Aversion by association

[Terxpahseyton]

There is awareness and habit. And I am afraid that the latter will not have to follow the former.

Clear or unbiased thinking is work. It consumes mental and emotional energy and time, benefits are often uncertain or even unlikely unless very practical matters are concerned. For instance in terms of personal relationships I think many people have the habit to think quit clearly. After years of paying for not doing so, anyway.
But a thing like political ideology as is the case in the OP? Very little incentive to improve your habits, to make the necessary investment.

So what can be done about it? I see only one principle solution. It has to hurt. And if it is a rather removed / theoretical matter, only social pressure can do that. Pop culture would have to idealize clear thinking.
I think you can see where this is going

Spoiler :

nowhere

 

[Angst]

But when faced with a political problem, if we hypothetically ignore eg political accountability in a democracy (when people vote for you out of an ideology), isn't the problem better solved when leveraging different solutions towards each other, gauging the potential outcomes? Ideology has a tendency to oversimplify reality and the fact remains that society remains too complex to even a considerate solution properly solving it; isn't it then a fruitful ordeal to stand politically neutral, to try and address complexes rather than pretend ideological simplification?

Of course this requires you to buy into the premise that ideology oversimplifies. My concern is that ideology is usually constructed somewhat independent of the concrete problems, moreso than what concrete solutions to problems could actually be, and as such has a tendency not to 'overlay' with real problems. So even if it does not oversimplify, does it not lack address of reality?

EDIT: ALso tlel me if I'm too unclear, English is not my first language, and much of my formulating is train-of-thought.

 

[RFC_Viceroy]

I was a teenage communist for a while, believing in a number of things, but when discussing them with my father he would not listen to my points, not because of their juvenile nature, but because of his association of communism with the Sovjet Union atrocities.

I've since grown and I think I'm some oddball of a leftist, but he isn't and I think a lot of his thoughts differ from leftism simply by his recollection of juvenile idealism and the plethora of militant communist violence during his adolescence.

So it hit me that for example my early showing of Rand has left me permanently ill-suited for libertarian ideas, even the good ones that I think may exist.

How do we get around this problem as thinkers, as people?

I think ideological neutrality is ideal when discussing how to solve a particular problem, see.

I think its sad that a non-libertarian turned you off to libertarainism.

Objectivism is a cult that not only endorses small government (which is good, although no government is better) but also an entire system of thought and ethics.

libertarianism (small l) is based on the non-aggression principle and the importance of private property rights, but it does NOT tell you how charitable you should be, what (peaceful) religion you should follow if any, how you should epistemologically justify your positions, and so forth.

 

[Linkman226]

OP, perhaps introduce your father to libertarian communism or anarcho-communism?

 

[Angst]

This thread is not supposed to be about libertarianism.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

But when faced with a political problem, if we hypothetically ignore eg political accountability in a democracy (when people vote for you out of an ideology), isn't the problem better solved when leveraging different solutions towards each other, gauging the potential outcomes? Ideology has a tendency to oversimplify reality and the fact remains that society remains too complex to even a considerate solution properly solving it; isn't it then a fruitful ordeal to stand politically neutral, to try and address complexes rather than pretend ideological simplification?

Of course this requires you to buy into the premise that ideology oversimplifies.

If not in theory (which already is utmost doubtful), then it surely will in practice. I think this is without question.

But when faced with a political problem, if we hypothetically ignore eg political accountability in a democracy (when people vote for you out of an ideology), isn't the problem better solved when leveraging different solutions towards each other, gauging the potential outcomes? Ideology has a tendency to oversimplify reality and the fact remains that society remains too complex to even a considerate solution properly solving it; isn't it then a fruitful ordeal to stand politically neutral, to try and address complexes rather than pretend ideological simplification?

Yes I think this is a very good point.
And the reason why I despise a purely representative democracy. Because such necessarily focuses ideological thinking - since actual concrete issues are not even on the electorate's table.
So I guess our political systems reinforce the problem you are talking about. Are almost designed to do just that.

 

[Phrossack]

Aversion by association is a powerful tendency, and it probably oughtn't be. We should judge ideas and things on their merit and not on their fan club.

I, for example, have an aversion by association to Poland, Prussia, and to a lesser extent, communism and criticizing immigration. The aversion to Prussia is largely due to a friend of mine who has been cripplingly and obnoxiously obsessed with all things Prussian for years. The slight aversion to communism is partly due to the members of its fan club I've had the displeasure of dealing with, while for criticizing immigration policies, it's that a lot of its most vocal opponents are often bigots.

These aversions are pretty much undeserved; I'm not opposed to the principles of them. In contrast, my aversion to capitalism, racism, imperialism, nationalism, fascism, monarchy, and a million other things is because I fundamentally disagree with their premises.

 

[Antilogic]

I do this a little bit. Anything associated with Glenn Beck gets placed in my skeptical file.

 

[Ayatollah So]

A couple of semi-random thoughts on the subject:

1. Keep records. For example, the Prediction Book website lets you record predictions along with your confidence level. For example someone predicted "Kim Jong-un is reported dead within 100 calendar days. ( 7% confidence)" That means they think he's probably not going to be reported dead, but there's a pretty significant chance (compared to men at that age in general). Downsides: kinda a pain in the posterior; no tagging system that I can see. Upsides: it's public; you can learn from others. Maybe you want to use Evernote or something on your local hard drive instead.

2. Notice when you want something to be true. If you're reading a report with a sentence like "the investigators found that ..." and you feel yourself fervently hoping that they found X rather than Y, you have a problem. You're seriously biased in favor of believing X. Go seek Y-favoring evidence wherever it is likely to abide, and mull it over.

 

[KMRblue1027]

This thread is not supposed to be about libertarianism.

You brought them out of hiding, now you must face the consequences.

 

[Tee Kay]

I have an aversion by association to, among other things, Poland, Greece, the Byzantine Empire, physical fitness, cat people, Perth, Star Wars, and Tom Petty.

I am aware of them and can make an effort to put them aside if needed be.

 

[Mise]

2. Notice when you want something to be true. If you're reading a report with a sentence like "the investigators found that ..." and you feel yourself fervently hoping that they found X rather than Y, you have a problem. You're seriously biased in favor of believing X. Go seek Y-favoring evidence wherever it is likely to abide, and mull it over.

I really like this one.