The late Daniel Kahneman’s book Thinking Fast and Slow explains a lot of what we see. Additionally, for a lot of people for whom an opinion or worldview is a big part of their self image, self definition, or self-worth, changing is essentially impossible. It is just too painful. Taleb and Cialdini have written similar books.
I have been in financial markets for 43 years. I have been wrong countless thousands of times. This breeds a view that takes into account the probability that I will be wrong. It keeps me from internalizing certain opinions. I apply this to all aspects of my life. “I could be wrong. What happens if I’m wrong?”.
I very strongly support classical liberal/enlightenment values. But these are driven by pragmatic considerations and a study of history. Human nature is unchanging.
The beauty of traditional JudeoChristian values is that it instills a certain amount of humility. You realize you could be wrong. You realize that you do not know why somebody does what they do. And both of these lessen the human desire to judge. The world is a better and more humane place when these values were dominant.
Thank you for TBL. I share it. At least one friend has subscribed.
We believe what we want to believe—searching only data that supports our view; and we only speak with people who agree with us—preaching to the choir. Always. Jonathan Haidt discussed a similar sentiment in his The Righteous Mind.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 -
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Almost 30 years later, things haven't changed much since the 1995 movie The American President.
All the religions and philosophies throughout time mark life's contrast with death. Disturbingly, it is a defined endpoint manifesting our ultimate terror. "Shock and Awe" were really terror. This is such a difficult discussion..... best wishes to all sides.
The late Daniel Kahneman’s book Thinking Fast and Slow explains a lot of what we see. Additionally, for a lot of people for whom an opinion or worldview is a big part of their self image, self definition, or self-worth, changing is essentially impossible. It is just too painful. Taleb and Cialdini have written similar books.
I have been in financial markets for 43 years. I have been wrong countless thousands of times. This breeds a view that takes into account the probability that I will be wrong. It keeps me from internalizing certain opinions. I apply this to all aspects of my life. “I could be wrong. What happens if I’m wrong?”.
I very strongly support classical liberal/enlightenment values. But these are driven by pragmatic considerations and a study of history. Human nature is unchanging.
The beauty of traditional JudeoChristian values is that it instills a certain amount of humility. You realize you could be wrong. You realize that you do not know why somebody does what they do. And both of these lessen the human desire to judge. The world is a better and more humane place when these values were dominant.
Thank you for TBL. I share it. At least one friend has subscribed.
We believe what we want to believe—searching only data that supports our view; and we only speak with people who agree with us—preaching to the choir. Always. Jonathan Haidt discussed a similar sentiment in his The Righteous Mind.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 -
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Almost 30 years later, things haven't changed much since the 1995 movie The American President.
All the religions and philosophies throughout time mark life's contrast with death. Disturbingly, it is a defined endpoint manifesting our ultimate terror. "Shock and Awe" were really terror. This is such a difficult discussion..... best wishes to all sides.
Please let us total up the number of dead people before we attempt to decide who the terrorists are.
Why should that be the criterion?