I'm tempted to say point missed carry on again, but I'll admit I shouldn't have responded so tersely the other day. I was on my phone however and not in a position to expound.
Discussing politics absolutely can get us somewhere if done with the proper frame of reference. I'm 100% convinced and on board that it is pointless and has no hope of advancing any real understanding from either side when the discussion takes place from the respective partisan corners, which is where bob_sauve clearly resides. By and large that is absolutely what goes on here 90% of the time and there is mountainous evidence right from Haidt (and scores of other leaders in the field) that is pretty damn convincing to back up the futility in discussing politics in this fashion.
On your validation. You understand what I posted was an analogy right and was not accusing him of being a 3 year old or being stupid?
In other words, saying that trying to convince a partisan to see things outside of their partisan prism would be just as fruitless as trying to teach a 3 year old astrophysics, isn't the same as saying that since you're a partisan you have the mentality of a 3 year old. The point was to illustrate the utter futility of engaging in each endeavor on it's own. Granted. it probably wasn't the best choice of analogy given the ease with which it can be misinterpreted.
Speaking of futility, I am not going to try to explain Haidt anymore. I brought his theory here with good intentions, and you'll either make an effort to read it and then make up your mind on what you feel on what MFT truly is or you won't. It's clear that most haven't, so again pointless to try to have any real discussion on it.
Instead I'll try to explain, through another analogy, what I hear back from you and others when you're attempting to refute Haidt.
I gather you play bass guitar, correct? Suppose you were trying to introduce a novice to the basic concepts of playing bass and you pointed him/her to a few internet articles that covered basic concepts from a high level. Then on top of that you said if you really want to dive deeper, there's this great 2 hour instructional book/video etc. that really goes beyond the glossy high level and gets into the nitty gritty. He or she comes back next week and you ask...
so what do you think?
well I guess there's something there, but I just don't see it, it's really not helping me see at all how to position my toes.
That's because you're supposed to be using your fingers.
Well I just can't figure out how to get my toes to move that way and play correctly, especially when I have shoes on. I don't see any value in this at all.
Again, you play bass with your fingers, not your toes, and even if you could play with your toes how would wearing shoes help?. Did you watch the instructional video? That does a really nice job of explaining the basic concepts on a much deeper level without getting too technical.
Why are you acting all high and mighty and being so condescending?
The above is where point missed carry on comes from, now expanded upon. Two people still discussing bass guitar....but how can the conversation ever move towards anything productive as long as the novice staunchly continues the discussion through their own misunderstanding of the most central fundamental concepts?
I'm not promising to stop using Haidt's MFT in my thought process on how I interpret partisanship in political discussion, but I can promise you that I am done debating it. So you'll either read it or you won't and that's where we are.
