All is not well
Jul 16, 2021 18:01:43 GMT
Post by kerouac2 on Jul 16, 2021 18:01:43 GMT
If you will scroll back, you will quickly see that I never accused fumobici of being dogmatic. (I hope that fumobici has noticed this as wall.)
I will however address the question, since I was once accused of being dogmatic myself -- in 1972 -- and it shocked me to the core. But when it was explained to me (after the long test which revealed my dogmatism), I understood that it was true and I vowed never to be dogmatic again. I have probably failed sometimes, but I still try my best.
The test was a simple yes-or-no survey of one's opinions. Many of the statements called for what seemed like obvious answers. "It is normal to love your parents" "When a country has given you everything, you should support it" or "Laws exist for the common good even when you don't agree with them." This is just an example of things where you might tend to have an instant idea of yes or no or have to stop and think a bit. If there has been just ten questions, it would have been easy to contest the result, because you can understand things differently or simply read the statement wrong. But this test had something like 200 qyestions, so the end result was pretty clear. There were simple morals ("If you see someone drop some money, you should give it back to them") or basic ingrained opinions ("child killers deserve the death penalty") but with so many statements, you tend to be overwhelmed and that's when your true nature emerges.
When talking about politics, it pretty much works the same way. "Communism is bad." "Communists prevent free speech." "Socialism is the midpoint between communism and capitalism." "Everybody should be able to become rich." -- etc etc etc. All of these appear to be simple yes-or-no questions most of the time, but when somebody challenges you and says "What about....?" it all becomes more confusing.
In the present discussion, I found that opinions were bandied about without much regard for analysis. "Cuba has mismanaged...." Well, perhaps Cuba has not managed successfully, but why have they failed. Is it communism? Is it the embargo? Are Cubans corrupt? Is it Castro's fault? Are the people lazy? "Did all of the good Cubans escape the country?" I could go on and on, but the point is that most people will just agree or disagree with the first statement and not think about the situation one second longer. On top of that, it is based on "something I saw on the news" or "a book I read" or whatever and very rarely on personal experience. I'm not saying that everything is fake news, but I am saying that you should never automatically believe what you are told, in school, in the news, or anywhere else, particularly if you don't have any personal experience in the matter. But we are now living in a world of snap decisions and instant information and everybody thinks you are stupid if you say "I'm not sure" or "I don't know."
That is what seemed to be happening here. If I have misinterpreted anybody's intentions, I regret it.
But I'm not sure and I don't know.
I will however address the question, since I was once accused of being dogmatic myself -- in 1972 -- and it shocked me to the core. But when it was explained to me (after the long test which revealed my dogmatism), I understood that it was true and I vowed never to be dogmatic again. I have probably failed sometimes, but I still try my best.
The test was a simple yes-or-no survey of one's opinions. Many of the statements called for what seemed like obvious answers. "It is normal to love your parents" "When a country has given you everything, you should support it" or "Laws exist for the common good even when you don't agree with them." This is just an example of things where you might tend to have an instant idea of yes or no or have to stop and think a bit. If there has been just ten questions, it would have been easy to contest the result, because you can understand things differently or simply read the statement wrong. But this test had something like 200 qyestions, so the end result was pretty clear. There were simple morals ("If you see someone drop some money, you should give it back to them") or basic ingrained opinions ("child killers deserve the death penalty") but with so many statements, you tend to be overwhelmed and that's when your true nature emerges.
When talking about politics, it pretty much works the same way. "Communism is bad." "Communists prevent free speech." "Socialism is the midpoint between communism and capitalism." "Everybody should be able to become rich." -- etc etc etc. All of these appear to be simple yes-or-no questions most of the time, but when somebody challenges you and says "What about....?" it all becomes more confusing.
In the present discussion, I found that opinions were bandied about without much regard for analysis. "Cuba has mismanaged...." Well, perhaps Cuba has not managed successfully, but why have they failed. Is it communism? Is it the embargo? Are Cubans corrupt? Is it Castro's fault? Are the people lazy? "Did all of the good Cubans escape the country?" I could go on and on, but the point is that most people will just agree or disagree with the first statement and not think about the situation one second longer. On top of that, it is based on "something I saw on the news" or "a book I read" or whatever and very rarely on personal experience. I'm not saying that everything is fake news, but I am saying that you should never automatically believe what you are told, in school, in the news, or anywhere else, particularly if you don't have any personal experience in the matter. But we are now living in a world of snap decisions and instant information and everybody thinks you are stupid if you say "I'm not sure" or "I don't know."
That is what seemed to be happening here. If I have misinterpreted anybody's intentions, I regret it.
But I'm not sure and I don't know.
