> To me, that interaction illuminated the power of projection. When you (and people around you), suffer from something you deem "bad," of course you're going to assume that everyone suffers from it, especially those who you've lumped into the group as being stereotypically wrought with that trait. He was always talking about how implicitly racially biased we were, but he was speaking from his own experience. He knew he wasn't a bad person, and that he was open-minded, so of course everyone else, and especially "close-minded people" must be even worse. But I suspect his situation was similar to the preacher or politician that is extremely anti-gay, but actually turns out to be gay: you hate that outward thing because you hate it in yourself.
I have a different theory. I think that there's two flavors of racism: good-intentioned, and bad-intentioned.
Good-intentioned racism exists within (not saying everyone suffers from it) the "progressive" community, who are trying to improve the lot of minorities, with good intentions. If you actually happen to be technically racist, say, you actually believe x-colored people are genuinely not as competent - consciously you would explain this as being the result of lack of opportunity, but sub-consciously, you may believe (have somehow come to believe) there is a fundamental lesser competence. As a result, this person will always have a tendency to "take the side" of minorities in any external debate or internal thought process (forming an opinion on an issue).
So when this type of person encounters someone who is genuinely not racist, at all (consciously and subconsciously), which many people on the right happen to be, they will get a "sense" (which typically comes from heuristic processes running in their subconscious) that the person is racist. And in a relative sense, from the perspective of the viewer, they are racist, in that they do not favor x-colored people. The typical person doesn't think about life in terms of absolutes and relatives.
If you ask them to explain this knowledge, they will find they are unable to, but it is impossible for them to shake the feeling, because it is very strong and it not only feels real, it is real, to them - it is the remnants of evolution, which is a never ending process.
I've found that good-intentioned anything that is otherwise considered "bad" isn't actually good-intentioned, it's just perceived that way and used as an excuse for ill-treatment of those they don't like.
I have a friend that comes across as pretty racist when he talks politics, but is incredibly respectful of the same race when discussing working with them.
I have a friend that moved to the south that openly told me "moving to the south will make you racist because white people are treated so poorly by minorities".
My personal experience in extremely liberal areas in Oregon is that expressing any support of a religious idea would instantly garner personal attacks and outrage. Again, the idea that all religious ideas are oppressive, so it seems it was justified to attack me over it.
This is a complicated issue, but I have found that discourse over this topic is nearly impossible to have in public with people that disagree with you.
> I've found that good-intentioned anything that is otherwise considered "bad" isn't actually good-intentioned, it's just perceived that way and used as an excuse for ill-treatment of those they don't like.
I think it depends on what you mean, precisely by "good-intentioned". I'm definitely "on the right" (in a low-dimensional sense, which is how most people think), but while left-leaning culture warriors annoy/frustrate (depending on how enlightened of a mood I'm in) me, I happen to believe they are in the vast majority of cases motivated by genuinely good intentions. I doubt I would differ much in desired end state goal for the world, but I differ strongly on the path we should take to get there, as well as the current state of objective reality (a core root cause of the never ending culture wars is a low-dimensional perception of reality, and an ignorance of the degree to which one's subconscious is involved in forming that perception). Culture warriors on the right though, I would say would score much lower on the "genuinely having good intentions" scale. However, I have a feeling that almost without exception, if you dig down within each person to the very core of their being, most people are good. It's just that life has a way of getting in the way and messing things up, which affects an individual's psychology, and therefore their actions (and reactions, which in turn invoke reactions in others, and around and around we go).
> I have a friend that comes across as pretty racist when he talks politics
If he's intellectually confident and curious enough, why don't you propose to him that the two of you choose one particular topic, and analyze the hell out if it, the goal being to, to the best of your abilities, figure out what the actual high-dimensional reality (truth) is of the situation, as well as what your respective actual, highly detailed & nuanced opinions are on the matter. These conversations can be very interesting and a lot of fun, if you can manage to find someone who can bear having them.
I have a good friend who has the IQ and base psychological knowledge to discuss such things, but because of discrimination he experienced throughout his life (something I've had the good fortune of not experiencing) seems unable to emotionally detach enough to discuss them (or, he has thought about it and decided that doing so might run the risk of pulling off the psychological scars he's managed to form that have finally brought him some peace on the matter - and he might not be wrong).
> This is a complicated issue, but I have found that discourse over this topic is nearly impossible to have in public with people that disagree with you.
Complicated is a massive understatement, but you're absolutely right. But is anyone ever going to do anything intelligent (that acknowledges and accounts for the complexity of human psychology) about it is the question, or should we just throw up our arms and let the world burn? Should passionate discussions that stray into ideological territory be censored on platforms where intelligent people who are intellectually capable of discussing them (if they could be convinced to put down their weapons that is) congregate be banned because it inevitably turns into a shit show (for the reasons mentioned above), or could we perhaps find a way to increase the level of consciousness of everyone, by politely bringing attention to conscious misinterpretations of reality formed by subconscious heuristics (many examples of which appear in the comments on this very webpage - the problem is right in front of our eyes, but so hard to see if you don't know what you're looking for)? I have no idea, but it seems like a good question.
If I was in charge, I would add "Be conscious. Be ever mindful of the complexities of life and human psychology that are so easy to see in others, but so hard to see in yourself. Or at least try." One might argue that this is what is meant by "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.", but I believe there is an important distinction. "Same same, but different."
Occasionally you come across people like Scott Alexander who are able to see what's going on with people, but they are few and far between.
Here is a good article that discusses how the media plays into things:
Complicating the Narratives: What if journalists covered controversial issues differently — based on how humans actually behave when they are polarized and suspicious?
You have posted a well considered reply, and I wish I had time to do the same. The difficulty I have found is that even inside our own social groups, where acceptance is a established, discussing some topics can lead to instant anger, aggression and discord.
Trying to discuss things within a social group that is completely outside my norms is even worse. My experience is that every statement is criticised and no clarification is allowed at the worst end, and the best it's "let's agree to disagree".
This space in the internet is the only place I bother to even discuss these topics at all, and I have learned a lot about arguing a position from a better mental place because of nature of this group. (and from individuals like yourself)
But would this community work the same in a social setting, where we couldn't walk away and think for a bit? I have my doubts.
Therefore, it seems there needs to be a mass sharing of deep consideration and thought to our actions, among many other things to inspire change, and I am old enough now to know this will never happen in a society that values Instagram influencers and Black Friday over common sense and wisdom.
> You have posted a well considered reply, and I wish I had time to do the same.
The smallest signal (such as this) that I'm not going insane is more than enough.
> Therefore, it seems there needs to be a mass sharing of deep consideration and thought to our actions
This seems like the correct answer to me. Easier said than done though, or so one might think.
> and I am old enough now to know this will never happen in a society that values Instagram influencers and Black Friday over common sense and wisdom
I disagree, but then maybe I'm not old enough. :)
There are certainly far more reasons to be pessimistic than optimistic about the whole thing, but I reasons for optimism are definitely there, they're just very difficult to see.
As for the lack of common sense and wisdom among the masses, I don't think that's a major obstacle. Look how society has changed with respect to racism and sexuality in recent history - sure, it seems like it took a long time, but that's a relative judgement. As an example of how things can change more rapidly, look how public opinion on trade with China has changed in just the last 6 months or so - we went from "Trump thinks trade is a zero sum game" to "China is an evil empire". A little hyperbole perhaps, but it's pretty hard to complain something very interesting didn't happen there.
But even if our political and thought leaders continue to stand in the way as they divide and conquer the masses, I think they have their work cut out for them on more than one front.
>> and I am old enough now to know this will never happen in a society that values Instagram influencers and Black Friday over common sense and wisdom
> I disagree, but then maybe I'm not old enough. :)
I didn't mean to come across as entirely pessimistic. My pessimism is directed at society at large. I think it is going in the toilet incredibly fast and there is no way to recover from this. We will end up in some form of mass oppression in my life time.
But, as I have gotten older and found more wisdom in every day life, I have found new things to be happy and optimistic about, my near surroundings, family and the people I directly interact with.
This is where I feel there is hope, I've seen people turn their lives around in my family. I've learned hard lessons raising my older kids that my younger kids now benefit from. I've found I can turn a bad day into a good one, stop heated arguments and fights and turn them into apologies and discussions.
All by changing how I live day to day. This is a small thing, but I have found that if I turn off the internet and ignore the news, it's my entire world.
The masses do not want wisdom, optimism or change. Look at the entertainment that sells to the masses, it's mostly delusion based fantasy. Most of it is pessimistic. There's no changing everyone's world, only those that are around us, but to me, that's more than I thought possible when I was young.
> Having done this a lot, I can say it's not worth discussing, no one (very few people anyway,) genuinely want to hear the bare truth, it's too brutal.
Assuming one's evaluation of "worth" only considers other people's desires and the uncomfortableness that comes with being hated (and downvoted) by every single sub-group. But that also is a low-dimensional form of evaluation. :)
To be clear, this isn't to say I disagree with you at all, I suspect we're probably more or less on the same page.
Human language is far too low-bandwidth to discuss these types of things, even without the massive (and invisible) psychological handicaps we suffer from. If you know what to look for, you start noticing it in various forms of art, which are capable of much higher bandwidth (but lower....fidelity?):
The usual word is "benevolent" fwiw. It's studied extensively wrt. sexism as opposed to racism, but the basic dynamic is entirely the same. And I think it's actually borne out by the data - leftists tend to have a "soft bigotry of low expectations" attitude to minorities, whereas the right tends to be a bit more demanding of them in some ways, which can be either a positive or a negative depending on your point of view.
