends to either demonize you or act like not acting exactly like them means you cant possibly want the world to be a happy place. I know conservatives arent evil..but hell if it isnt hard to feel anger and frustration at them every time they campaign against causes I deeply believe in being the right thing to do.

So "we" hate "you" because "you" hate "us" because...

There are liberals (probably in this forum!) who "act like not acting exactly like them means you cant possibly want the world to be a happy place" - I don't like welfare, discrimination lawsuits, regulation, have serious doubts about democracy (I suspect something like China might be better), and am in favor of the death penalty, and of getting rid of the underclass - do you think nobody would accuse me of not wanting the world to be a happy place? yet I do (admittedly I selected my views that are probably the least palatable to liberals, quite a few of them are probably unpalatable to republicans as well).

Yet, I don't get angry at liberals. Plus, getting angry at people because they get angry at you gets a bit circular.

edited 14th Jul '11 1:48:37 PM by SlightlyEvilDoctor

Point that somewhere else, or I'll reengage the harmonic tachyon modulator.

But are you reflective of the general tendency among the larger group?

Sadly, there are more sinners than saints. And that's taking you at your word.

@ SED: thats what I was implying. Both parties do it. Yet its also hard to escape. the human mind has an awful tendency for it. Hell, even I admit the first reactionary thought to my mind when I hear conservatives trumpet their views on tv is that they cant possibly feel the way they do about taxes or gay rights or religion unless theyre either insane or intentionally evil, even when the logical side of my head knows that likely isnt true.

edited 14th Jul '11 2:52:04 PM by Midgetsnowman

Human beings are simple creatures; they're not too hard to figure out. Usually, if two people hold the same idea and/or belief system for one reason, you can generally assume that others hold the same general idea for the same reason. For instance, most people of religious faith, of any magnitude, believe what they believe because the religion they choose to believe in makes the most sense to them in contrast to other world religions. The same holds true for politics, philosophy, food preferences, and nearly anything else.

People thinking that others are inherently wrong for disagreeing with them is normal so long as that individual comes to terms with the world and their view of it by defining things by their opposite. This includes nearly every human being on the planet.

Is it agreeing or disagreeing with the OP to say that it's useful to look for unstated premises to arguments, then explain why you don't agree with said premises, rather than simply say you don't agree with said arguments? Also, I've seen a surprising number of arguments where two people said the same thing, using different words, and each assumed the other person was saying the opposite.

Of course, past a certain point you've got to dig in your heels and say "Even if your belief system is logically consistent, I'll still fight against its spread with whatever power I can gain."

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Yeah, it's entirely possible for a position to be logically consistent and morally pernicious. You could probably make a logical case for destroying the entire human race. Most people would say that was wrong, but rightness and wrongness is ultimately not something you can logically prove. There aren't objective moral facts.

"Well, it's a lifestyle"

@ Feo: I think the important thing is not to just assume an unstated premise. Ask. If they are assuming the premise in question, depending on how aware they are of this, they will either acknowledge it or else say something to the effect of "well, duh, of course".

Ditto. I've been in a number of them actually. >_>

Oh, absolutely. Nevertheless, it's possible for an action or belief to appear morally pernicious, or ignorant, when in fact it isn't due to other assumptions or aspects of the argument which render it otherwise.

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

That problem is communication, a common issue with any complicated discussion.

edited 15th Jul '11 3:23:23 PM by blueharp

I prefer to just say "we'll have to agree to disagree".

@OP - Yes.

"You're a libertarian? You just want to see big business walk all over the oppressed worker! Think of the polar bears, you climate change-denying extremist!"

"You're an atheist? You just like pissing off theists, and you're probably a socialist too!"

"You don't absolutely support Israel? You must be some kind of anti-semite, or, G-d forbid, a self-hating Jew!"

"You're a skeptic? You're just close-minded because you think that science has all the answers!"

Would you kindly click my dragons?

People assume that I am vegetarian because I am Buddhist. I should prove them wrong by devouring them.

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