This post (podcast) is about a meta-example on Approximate Thinking and political discussions. Starting from a couple of examples, the power of identities and their role in understanding and obscuring (clarifying) thinking become evident.
Over the last year or so, I posted a few comments about (1) Ayn Rand’s disproportionate popularity, considering that her book “Atlas Shrugged” is the second most distributed book in the US (after the bible), and (2) Abraham Lincoln’s political moves, within a political/economic context…
These examples intended to describe/show how approximate thinking works in political discourse.
Approximate Thinking, explained in Fuzzy on the Dark Side, is when – in our attempt to understand – we replace a complex idea (~) by a simpler (approximate) idea, with which we are more familiar…
The problem: This simpler idea is – frequently – one colored by our identity. The very characteristic that facilitates our understanding, can sometimes become a block preventing us from further introspection.
I argue that political discourse is one of the fields in which this is quite clear… in fact, conflation is a frequently sought after quality by (manipulating) politicians, seeking to exploit people’s tendency to conflate identities with pragmatics/understanding (conflating intent with awareness/creativeness to use the language of The Atlas of Worldly Wisdom).
Heated Discussions
Things become quite interesting…
The posts themselves generated a torrent of anger and ‘conflation’… They themselves (The posts + The comments on them) became a living example of identity-motivated approximate thinking.
“You are denigrating Lincoln”, wrote one reader. “F*** off globalist scum”, and “Leave our country then”, were other comments on the Lincoln one…
“Why didn’t you read her book?” (for the umpteenth time, why do I have to eat a rotten apple fully to know it is rotten? It – obviously – can’t be the second most valuable object on the planet, regardless of me eating it) , “Why are you taking her quotes out of context”, were comments on the Rand one.
Anger, rudeness, and many blocked idiots, were among the results… many discussions and conversations too.
Interestingly, conflation comes from both directions of the political spectrum.
But Why?
And it all makes sense: Who has time / effort to dedicate to thinking deeply about issues, considering the points of view of others?
It is easier to just simplify, and get angry!
To consider things deeply, to try and understand, to empathize and look from a different vantage point takes effort and skill. Mindless approximate thinking (Fuzzy on the Dark Side) won’t work.
Listen to the discussion / podcast :
https://open.substack.com/pub/ahmadhijazi/p/ep-5-approximate-thinking-politics
Some of the discussions / conversations :
