Entry 905, on 2008-12-06 at 22:02:51 (Rating 3, Politics)
One of the greatest problems I encounter when having a debate with anyone on a contentious subject is stereotyping the opposition. This often results in a straw man attack where the person criticises what they have contrived to be the other person's opinion instead of what it really is. By the way, the other major problem I encounter is people cherry picking, that is being highly selective in choosing which facts to present to support an opinion and presenting a biased conclusion as a result.
But to get back to the stereotypes. There are two areas of debate where I have recently come across this phenomenon. First, when debating my old friends the creationists, and second when debating politics against someone with a more right-leaning attitude (although I'm sure I would get equally invalid views from someone on the extreme left).
So let's have a look at what the creationist was saying. The first sign that they are involved in a subtle (or not so subtle) delusion is the use of the term "Darwinist". People aren't Darwinists. No one I know (apart from creationists) use the term. If you are a biologist who specialises in evolution theory you might call yourself an evolutionist. If you think evolution is the best theory to explain life, or even if you see it in more absolute terms and think evolution is true, then you still wouldn't usually call yourself a Darwinist.
Here's an actual statement from a creationist (a term which does seem acceptable to both sides): "Biology certainly has many benefits. Yet many of them pre-date Darwin, and none have any relation to goo-to-you-via-the-zoo theory." There are at least three problems with this statement. First, there is the idea that no advance in biology has any relation to evolution. This simply isn't true. Some evolutionists might say that evolution provides few direct benefits but there are some direct and many indirect benefits. Second is the rather childish reference to the "goo to you" theory. That's just pathetic and a good sign that the person is more interested in indulging in rhetoric rather than a genuine debate. Finally there is the reference to Darwin. He had a lot to do with the origin of evolution theory but its moved on a lot since then (the mechanism for evolution, genetics, hadn't even been discovered in Darwin's time).
So there's no direct mention of Darwinism but Darwin himself is mentioned. To many fundamentalists this is like mentioning Hitler: the implication is that anything that follows on from his name is just evil or untrue, without further discussion or necessity for thought.
So what about the example of political stereotyping I mentioned? Here's a reply I got from a friend when discussing political attitudes: "The terms right and left are confusing to most who use them. Right usually indicates individual competence and support for individual enterprise. Left is indicative of committee decision and policy making - ie. a camel being a horse designed by a committee - neither one thing nor another. Left is possessed of far greater paranoia than right - committee members of equal standing always being in fear of being supplanted - whereas right ministers tend to know they're there only on the strength of their performance. Generally speaking, leftists stem from the union movement or from the halls of academe, where their ideas of running entities that have to stand on their own to function are never tested. Every so often the left gets elected - only to be dumped convincingly once the posturing incompetence of its personnel is no longer able to be concealed."
I have rarely seen such a load of unsubstantiated, arrogant, simplistic nonsense. Does this guy really think that this represents reality? I guess if you are determined to follow one political route without having to think about it too much then having stereotyped views like this makes it easy. Instead of having to look at the merits of the policies being espoused by different political parties he can just reject the ideas of the left because its just "indicative of committee decision" and "far greater paranoia".
And just the incredible arrogance of suggesting that "the terms right and left are confusing to most who use them." No doubt that doesn't apply to superior judges of the political process like him!
There's one other area where I have noticed this phenomenon recently. That is in discussion of environmental issues. I recently discussed climate change and similar issues with someone who refused to even examine Green Party policies because they were just a bunch of "mohair wearing pot smokers" or some similar nonsense. Again the requirement for any thought is avoided by stereotyping the opposition. Even if the assertion was true (obviously it isn't) that still wouldn't mean that their argument can be ignored.
It really makes me feel quite distressed that people have such illogical ways of thinking. The only good thing is that it seems to apply mainly to older people. Just about everyone who denies global warming, ignores environmental issues, or understates the importance of social political policies is in the older generation. I hope that younger people might be a bit less narrow minded and so there might be some hope for us all.
Comment 1 (1818) by NJS on 2008-12-07 at 09:41:17:
You should read the book I'm reading currently: "Kluge: the haphazard construction of the human mind" by Gary Marcus (he was interviewed on Kim Hill last week as well). It argues that such illogical thinking is perfectly normal behaviour, because of the way the human mind has evolved. One of the better arguments against ID that I've seen. It's in Central Library (call number BF38.M9824), but you'll have to wait your turn: I've got it at the moment ☺.
Comment 2 (1819) by OJB on 2008-12-07 at 11:52:43:
Yes, I heard the interview and briefly blogged about it recently on 2008-11-29 in an entry titled "Don't Hold Your Breath". I will try to get the book.
Comment 3 (1824) by SBFL on 2008-12-14 at 06:47:42:
To get some credibility into your post you should cite some examples of stereotyping from _your_ side of the fence. All 3 above are quoted to support your evolutionist-lefist-environmentalist biases.
Note: I think you ovverreact to your right-wing friend's comment. He was discussing philosophical aspects, and personally I find quite an element of truth in it. The behaviour of our last government is evidence of the paranoia he talks of.
Comment 4 (1826) by OJB on 2008-12-16 at 04:51:28:
Well I don't indulge in that sort of thing myself, of course :) but if I was to give some examples it would be stuff like: all business people are greedy and ready to exploit the environment and workforce for their own benefit.
Ah yes, you agree with my friend, what a surprise. I think that supports what I was saying about the whole subject then!
Comment 5 (1827) by SBFL on 2008-12-17 at 15:46:01:
Heh, thatīd be about right.
Come on, play the ball, not the man...and I didnīt say I agreed with him but that I felt you had exaggerated in your analysis and that there was an "element" of truth....Admitedly if push came to shove I do agree with much of his comment though his last sentence is a bit inaccurate and silly.
Comment 6 (1829) by OJB on 2008-12-17 at 20:50:10:
An element of truth eh? Well there's some element of truth in just about everything. I don't think many people would regard his comments as anything particularly deep or meaningful, and especially not unbiased or fair.
Comment 7 (1831) by SBFL on 2008-12-18 at 08:53:42:
Right so you agree that you ovverracted to initially say that I agreed with your friend....(since "there's some element of truth in just about everything")?
Comment 8 (1832) by OJB on 2008-12-18 at 12:55:52:
No, I didn't overreact. His comment was arrogant and ignorant (a dangerous combination) and totally typical of someone who had made up their mind before looking at the facts by applying stereotypes to the side he didn't wish to seriously consider.
There is some element of truth in everything so saying there is an element of truth in this statement is a meaningless point. There is an element of truth in the flat Earth theory but saying that is the case doesn't lend credibility to the theory.
Comment 9 (1833) by SBFL on 2008-12-19 at 08:57:28:
Actually youīve completely misread me but nevermind, the matter is not worth the effort to re-explain.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE