Love and hate

[Boffin]

Over the past few years I have noticed something that seems to be an 'American thing'.

Of the various opinions posted on the board, especially in RDOT, most come across as 'lovers' or 'haters'. Few posters seem to think something is 'OK', or to 'quite like' it. Nor do they say 'not my thing' or 'don't really like it'. No-one at all says 'I don't care one way or the other', but that is probably because that would be a pointless post.

Is there no centre ground in the USA? or is it just a language thing? (not that I really care one way or the other... ;) )

 

 

Andy

[Paul Mihalka]

Good point. I notice the same, and it bothers me. To many people everything is either black or white. No grays. That applies to most everything. What kind of bike you ride. Politics. Religion. Economy theories and systems. What country's citizens are good or bad. etc. The worst part is that these people are not willing to consider anything different from their preset mind. So there really is no possibility of a conversation. You can either agree or disagree. Nothing in-between.

[Nice n Easy Rider]

Andy, I think that is an excellent observation. Just the other day I was lamenting to someone that in our community it is either "you're with me" or "you're against me". Compromise seems to be a thing of the past. I chaired a Visioning Task Force that was charged with developing a plan to grow our community and after a year and over 18 meetings we had to disband because the pro-growth and anti-growth folks could not see their way to compromising even a little on their positions.

 

The ability to disagree with someone and still be friends is getting to be rarer (although I still see a fair amount of it on this board, thankfully). Someone suggested to me that this atmosphere is, at least partially, a result of the dire economic situation we find ourselves in. People are uncertain about their jobs, their finances, their future and because of that uncertainty they seem to be more self-centered than they were years ago. Although I don't know if this explanation has any validity, I have no other explanation for why things seem to have changed so much over the last few years.

 

I certainly find it depressing.

[Quinn]

Well, it would be easier to find the middle ground if the people who don't think as I do weren't so obviously wrong. Those idiots just need to be bludgeoned with my opinion to get them back on the right track.

 

---

 

 

[Danny caddyshack Noonan]

It is something that is more easily found in the written word than the spoken.

You are correct in that someone without a strong opinion doesn't necessarily see the need to express it. In that case, it's "whatevs".

[Kathy R]

Good observation, Andy. You've given me reason to stop and think before I spout.

 

Our media, for example, churns the Extreme pot.

Moderate doesn't sell.

[Dave39]

The worst of it is when it gets personal. I've had my morality, scientific competence, intelligence, and general fitness as a human being challenged by some stupid, brutish, radical, intolerant Neandertal simply because I disagreed with him/her.

[Mike]

Is there no centre ground in the USA? or is it just a language thing?

 

I hate the way you Brits spell "centre."

 

You've really hit on something, and I think there are at least a couple of reasons. With the advent of cable TV and radio stations that have crafted an identity as ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative, there's no middle ground. A handful of people seem to grasp what's happening--that it's theatre, intended to grab an audience--but many people, probably the majority, are susceptible to it. Sociologists and psychologists could probably explain it better than I, but this breeds a clannish mentality. You're either "A" or "Z." Nothing in between is acceptable. In fact, seeing the middle ground is often characterized as a defection to the other side.

 

The web has also contributed. Opinions are often expressed in the most vile manner, and anonymity confers some guarantee that you can get away with being obnoxious. Most on-line news sources give readers an option of commenting, and it's stunning to me how inane some of the comments are, basically elementary school taunts, rather than a give and take of facts and ideas.

 

These are just a couple of things that occur to me, but I think it's been exacerbated by the abysmal level of educational achievement in the U.S. Simply put, stupid people are prone to simple, monothematic thinking.

 

Ultimately, we've entered into a vicious cycle--the ugliness and constant attacks evoke more ugliness and more hate-filled counter attacks . . . and on and on.

 

There is, I suppose, an undercurrent of this sort in many societies. But, I really fear for our future for this reason, above all others. It has become a defining aspect of our national character. We can overcome economic adversity and we can defeat threats to our physical security. But, can we overcome our own stupidity?

[Marty Hill]

Andy, very good point! Many or most of us feel the need to take a very strong position to counter another very strong position. Other than that...I'm really a nice chap!

 

Over 1000 hours in a DH Tiger Moth/300 hours in a DH Chipmunk.

Wish I had been in the RAF!

 

[CoarsegoldKid]

Andy this extreme opinion you speak of has taken me away from any form of political expression. Except for with my wife.

[beemerman2k]

The worst part is that these people are not willing to consider anything different from their preset mind. So there really is no possibility of a conversation.

 

...but I think it's been exacerbated by the abysmal level of educational achievement in the U.S. Simply put, stupid people are prone to simple, monothematic thinking.

 

America's "educaton" is more from radio and television than books or any kind of formal schooling -- from which one learns how to think critically. We are so caught up in our respective ideologies that openess, learning, facts, and data mean nothing anymore.

[Bob Palin]

I think a very long paper could be written on this subject, but I'm not going to start it today...

[MT Wallet]

I subscribe to the Quinn school of thought......then again everyone else is right too.

[moshe_levy]

I think Mike hit the nail on the head. Due to the proliferation of the 'net and cable, it is now possible for one to go from birth to death reading, listening to, and watching only those with whom he agrees wholeheartedly. That goes for wherever in the spectrum you happen to be.

 

The result of this is a sort of mild brainwashing and intellectual laziness that promotes "groupthink." People who, absent the talking points, cannot argue their way out of a paper bag.

 

This phenomenon then goes hand in hand with what social shrinks and marketers call "cognitive dissonance," which essentially states that humans find holding conflicting ideas quite uncomfortable, and thus change their attitudes, beliefs, and opinions so as to minimize that feeling. Examples of this are endless and everyone is guilty of it to some degree.

 

Combine the "Echo Chamber" effect of the former media proliferation with cognitive dissonance and you have a population that truly believes that anyone who disagrees with them must be crazy, since in their own little world the issues and their respective solutions are so obvious. Thus, "love and hate," and very little in between, at least in public discussion (or what remains of it).

 

That's my theory, anyway. I try not to let it happen to me by reading and watching mostly those I most adamantly disagree with. Tends to keep me on my toes rather than lulled into a false sense of polarization.

 

Admittedly, though, I often think Quinn is right!

 

Andy, for the record, while in England, France, Italy, and even Australia on business travel, I didn't see political debate as any more civilized than here. Canada, maybe....

 

-MKL

[bmw_rider]

In part I attribute it to this being the 'instant' socitey, and I blame that squarely on Bill Gates. We all have to have 'the answer' right now, real time. That eliminates a lot of gray, and discussion.

You see it creeping into commercials - where two guys are argueing over which year a particular event happens, and as soon as one finds online that he is wrong, ends the call. While somewhat commical - what does it say about us?

[Paul Mihalka]

"These are just a couple of things that occur to me, but I think it's been exacerbated by the abysmal level of educational achievement in the U.S. Simply put, stupid people are prone to simple, monothematic thinking"

May be that is partially true, but I know a few well educated high level professionals, excellent in their jobs, who are unmovable in their beliefs of some things. May be they can be intelligent and smart in some things, and really stupid in other things.

[Polo]

I find myself often in awe of people who take something said, incorporate it into their thoughts and express a dissenting opinion in a way that both acknowledges the other's point of view, presents their's, and still leaves room for analysis instead of trying to shut the conversation down.

 

However, "often" is in relation to the times when this happens, which are rather infrequent.

 

I believe it i scorrect that we mostly do not bother to write when we don't have a strong position either way. Why spend the time?

 

And Mike, maybe the way Brits write "centre" is because their English still observes its Latin roots a bit more than the one spoken here? That could be the centRAl reson (or is it cetERal?)

[Mike]

 

And Mike, maybe the way Brits write "centre" is because their English still observes its Latin roots a bit more than the one spoken here? That could be the centRAl reson (or is it cetERal?)

 

Yeah, I know. Once upon a time, I lived in England. It's a time that I'll cherish forever. I actually had it all figured out--both the spelling and the ways in which our common language diverged--but it's now mostly forgotten.

[Mike]

"These are just a couple of things that occur to me, but I think it's been exacerbated by the abysmal level of educational achievement in the U.S. Simply put, stupid people are prone to simple, monothematic thinking"

May be that is partially true, but I know a few well educated high level professionals, excellent in their jobs, who are unmovable in their beliefs of some things. May be they can be intelligent and smart in some things, and really stupid in other things.

 

Yes, that's true. I wasn't too precise in my writing. Being educated doesn't necessarily equate to being well-educated. I think it's possible to amass a long list of credentials without every having been introduced to the notion of critical thinking.

 

And, really, I'm fine with those who develop strong ideologies, even those completely contrary to mine, as long as they've invested the time and effort to come by their opinions honestly. It's just that it's rarely seen, even among the highly educated.

 

I wonder if perhaps the "you're special, smarter, and better than everyone" approach to parenting has contributed to this. I do run into a fair number of people who have not the slightest notion that they may not be right about everything.

[1MPH]

(not that I really care one way or the other... ;) )Andy

 

 

 

Ditto!

[Antimatter]

Perhaps you see a self-selecting bias. Those without strong opinions are less likely to post them on-line, go the television and radio, ect.

 

Personally, I never post on topics I don't care about

[Shaman97]

It's gotten to the point where presenting your viewpoint not only requires you to back up your thoughts, but to demonize the thoughts of those that disagree with yours. Even if your or their point of view has no basis in fact.

[Quinn]

I think you should give me all your money. Because I deserve it.

Now, are you going to flat out disagree with me or should we seek a compromise where I can get half your money? Maybe if I say I want your money often enough, you'll think there must be some sort of reason behind it and consider the compromise.

 

Hitler was the master of this; "the big lie." Tell a lie loud enough and often enough and the "reasonable" people figured that it might not be totally true, but it must have some merit for me to keep saying it. It was one technique that he used to create a "them" so he could lead the "us." Can't have a leader without an "us."

 

I see it a lot with statistics on things like gun deaths. I've got no real idea what my odds are of getting shot by a relative (I've only got two) in my own home are. Being a "reasonable" person, however, I figure it's gotta be between what the Brady campaign says and the NRA says. So all the Brady bunch needs to do it inflate their statistics to drag us "reasonable" people over their way. Then, I guess, the NRA can deflate theirs and drag me back in time for the next gun show. At one time the opposition kept their opponents honest by questioning their facts. Now, it seems that everyone is content to just make up stuff in their favor and call it proof. We're in too big a hurry to check things out ourselves and just regurgitate what we've read or heard from whatever source appeals to "us."

 

 

 

-----

 

 

[tallman]

I love posts about hate.

[RonStewart]

.... while in England, France, Italy, and even Australia on business travel, I didn't see political debate as any more civilized than here. Canada, maybe....

Moshe, I'd guess that you have not observed Canadian politics in the last seven years. The advertising has taken a decidedly American turn, and I hate it. (And no, my use of the word "hate" is not ironic.) (And no, I don't hate the US - heck, I spent the weekend in Oregon - but I do hate American political attack advertising.)

 

On the larger question, I have lost a friend over this. He and I were pioneers in web pages in a particular hobby, we worked together. But he kept sending me chain letters from one of the political extremes. I found them full of hate, lies and vitriol, and asked him to stop sending them. And that was the last communication we ever had. About twelve years ago - definitely before 9-11.

[russell_bynum]

I think you should give me all your money. Because I deserve it.

Now, are you going to flat out disagree with me or should we seek a compromise where I can get half your money? Maybe if I say I want your money often enough, you'll think there must be some sort of reason behind it and consider the compromise.

 

Hitler was the master of this; "the big lie." Tell a lie loud enough and often enough and the "reasonable" people figured that it might not be totally true, but it must have some merit for me to keep saying it. It was one technique that he used to create a "them" so he could lead the "us." Can't have a leader without an "us."

 

I see it a lot with statistics on things like gun deaths. I've got no real idea what my odds are of getting shot by a relative (I've only got two) in my own home are. Being a "reasonable" person, however, I figure it's gotta be between what the Brady campaign says and the NRA says. So all the Brady bunch needs to do it inflate their statistics to drag us "reasonable" people over their way. Then, I guess, the NRA can deflate theirs and drag me back in time for the next gun show. At one time the opposition kept their opponents honest by questioning their facts. Now, it seems that everyone is content to just make up stuff in their favor and call it proof. We're in too big a hurry to check things out ourselves and just regurgitate what we've read or heard from whatever source appeals to "us."

 

 

 

-----

 

 

Yup.

 

There have been experiments about this sort of thing. It's called the Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic.

 

Even if the stat that is completely insane in will still sway your answer. For example, if Brady said that "One in every five Americans will be killed by guns this year" and then asked you how likely you were to be killed by a gun, your answer will be higher than if they hadn't told you the "1 in 5" example.

 

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I love posts about hate.

 

I hate posts about love.

[Ron_B]

I love posts about hate.

 

I hate posts about love.

 

 

"I'm sure we all agree that we ought to love one another, and I know there are people in the world who do not love their fellow human beings...

 

and I hate people like that!"

 

Tom Lehrer - National Brotherhood Week

 

[russell_bynum]

I love posts about hate.

 

I hate posts about love.

 

I hate when people post that they hate posts about love.

[markgoodrich]

I'd love to say I care about this thread, but I hate to tell you I don't.

[tallman]

Being serious, a good point was raised.

Certainly food for thought when posting.

[upflying]

I am neutral and indifferent to Andy's post.

[John Ranalletta]

Compromise infers trust. If one buys into Reina & Reina's Trust and Betrayal in the Workplace, there are 3 kinds of trust:

• Contractual - Can I trust you to do what you say you will do?
• Competence - Can I trust you to be able to do what you say you can do?
• Communication - Are you hiding or withholding information I need?

It is difficult enough to build trust in these areas and their subparts when working/living face-to-face. On an internet forum, it might take decades.

 

Religious and philosophical differences elude solution because the opposing sides hold unbendingly to theories and theologies that make sense only to them, e.g. how in hell can I effectively argue with a suicide bomber that 72 seems an unlikely number of virgins to be awaiting one's demise.

 

Some (many) people would rather talk than fight. Human nature. They may have strong beliefs but prefer to "just get along", sacrificing their beliefs to compromise to avoid a fight.

 

Some (many) simply think they're smarter than others and cannot conceive of letting go of control (the essence of compromise) to someone less smart than they.

 

Others (many) possess another personality trait that brings about a rigid compulsiveness when interpreting rules. They give no quarter, holding everyone to the letter of the law (religious, civil, federal, etc.). They see no gray - no middle ground; and, certainly no reason to ease up to spare another's feeling.

 

This is not a "USA" thing. It's a people thing. It's just that the USA has done a better job than most countries of exporting our culture. There's a helluva lot more violent disagreement in most other parts of the world, but we're a convenient and easy target.

[moshe_levy]

Ron-

 

I admit, I have not watched Canadian politics closely. If you guys are becoming uncivilized as well, that's just depressing news to me. Perhaps you have not yet sunk to the depths, though. There may still be hope!

 

-MKL

[Skywagon]

It is a digital world....1's and 0's

[ratfink]

I absolutely know for sure that I am definitely ambivalent.

[Quinn]

Maybe some of the problem is that we now have access to a much larger world. When you lived in a small town, with a limited set of people to deal with, you reached a general consensus with your entire neighborhood. Now that there's cable TV and the internet, we can all find a peer group that supports and encourages whatever views we have.

 

In Stem, North Carolina you might not feel comfortable buying a Prius when all your neighbors and friends are in pick up trucks. You might have been tempted to compromise on a Ford Ranger to sort of fit in. But, get on the internet, join the Sierra Club and pow! Your horizons are broadened. With the backing of your imaginary peer group, you feel justified and can withstand the derision of your Stem neighbors. No longer do we feel the need to compromise our opinions when we can find full-bore backing from a group. Wonder how many people on this forum are now wearing hi-viz and protective gear even when all they see at home are beenie helmets and leather vests.

 

----

 

 

[yabadabapal]

I think alot of people use the terms love and hate as generic catch all phrase. Sort of a lazy way to avoid the inconvenience of either thinking for yourself and or doing the research to really understand the whole picture. I tend to be somewhat more explanatory myself but sometimes although not often, I use those two words. They really are two very big words.

[RonStewart]

Quinn, you've got me thinking....

[Pilgrim]

Compromise infers trust. If one buys into Reina & Reina's Trust and Betrayal in the Workplace, there are 3 kinds of trust:

• Contractual - Can I trust you to do what you say you will do?
• Competence - Can I trust you to be able to do what you say you can do?
• Communication - Are you hiding or withholding information I need?

It is difficult enough to build trust in these areas and their subparts when working/living face-to-face. On an internet forum, it might take decades.

 

John, I'm glad you posted this; I'm going to get that book, for I suspect it contains info valuable beyond the workplace.

 

For years, I have gotten funny looks from people when I say that if I "trust" someone it means, not that I believe they will act in my best interests, which seems to be a common misconception, but that I can reliably count on their action/reactions under a given set of circumstances. With some people that may mean that I can rely of their good will; in other cases, I can rely on them to screw me. In either case, I trust them.

 

As to the topic of the thread, remember this aphorism: Half of the population is of below average intelligence - and nearly all of them have access to the internet.

 

Pilgrim

[Alan D]

 

And Mike, maybe the way Brits write "centre" is because their English still observes its Latin roots a bit more than the one spoken here? That could be the centRAl reson (or is it cetERal?)

 

Yeah, I know. Once upon a time, I lived in England. It's a time that I'll cherish forever. I actually had it all figured out--both the spelling and the ways in which our common language diverged--but it's now mostly forgotten.

Because it's more colourful

[yabadabapal]

[

 

As to the topic of the thread, remember this aphorism: Half of the population is of below average intelligence - and nearly all of them have access to the internet.

 

Pilgrim

 

Id like to rewrite that

Half of the population is of below average intelligence - and the

other half doesnt care enough to help them be the best that they

can be.

 

[chrisd]

Remember this aphorism: Half of the population is of below average intelligence - and nearly all of them have access to the internet.

 

That's a pretty ironic statement, especially since I suppose its author supposes himself to be in the above average "half" of the population. And even more so because, presumably, he had access to the internet.

[doc47]

 

And Mike, maybe the way Brits write "centre" is because their English still observes its Latin roots a bit more than the one spoken here? That could be the centRAl reson (or is it cetERal?)

 

Yeah, I know. Once upon a time, I lived in England. It's a time that I'll cherish forever. I actually had it all figured out--both the spelling and the ways in which our common language diverged--but it's now mostly forgotten.

 

England and America, countries separated by a common language. (Paraphrase of G. B. Shaw)

[RightSpin]

Average is average. There is no beating statistics. Half of anything is above average and half is below.

 

As for love and hate, I don't know, those really go back to the beginning of mankind. Both are natural human emotion’s and everyone, including everyone here, has experienced each.

 

If we really want to be honest about the context of dialog in the United States today, one must be open to the possibility that there is a serious level of disagreement. That is where the US, and frankly much of the world, is now. Almost half want it one way, the almost half want it a different way. We’re at an important cross road and there is a lot at stake and not much room in the middle for compromise. And, while it is important to understand each other’s point of view, it is disingenuous to pretend as if we don't have a point of view of our own. To take a point from Pilgrim, trust is being able to count on people to be honest about their beliefs and opinions. Only an honest and frank conversation can produce a meaningful understanding between disagreeing people.

 

[Couchrocket]

 

 

 

 

In part, I think, what you see is a mere cheapening of language. Love & hate are no longer descriptive - they are mere signals that denote a broad category of reaction to an input.

 

When we say that we love our children and also love cheddar cheese this becomes apparent. We also hate racism and getting a hang-nail.

 

We are rapidly becoming signalers rather than communicators.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Over the past few years I have noticed something that seems to be an 'American thing'.

Of the various opinions posted on the board, especially in RDOT, most come across as 'lovers' or 'haters'. Few posters seem to think something is 'OK', or to 'quite like' it. Nor do they say 'not my thing' or 'don't really like it'. No-one at all says 'I don't care one way or the other', but that is probably because that would be a pointless post.

Is there no centre ground in the USA? or is it just a language thing? (not that I really care one way or the other... ;) )

 

 

Andy

[beemerman2k]

Wow, great points Steve and Scott. Here's to some open and honest dialog going forward in this country. Also, here's to some quick listening and slow speaking and reacting in this country, too. We must be willing to learn as well as teach.

[Polo]

 

 

 

In part, I think, what you see is a mere cheapening of language. Love & hate are no longer descriptive - they are mere signals that denote a broad category of reaction to an input.

 

When we say that we love our children and also love cheddar cheese this becomes apparent. We also hate racism and getting a hang-nail.

 

We are rapidly becoming signalers rather than communicators.

 

 

It strikes nothing short of comical how the media and those speaking to audiences engage in shortcuts with the language, and acronyms become sustantives.

 

We seem to use correct language largely to ridicule by emphasizing a pompous stance when using the better word to say something. I am not innocent of this, but if I did use a less generic adjective to describe something, I am often criticized. This may be somehow in connection with the fact that English is not my native language.

[Couchrocket]

Wow, great points Steve and Scott. Here's to some open and honest dialog going forward in this country. Also, here's to some quick listening and slow speaking and reacting in this country, too. We must be willing to learn as well as teach.

 

James, I agree, and I'll add another factor, "Critical thinking ability" is woefully lacking today. We're way too prone to knee-jerk in one direction or another based on some hot-button word, phrase, idea, concept (good, bad, or indifferent) rather than think through what has been communicated, why, its context, its intent, its logical consistency or not, whether the words used are loaded or plain, etc., etc., etc.

 

My partner and I have added modules on active listening and critical thinking skills to our career development workshop for fire fighters! We are seeing an almost universal trend in the generation now rising through the ranks of almost total inability to listen to and analyze what it being communicated - rather than to "just react" (positively or negatively) based on having assimilated feelings about issues based on nice sounding words and phrases - regardless of their context or actual meaning.

[Bob Palin]

Average is average. There is no beating statistics. Half of anything is above average and half is below.

 

This really is an ironic statement, five people take a test, 4 score 1 point and one gets 11, the average score is 3 but 80% of the people are below it!

 

Median - look it up!