I’m reading Julia Galef’s “The Scout Mindset” just now. It’s good. It’s a lightish read about why some people seem to see issues more clearly than others, and what I like about it is that its main thesis is emotional, not the sort of smug hectoring Dawkins rationalism that’s done so much to persuade us all to be smarter. She essentially wants to persuade us that being wrong (or at least, being prepared to be shown to be wrong) is good, and to be embraced, because it helps you be right.
Galef distinguishes between the “soldier” mindset most of us have by default – where we “protect our beliefs aggressively and ignore any evidence that we might be wrong” – and the “scout”, who “surveys the land, seeking accuracy and understanding to find all the available information – good and bad – to gain a more truthful picture”.
I like it. Obviously, like everyone, I’m naturally a soldier, but the last decade or so has made me want to be more of a scout. Nobody’s listening. Everyone already knows. That can’t be good.
Reading Galef’s book (and reviews of it) led me to Paul Graham’s 2009 article, “Keep Your Identity Small”, which I’m linking to here, and which contains the quote I’ve used as this post’s headline. It’s also good. I’ve been deeply mistrustful of identity politics for a while now, and Graham nails how I feel about it. He starts by considering why online discussions about politics and religion always blow up, whereas ones about JavaScript don’t, and his conclusion is that the more you bring “I AM X” (where X = Christian, lefty, libertarian, LGBT advocate, etc etc) into a discussion, the less likely the discussion is to be even slightly productive.
Galef is all about decoupling being wrong from any emotional penalty. Saying “I don’t know”, and then trying to find out. I think combining that approach with Graham’s “small identity” idea is probably the only way any substantial discussion of anything gets anywhere.
Anyway. I recommend both.
Good post, hp – I like thinking about abstract concepts, and it’s good to have new perspectives on things that frame what we perceive in different ways, to give new ways of understanding the world. In that regard, I think I am more naturally a scout than a soldier (who’d have thought, being a Quaker, eh?) – there is some core of me that I would defend, which I assume is what the ‘label’ is all about, but there is much that is experiential and developmental – life is a quest, not a laid out plan (which may be why my life is rather chaotic).
My interest is in pace of change and people’s response to it. Living in an information age, where we get so much more content than we ever had before and where the signal to noise ratio is quite low, old labels don’t make so much sense – there is so much diversity that preconceptions about what makes a Christian, a Conservative, a Muslim, a refugee, the working class etc. only seem to exist to be disproved by exceptions. In a more static world, labels helped to identify things that didn’t change very much. These days, it seems one needs a much more fluid mindset – to accept that opinions one might have could be wrong.
That sort of mindset can be scarey and unsettling – ‘where are my foundations?’ – and fear is the worst emotion for motivating action and behaviour – fight or flight, which presumably is where identity politics comes in – defend what you had, or thought, even if it makes no sense in the modern world.
There are some things that remain stable – those are values. If we adhere to sincere human values, then how we assess changing information and changing identities can be connected to our core selves. I think, anyway.
Thanks for making me think, hp – I’ll check out those sources. Like I need more things to read…
I look forward to reading what others have to say.
“Old labels don’t make so much sense” – yeah. But I’d go further and say the old ones never made much sense if your goal is gaining Galef’s “more truthful picture”.
Calling yourself a conservative will tend to preclude thinking – to take the Channel 4 example – that public ownership is good, and probably stop you thinking about why. Calling yourself a socialist will likely have the opposite effect.
I was talking with a friend about this the other day and we both said we’ve wondered if we’ve moved to the right. I know plenty of people would probably look at where I find myself in online discussions these days and be quite comfortable saying I’ve gone Tory, or something. I haven’t. I’ve gone… nothing. I’m not a socialist. I’m not a conservative. I don’t know that I’d even call myself a centrist at this point, because that implies nearly as many limits as the poles do.
I think my basic conceptions of justice, fairness, the role of the state, work, culture etc. have remained pretty static over the last couple of decades, but what’s changed is the landscape of discussion. I remember talking about “grab-bag” belief systems as far back as the old Word blog: the idea that your team has an orthodoxy which you just carry around pretty much whole. The internet has made that team polarisation a million times worse, and it was pretty bad back then. I honestly feel like the landscape has changed; the only thing I recognise as having changed in myself is a desire to be on an ideological team. (I’ve also lost a lot of weight.)
It seems to me that our politics has drifted into a weird rehash of Cartesian dualism: the idea that we have a self, a soul, an essence. Conservatives who have no interest in tradition, or conserving, but are conservatives because that’s their team. Progressives who bang on about justice while being pretty repellent to the actual human beings they encounter (The Road to Wigan Pier nailed those guys 85 years ago). Values in theory, rather than in practice.
As noted philosopher Batman once put it, “it’s not who I am inside: it’s what I do that defines me”. Galef’s book is interested not in “being smarter” but in our attitude, our emotional predisposition to allowing our assumptions to be challenged. That’s why I like it: it’s – as the teenage commies would say – praxis.
“Humankind cannot bear very much reality.”
Douglas Adams’ total perspective vortex gives a good illustration of the danger of seeking a truthful picture – it doesn’t take long if you start looking to realize that we ‘know’ very little – we rely on our labels to make sense of the world, no matter how imperfect, imprecise and uniformed they are. They best we can hope for is to be humble and take on board adjustments forced by confronting reality.
Our neural pathways are set in our childhood, then adjusted violently in our adolescence – then that plasticity tends to stiffen – giving us a roadmap of the world for adulthood – to put into that grab bag of belief systems which sustains us on our journey. Ideally, our installed belief system is honed and developed by generations before us into a workable guide for every encounter – it’s not just laziness, but practicality/efficiency that takes us down the motorway from A to B rather than the bridle path, or hacking a trail across the jungle of synapses. (Although I read the other day that those who seem to cope best with the onset of Alzheimers are the ones who try to keep learning new stuff – maintaining the flexibility of the brain, presumably so that when some parts shut down, others can take over).
My new buzzword is familiarisation – the process by which the strange becomes intimate. I find it fascinating – whether it’s Tig’s 6 listens, or making friends from strangers, or absorbing new ideas – there’s a process, there’s work, and we are changed by the relationship we build with that new entity. We may start off, unconsciously, as ‘Conservative’ or ‘Socialist’ with all the convenience of what to think and do ready and lined up, logically connected and rigorous. Through use and challenge, we become familiar with that position’s strengths and its weaknesses, what it means to have that as part of our identity – and either become hyper-defensive or change.
After all my waffle, I think there’s a lot of wisdom in your last paragraph. It’s what you do, not what you think or say that defines you – and of course shapes you – and I should stop philosophizing and do something.
“I should stop philosophizing and do something”.
Same! 🙂
If you fancy the opposite of a light read around this area, then Iain McGilchrist’s The Master & His Emissary is fabulous. Dumbly reduced, it’s saying that the left hemisphere of the brain is way too dominant these days (as though Hobbes’ take on Descartes, ‘Thinking is computational’ has become an absolute truth). Jill Bolte Taylor’s A Stroke Of Insight (both the book and her Tedtalk) come from the same place, and I’d say that the upsurge in research into psychedelics-as-therapy (rather than the overly cognitive approaches) also sings from the same score. Contrast this with Social media, constructed by left-brain dominated men.
*adds to cart*
Thanks BB – those look fascinating
I love “I don’t know” as an answer, especially and even at work. But it has taken a long time to learn that honesty. And it is always an opening door it beckons, not a closure or end.
The book sounds like a Malcolm Gladwell thesis, stating an obvious truth that is hidden and disguised in plain sight.
Even better is “I don’t know, but I’m going to try and find out”. (Though there’s a lot to be said for “I don’t know, and that’ll do me” too.)
The interesting thing about the book is that it’s not stating anything, obvious or otherwise. It’s suggesting an approach to thinking, and seeing where that takes you. I haven’t read Gladwell beyond a bit of the 5,000 hours book, but that seemed quite Hepworthy: thesis first, then find the evidence. Maybe I’m doing him a disservice and should give him another go.
I definitely found that with the Malcolm Gladwell book. My pet peeve is anyone who brings their woolly theses to bear on my beloved Beatles! The idea that the 5,000 hours playing in Hamburg was what “made” the band is reductive nonsense, and seems to have been applied, as you say, by shoehorning a thesis onto the evidence and making it fit. To start with, I would point out that they didn’t even have the same drummer for those 5,000 hours.
(If I’m a soldier about anything it’s that the Beatles rule and that every Afterword thread can be turned in that direction)
It’s 10,000 hours, Arthur.
Oh well that totally undermines my argument then. I stand corrected and humble. 😀
It’s ten thousand hours, isn’t it? Or maybe I just read it twice..
Some things you didn’t even read once. 😉
(See retro above)
I don’t know whether I’d describe myself as a smug hectoring rationalist but I have found that a background in science has helped me immensely in navigating life’s more mysterious avenues. The scientific revolution was really about the birth of ignorance – the acknowledgement that what we know from The Bible (other religious texts are available) is not all there is to know. If you had asked someone in the middle ages why a butterfly had blue wings you’d have been fobbed off with an answer along the lines of God hasn’t mentioned that, so it’s not important. The scientific revolution dared to free human thinking from these constraints and it was a monumental shift.
What science has taught me, or the philosophy of science, at any rate, is that we live in a state of near complete ignorance. We have made some pretty big gains over the last two hundred years – and getting to the moon is an exemplary valediction of our efforts – but scientific knowledge is never cemented in. There is no truth, as such, just the best available evidence, which could change at any moment.
I suppose what this rather waffly preamble amounts to is that I have been conditioned to think with an open mind, or I think I have, at least. In what way does this position differ from a ‘scout mindset’? Science never provides definitive answers. It can’t, by definition. What it can do is chip away at the edges with ideas and experiments and models and all the rest. I have been pretty despondent reading some of the popular press coverage of the covid pandemic, and the completely unrealistic expectations put on the scientific community. Could that be interpreted as a ‘soldier’ mindset, borne of a demand for absolutes and certainties? I don’t know.
I am consciously avoiding getting into the identity politics/social media realm here because that seems to offer a unique and peculiar dynamic that Homo sapiens has not really evolved to deal with. Even when we’re looking for the pork pies on special offer in Sainsbury’s, we are still essentially hunter-gatherers at heart. I’d happily see all social media disappear tomorrow, and I think it would improve our wellbeing enormously (although, what are we doing here?).
I would like politics to pursue more evidence based solutions where it can. That would free it to a certain extent from emotional and ideological drivers. But who needs evidence and experts? Anti-intellectualism seems to be all the rage these days.
So, the interesting part about rationalism is… plenty of self-described rationalists are just as “soldier” as the rest of us, because for many people it’s as much a label, a starting point which defines all subsequent discussion, as anything else. It doesn’t necessarily make them more rational as a matter of practice. For Dawkins, it seems to have ossified into a really weird closed-mindedness – an identity which he thinks means he gets to de haut en bas merrily around the world letting everyone know how dumb they are. In many ways, his public persona is really not that distinguishable from an archbishop. He’s so used to thinking of himself as an open-minded rationalist that he’s incapable of conceiving that he might not be. A lot of scientists – at least the public ones – don’t seem significantly more immune from soldiery than anyone else, as far as I can tell.
Evidence-based politics would be nice. The trouble is, politics is largely ethics, and unless you start from the same premise, the evidence is going to lead you to wildly different conclusions. What I like about the scout thing is that it’s not trying to dictate your premises, but get you to question them. That’s got to be quite healthy.
I agree that an open mind is always healthy and we need much more of it. From my experience most scientists like to keep their heads down and hate engaging with the media, even if the PR departments at universities these days are constantly badgering them to promote their ‘brand’ and boost their ‘impact’. Those who play in public could be a self-selecting group who like the sound of their own voice. Dawkins has been an immensely successful populariser of evolutionary theory, but I agree he’s become smug and irritating in his later years. He may see himself as some kind of self-appointed spokesperson but I find others like Sam Harris far more reasonable and balanced.
It’s funny this should come up, actually, because Paul Graham mentions it in a footnote above:
“There may be some things it’s a net win to include in your identity. For example, being a scientist. But arguably that is more of a placeholder than an actual label—like putting NMI on a form that asks for your middle initial—because it doesn’t commit you to believing anything in particular. A scientist isn’t committed to believing in natural selection in the same way a biblical literalist is committed to rejecting it. All he’s committed to is following the evidence wherever it leads.
Considering yourself a scientist is equivalent to putting a sign in a cupboard saying “this cupboard must be kept empty.” Yes, strictly speaking, you’re putting something in the cupboard, but not in the ordinary sense.”
I like that, in that it’s making me think a bit.
Having said I would stop philosophizing…
Science and religion is a bit of a hot topic for me – curiously, an arena where I could recognize myself as a soldier – but more in defending tolerance and exploration of different positions, rather than defending any one of those positions (rationalist, fundamentalist, etc) – so often, I think Dawkins etc. set up Aunt Sallies/straw men and then attack them (someone recently talked about ‘orphans’ in the culture wars – opinions that nobody has, but that a columnist can pick up and spin outrage at).
Although I haven’t read any of her books, what I know of Karen Armstrong is far more likeable in her sociology and anthropology of religion – what its functional purpose was within the society it was a part of – less about the packageable beliefs/creeds that Dawkins critiques – more about something that was an expression of culture and tradition.
Regarding science and the birth of ignorance, isn’t there a common fallacy about human progress – that we know far more about the world than previous generations? In a way, that is true. I think it’s no coincidence that the scientific revolution started after the invention of the printing press – far greater access to information – (a lot of it garbage in the early years, apparently – familiar?). But steadily the development of reliable, tested information added to the sum of human capacity, and gave people the chance to ponder, in writing, on blue butterflies. People had access to more than just the Bible, written and read in Latin by monks,
I don’t think the scientific revolution freed human thinking from the constraints of Bible literalism and morality – even before the scientific revolution, people thought, considered, invented and discovered – it just wasn’t as well distributed as after the invention of the printing press. As important, technology in general gave humanity a break from the sheer toil of sustaining life, and time to contemplate and reflect – which allows for curiosity to flourish.
Maybe I’m inventing Aunt Sallies to have a go at – forgive me.
I completely agree with you, Martin, about the state of ignorance – a Socratic approach that brings humility and realism, as well as the benefits of the scientific method, the importance of experimentation, research and challenging existing theories. I also think there are probably a lot of soldiers in the scientific communities – academics waiting for their predecessors to retire or die before the old approach can be superseded with newer, more accurate modelling and hypotheses.
Yep. Engineer here, rather than pure Scientist.
What I learned today is that I know less than I did yesterday. Repeat daily.
By the end of my career, I will be completely and totally ignorant.
They both look interesting, ta. Looking at the Graham article I was a bit surprised by his opening statement: “Any mention of religion on an online forum degenerates into a religious argument.”. Not on the AW it don’t. I think we’ve chatted about religion a few times here without any argument. Mind you, I guess most of us have similarish “no one knows, so who cares what others believe?” views on the matter. But I do wonder if he’s confusing arguments about belief with arguments about church ‘politics’? Do online discussions about belief descend into argument? I’m not sure I’ve personally ever come across an argument about religious belief per se (plenty about church politics though).
The history of religion does fascinate me and I must admit that I enjoyed reading Dawkins’ God Delusion, Hitchens’ God Is Not Great and A.N. Wilson’s Jesus: A Life, even though I think the idea of trying to pursuade anyone that one spiritual belief is wrong and the other is right is pointless and therefore stupid.
As for the labelling thing, in my time I’ve been labelled a Leftie and an atheist (among other things!). The first is pretty justifiable I suppose, though not wholly accurate, and the second is simply not true. But true or not, I would certainly never label myself as either cos my political and religious beliefs combined represent nothing more than a miniscule percentage of who I am.
I lack all conviction and am pretty devoid of passionate intensity.
Did that whole New Atheist thing go away, or have I just stopped noticing it? About 10 years ago, I think, there were people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens being militantly against religion, and their supporters seeing this as a critical aspect of their identity – fearless truth seekers. It always struggled a bit here in the UK where the most widespread religious belief is probably apathy, and now it just doesn’t seem to be mentioned much anymore.
Was it because no-one neither side was making any conversions and got bored? Or that people realised that many religious beliefs have surprisingly little impact on a lot of day to day life. I have worked alongside engineers and scientists, who were both devout believers in one part of their lives, and pragmatic and logical in their work.
Seems to have died as anything approaching a mass movement. I think it was a victim of its messengers. Just like Orwell’s main reason for the failure of socialism to gain ground with people who should’ve been its natural supporters: the natural supporters thought the people doing all the shouting about it were right twats.
Two books I have enjoyed on the history and philosophy of religion were Don Cupitt’s The Sea of Faith and The Misery of Christianity by Joachim Kahl. The Sea of Faith was made into a tv series available on YouTube.
Thanks for the recommendations.
Interesting thread. I actually think I’m naturally more of a scout than a soldier – but maybe everyone thinks that? I definitely say “I don’t know” a LOT, to the point where it’s my son’s nickname for me.
I do kind of think no-one really knows anything. In fact, it’s a relief sometimes to realise it’s not just me. When someone is spouting forth a convincing political viewpoint and then you get a little glimpse that actually they don’t have any real basis for it, just dogma… it’s depressing in one way, but in another way it’s just relief. Relief that I haven’t missed anything, I suppose.
Oh, and I can’t help thinking it’s ironic that you have written a post about the danger of “sticking to a view and then seeking out evidence to support it” when that seems to be exactly what you’ve done here! You like the idea of being open-minded so you’ve found a book which supports that mindset… 🙂 I’m teasing of course… but I’m sure there is an equivalent book which proves the value and efficiency of having a view and sticking to it rather than being open-minded!
I got to about twelve before I realised my Dad did not know everything and that his confident answers to a lot if my questions were bluffs made up on the spot. It’s a trait I’ve inherited.
You got there early! My dad passed away over a decade ago and it’s only now starting to dawn on me that he talked a load of rubbish sometimes. 🙂
I’m now in the privileged position of being able to supply my own bullshit answers to his questions.
Revenge is sweet!
I love the famous Mark Twain quote, thoughbut:
“When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years.”
Haha this is more my speed. My dad talked absolute bollocks from my teens to my mid thirties. He’s much more sensible now. 😊
I’m very happy not knowing the answers to big questions, partly because of a tried and trusted distrust of anyone who claims to know all the answers, but also having become comfortable with the knowledge that I’m a bit lazy and intellectually incurious.
I’ve found it easy to give up searching for answers to unanswerable questions and just accept that I’ll die before I discover whether God exists, just as millions died before they knew Tunnock’s Caramel Wafers exists. (I am however open to the theory that the existence of one proves the existence of the other.) “I don’t know,” in this case, seems the only rational answer. It’s been quite a journey from indoctrination as a child to sneery atheism in my youth, to deliberately not thinking about it, and finally being able to say “I don’t know” and feeling all the stress of justifying one’s short term on the planet melt away. I like to think it’s the position God wants all of us to reach.
The Trans debate is another one where I’m not so much sitting on the fence as sitting in a comfy sofa that’s not even in the field. Fortunately in this case, no one cares what I think anyway and I suspect both sides would feel their case would be weakened if I were to advocate it.
Where I do come off the sofa is when information used to advance a point of view is obviously and demonstrably wrong. Which is all the bloody time, unfortunately.
Agree with all that. I think you and I tend to occupy pretty similar moral and political and intellectual (ha!) meadows. And Tunnocks Caramel Wafers are the divine, in foil – but answer me this: why the bollocks can’t I buy Ben & Jerrys Ice Cream Sandwiches any more? Those things would be enough to make me take holy orders.
On the trans thing, I’ve still got a basic set of thoughts about it, but like you say, so what? Nobody’s interested and I’ll probably do more harm than good if I wade in.
What gets me off my sofa these days is less issues themselves, than people acting certain about real things they can’t possibly be really certain about. Really really complex questions that there’s apparently one simple GOOD / BAD answer to, and it usually comes down to who the main actor is. If it’s someone we broadly like: GOOD. Even if we’d hate it if someone we don’t like was doing the same.
“Don’t know,” followed by a bit of a probe is good. It tends to be read as “I am on the opposing team” as often as not, though, so maybe “don’t know,” followed by not bothering to type would be best for everyone. 😉
It’s great to see Tunnock’s Caramel Wafers getting some love here. I’d like to point out that their Tea Cakes and Snowballs are also worthy of praise.
They had the Tea Cakes as a technical challenge on the Bake-Off once. They couldn’t say it was the Tunnocks ones of course but we all new. Not as easy as you think.
I’ve made yer Tunnock’s Tea Cakes from scratch myself. They’re not easy. I have to say, though, I do believe the Caramel Wafer is the apogee of the Tunnock art. The perfect teatime treat.
(Tell you what’s fun: making marshmallow from scratch with boiling sugar and gelatine. Delicious too. Just, you know, appallingly dangerous and inimical to the survival of any biological organism on which it drips while still liquid. Ouchy.)
Woah, that’s fighting talk. Now here’s something I am PROUD to take a stance on, and I can guarantee it comes from experience not dogma. Teacakes are better than Caramel Wafers and anyone who says different is objectively wrong.
FIGHT!
How typical of a wafer-critical activist, thinking a teacake could beat the mighty wafer. Who brings a marshmallow to a Tun fight?
*ripple of light applause*
I’m totally “don’t know” about the trans thing. Probably cos I’ve never knowingly had any contact with a trans person. I do find it an interesting discussion though. Just yesterday I read a thread I found very interesting about the conversion therapy bill.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1511792945627901960.html
I tend towards settling for just pretty selfishly getting on with life, but I don’t think any “issue” has ever stirred me from my general apathy as much as Brexit and now Ukraine.
Good thread that, and an instructive read for anyone who kneejerked straight to “EVIL” when they saw the coverage. Also, good to see Philip Pullman continuing to put in a shift for the Best To Separate Art From Artist Party.
They had Tunnocks Caramel Logs at work a few months ago. I believe they up the game above the Caramel Wafer. Not had them since. I suspect it was a mis delivered item.
They say the good wine never leaves France. I suspect these were not supposed to leave Scotland.
There are quite a few items that are not permitted to leave Scotland. These include:
Pre-1980 Broons annuals
The Stone of Destiny
Irn Bru in glass bottles
Cremola Foam
Who can forget that infamous incident in the 1960s when a group of English students stole away a 48 pack of Raspberry Cremola Foam and hid it under the throne in Westminster Abbey?
Michty me!
I’ve never seen Edinburgh Rock outside of Scotland, or indeed Edinburgh. The relatives used to bring it down as a gift when they were visiting. It has that strange coloured chalk look and texture and to some extent taste. They’d sometimes bring Berwick cockles as well (I realise that Berwick is not in Scotland, technically anyway). It was nice of them to visit and give us these presents – but as we only got them every couple of years, we managed to keep our teeth.
I saw this thread earlier and wanted to say something. I come back later and it’s full of wit and wisdom and stuff to make me think outside of my comfort zone. Which just re emphasises what I wanted to say.
Pre Internet and specifically for me pre Word Blog I thought I new it all. In my small world I was the go to man. Once I started engaging with people more informed, more interested, better educated, more aware I unravelled pretty quickly. Highlighted by the whole moon landing fiasco of over 10 years ago now but a defining moment for me. I could say that shit among my life group and it was largely accepted as Dave being Dave. Good old Dave. Here it was challenged, questioned by those who had taken the time to study and educate themselves. It was a chastening experience but one I needed. From that day on I’ve been more scout. My instinct is still o open my gob before engaging my brain but I’ve learned to stop first, mostly.
My broader point is there are millions that were the same as me but they’ve taken the platform of social media to be soldiers marching on with their entrenched opinions not able to listen and learn. I was lucky I guess to cone unstuck here among generally good people. Also I am lucky that I took my lesson on the chin and learned from it, mostly.
This is a great thread of the sort that keeps me coming back here and continue to learn and be better. I don’t know it all, not even close. I’m happy to not know and if I don’t know to ask. I feel it’s a blessing that many others need in their lives in these frightening polarised nuance free times.
Just wanted to come back and say this is a flipping great post, Dave. I remember the moon landings thing too, and the grace with which you’ve incorporated that into your worldview and behaviour is something I suspect most of us would struggle to do. The vast majority of people, and probably the vast majority of people on this thread, would’ve doubled down in pure defensive FUCK YOU fury after that experience, and you did the scout thing instead. That’s extremely cool. Not sure I’d have been able to myself.
I think there are many who will keep their ill-informed views because those views come with the extremist territory where they feel they belong and people like to belong, to conform to a group. That overrides everything else, the loyalty to that position. Any evidenxe that threatens it is fake. Anyone who tries to challenge those views is the enemy. Sometimes someone see the light and opens their mind, but not enough. It’s too comforting to belong there. Social media just reinforces the them and us feeling.
Your social media point is absolutely spot on, Diddley.
Twitter’s algorithm specifically encourages contentious, divisive & argumentative exchanges (as for the platform it generates hits & therefore income). Inevitably, polarisation results & any possibility of nuance or actual discussion is lost as (pretty remote in 280 characters anyhow). There are exchanges, but frequently they may as well be bumper stickers attempting to close down the discussion with a ‘mic drop’ comment. Extremism will always benefit as a result & even though the platform purports to regulate content, we can all see that’s a fig leaf & ‘business as usual’ means just that.
As for the OP itself, I’ve concluded that whilst I doubtless conform to many others’ definitions- old fart, cyclist, football supporter etc. I’m more at ease defying myself by what I’m ‘not’. I’m not ‘that’, I’d never, ever vote for ‘them’, I wouldn’t go ‘there’ for a night out/holiday etc. I consider myself pretty sociable & enjoy company, but I’ve never been a joiner & I’m not club able, hate ‘banter’ & blokey ‘chat’.
This doesn’t make me some kind of refusenik outsider, just somebody who’s pretty sure of what he likes & tries to take others as I find them.
The people I’ve encountered that I most admire tend to those who carry their knowledge or talents lightly, & if they have convictions they let them show by how they comport themselves rather than by what they say. These folks tend to be in very short supply.
I’ve just shared this thread on a Twitter cricket “conversation” over the future if the game where everyone is being a soldier. It’ll be interesting to see its reaction.
@barry-blue The Master and His Emissary just popped through my letterbox. I’ve just finished “The Scout Mindset”, so it’s well timed. The intro on its own has already slightly popped my brain (not sure which hemisphere) so I’m going to take my time and try to understand it really properly.
Interestingly, I did notice how much I want to agree with the central thesis, just from the introduction. Very soldier. 😉 But as McGilchrist says himself – maybe that’s because it chimes with an instinctive (right-brained) intuition that yes, this is how it works, and I recognise those social effects.
Bloody fascinating so far, 40 pages in.
Excellent! I always recommend it to therapists I supervise, especially those of a Humanistic training background (which to my mind can result in a woolliness that isn’t always helpful for clients). We’re fundamentally talking about the need for integration, micro and macro, I guess, though that isn’t always possible in the ways the Soldier aspect of us might believe.
Anyway, enjoy savouring the book!
Great thread; particularly Dave’s post above, which combines insight with honesty and humility. Tough mix, that. Hats off.
I tell myself I’m a Scout, but I guess most of us probably do that. I definitely feel like I have less “beliefs” than I used to. Less things about which I am certain and to which I’ve pinned some element of my identity. The further along I go in life, the more complicated the world seems to me, and the less credence I’m inclined to give to simple answers.
What I’ve found exercises me more these days is less what’s being argued and more how it’s being argued. I’m dramatically more likely to wade in when I see terrible logic or ignorance being used to prop up a position, even one I agree with, than simply because I disagree with the argument itself. In fact, I find I’m probably toughest on the arguments I broadly agree with, for the simple reason that I think people these days are incredibly willing to nod along to absolute hot garbage provided it comes from their “side”.
I feel like once upon a time, pre internet, you could have these conversations with mates where you’d spar a bit and try to tell right from wrong and maybe you’d get somewhere. Nowadays, there’s just so… much of everything; so much argument, so much taking of positions for attention/clout, and so very much argument made in bad faith. The internet has been a proper crash course in the latter for an awful lot of people, and it’s made all discourse an utter mess.
From that perspective, I sometimes feel like we’re probably further from the truth than ever, and that we won’t be getting any traction until all the nonsense is swept away. So, I feel no compunction to know the answers, just to know nonsense when I see it and to call out the bullshit every now and then.
I quote it constantly on here, but Carlos Rovelli said “what’s important is not to be right; it is to try to understand”. That’s what I tell myself I’m down for. I want to understand, and I want the impediments to understanding out of the way.
As for being wrong… it’s just the absolute best, isn’t it? On all fronts. There’s so much stuff I used to think that I’ve subsequently gone back on, and that volte face is such a joy, because it means I still have so much to learn, and learning is good. What will I know and understand at 70 that I don’t understand now? Shit tons, I bet. Maybe even Pink Floyd.
You don’t grow and advance without getting it wrong, or at least without admitting you did. I’m wrong all the time – I’m not that bright, particularly in fields I know little about, but often even in fields I do. I was wrong about Brexit, to give but one example. I honestly thought it would unleash a series of economic and logistical problems that would do massive and widely felt damage to the country for several years and render any long term benefits moot. It simply hasn’t happened as yet on the scale I thought it would. Shows what I know. Very little.
The good news is I’m under no obligation to know this stuff. None of us are really. As is touched on above, you have your opinions and you have your values. The former can be as fickle as you like; the latter have turning circles that resemble oil tankers, and rightly so.
As for labels, I have no idea what the point of them is, or why you’d ever self-apply them. I was out with a mate last week who asked me my opinion on something “as a male feminist”. I told her I would never describe myself as a feminist – there are loads of views I hold in common with feminists I know, but I reserve my right to disagree in places. I’m not looking for a club badge. Or, to quote a great philosopher: “a person should not believe in “isms”. He should believe in himself”. Or herself. Or themselves. You get what I mean.
I get 70 odd years on the planet (hopefully). I want to spend them with my eyes open, learning as I go. I want to change my view often, and with panache. I want the me of ten years hence to look back and shake his head at how ignorant and foolish I was. I feel like I’m ticking that box at my end, it’s future me who’s going to have to do all the legwork to keep the dream alive.
Another ace post.
Being wrong about Brexit has been quite transformational for me too. It’s still (pace Mao, who didn’t really say it about the French Revolution) too early to tell, but I thought the effects would be basically instantaneous and deep and very easy to feel. I thought we’d abdicated our role in the world. I thought the baddies were all on the Leave side – I think I probably said things like “not all Brexiteers are racists, but all racists are Brexiteers” (while probably secretly thinking that the first clause of that was largely untrue), all of which is pure bollocks. It seemed to me that covid – particularly around the time of the first vaccine rollouts – revealed that some of what Vote Leave said about the EU was… correct. And the desperate straw-clutching with which any British success or good action is these days greeted by the Continuity Remain camp is properly eye-opening. I still wouldn’t have left, would still vote Remain, but much much more reluctantly, knowing what I know now.
The other most important thing I’ve learned about political stuff in the last decade is that your politics has nothing to say about your personal morality. I used to essentially code Left = nice, Right = nasty. That’s simply untrue. I used to think that being broadly on the Left meant you were much more likely to be a kind, compassionate and thoughtful person than if you were on the Right. That’s simply untrue. I used to think that racism was an exclusive feature of the Right. That’s not only simply untrue, I’ve seen more overt racism (in Britain, at least) from the mainstream Left than I have from the mainstream Right in the last few years. And soldier mindset means utter denial: “We can’t be racists – we’re on the Left!” That’s shaken a lot of my old comfortable beliefs, and though it has been a deeply dispiriting and upsetting experience, I’m glad that it’s detached me completely from either label.
I think the me of 10 years ago would’ve been much more likely to go 🌈 flag, ⬛️ on profile. Now, while I’m still sympathetic to the instincts behind most “social justice” rhetoric, how it’s framed and argued makes me deeply sceptical, and I worry that the backlash to it will set us all back 50 years (the rhetoric itself often seems already to be setting us back 30). Anyway.
Being wrong is the best. Like you say – imagine what I’ll understand in 25 years if I keep going like this.
You missed the most important bit: Pink Floyd!?!
I’ve been listening to a lot of peak naffness Phil Collins this week. It’s pretty awesome; like, how did the same dude write Against All Odds and Sussudio? He could sing like a motherfucker too.
I saw Mike Scott from The Waterboys slagging off Easy Lover on Twitter last week and there were loads of replies agreeing with him. I nearly replied asking him what exactly is so awful About Easy Lover as I’m genuinely interested how anyone doesn’t feel the joy of that song. I decided it was best to leave it.
Easy Lover slaps so hard! And One More Night. And I Wish It Would Rain Down, etc.
These songs are of their moment and way overexposed, but they’re still great.
The hip hop community have had this right from the beginning. The whole time rock fans were sneering at the wrong end of Phil Collins’s career, he was being rated and sampled all over the shop by US rappers and producers.
Ps: my favourite Genesis record by an absolute mile is Invisible Touch. All that Peter Gabriel dressed as a balloon-animal dachshund or whatever is quite enough to turn my mindset into the Supreme Commander, Allied Forces, Berkshire.
Doesn’t labelling anyone as “racist” require a soldier mindset though? That is, ‘100% sure, not open to discussion’, before using the term? (Cos otherwise you’re Owen Jones).
Like you chaps, Brexit has been less of a zombie-apocalypse than I’d expected. Some of the negative consequences are obvious and even tragic, but fewer than feared. Covid and Ukraine have certainly taken attention away, but I don’t think I’ve seen any benefits yet at all.
This will be howled down, but the vaccine rollout and the leadership being shown on Ukraine are both pretty clear examples of Britain benefiting from greater speed of movement outside the EU.
To be honest, it’s such a major change it would be odd if there weren’t advantages. Whether they stack up to make the whole thing worthwhile I don’t know. We probably won’t know for a long time.
I’ll agree on the vaccine rollout but I’m not sure what you are referring to over Ukraine, certainly not the refugees surely?
Ask Zelenskyy.
This is a good article. If you need to, try to ignore that it’s in the Speccie, and focus instead on the fact that Daisley, though “on the right”, is the opposite of a Boris Johnson fan.
(See how much we need to forestall ad-homs these days and make excuses for finding things to like in sources we don’t, necessarily?)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/boris-deserves-credit-for-his-ukraine-response
Regardless of whether the writer is a Johnson critic or not, I wouldn’t give Johnson any credit whatsoever for his response to the Ukraine crisis.
His track record clearly proves he’ll say anything to anybody in the moment if he feels it will gain him an advantage, even it’s momentary. More often than not, what comes out of his mouth is a fresh lie conjured up in order to try to offset a lie or bunch of lies he told earlier. This is as plain as the nose your face & he was a character in a pop song he’d be Al Wilson’s ‘The Snake’. More fool anybody who’s prepared to take anything he does or says at face value. This doesn’t require adopting a partisan stance, merely using common sense.
His recent visit to Ukraine has obviously generated over 6 million views which should tell you why he did it. It creates a visual impression whilst actually achieving sweet FA for the people of Ukraine. It’s his cackhanded attempt to appear statesmanlike & deflect from a plethora of political shitstorms at home. Zelensky will obviously lionise him as he has to work every angle he can with those abroad to get help for his country.
He’s there in plain sight, the worst Prime Minister since universal suffrage and a daily disgrace.
James Holland, the popular WW2 historian & Buddy of Al Murray described an event at Blenheim Palace where he shared a panel with BJ who was promoting his ‘biography’ of Churchill. He said beforehand as they were entering the room, he offered Johnson should go first as it was *his* book after all. Johnson demurred twice before pushing in front of him just before they entered. He described it as downright ‘weird’, the kind of thing a genuinely unhinged person would do & very unsettling.
He then went on to describe his astonishment that Johnson know absolutely ‘bugger all’ about his subject, despite having written a book on it. He was incapable of discussing it beyond the broadest notions of ‘great orator’ & so forth, causing a degree of embarrassed shoe gazing by those present.
Nobody in their right mind should give this menace the benefit of the doubt about anything.
This post is honestly too hilarious. PLEASE, I beg you, go back to the OP to remind yourself of what we started by discussing.
You have. Of course. And having taken everything into account, you’re sure you’re right.
It does not require a partisan stance on Johnson to be completely clear that he’s a self serving menace.
He presents fresh evidence daily.
That’s not prejudice, it’s based on what he’s already done & essentially what he always does.
I don’t think it’s beyond reason to equate Johnson with Savile. Hiding in plain site, everyone ‘knew what he was like’ but nobody did anything. It doesn’t require one to be biased against all people with blonde hair or hailing from Leeds, just about a particular individual.
His character & disposition have been a matter of record for years, with those who worked him closely the most vociferous in trying to sound the alarm, but Casandra-like watching with incredulity as he has advanced to where he now is.
If that doesn’t alarm you, I’m envious of your sang froid.
Let me howl. Having just gone through hell because passport regulations changed for EU citizens coming to the UK changed in October last year, because Patel decided ID cards were too open to forgery, I am clearly not a Brexit sympathizer. Whatever reasons for Brexit were given, I see little benefit for anyone – only ongoing complications and tensions, e.g. Northern Ireland. I am a UK subject (with no voting rights) in a foreign country, whereas before I was a Northern European.
So, I am, of course looking for reasons to dispute success stories of Brexit – cards on the table. I don’t think it should have happened, the Leave campaign cheated to win, and there will be few if any victors. But I will admit to being wrong if proved.
On vaccines, like many other matters, the UK was in the fortunate position of being semi-detached (no Euro, no Schengen, etc), so could have gone it alone whatever its status regarding membership. It was still in transition phase when the vaccines were ordered.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/covid-vaccine-decisions-brexit
On Ukraine, the EU is an economic, not a military institution. It’s NATO membership that counts, surely? Why would EU membership have tied Johnson’s hands on that front?
Johnson does seem to have been strong on supporting Ukraine, I’ll admit. Whether that is sufficient for having been complicit in Putin’s money laundering for the last decade is up for discussion – there was clearly a lot of Russian capital invested in the UK for the government to sanction, albeit reluctantly at first.
Now – gag my howls with facts that disprove the above, and I’ll go back in my kennel.
Yes as far as I am aware the sanctions against Russian by the EU have gone father and quicker than anything the UK have done. Beyond sanctions the military assistance has been more country based so that’s not been EU controlled. Then there’s refugees where the EU has been effective and in agreeement where the UK has been less so. The UK has the advantage (if you look at it that way) that it can be less generous on refugees but then if still in the EU they would probably have been awkward and obstructive anyway as was their wont.
That’s how I see it too. Our NLAW missiles (along with US Javelins) have been very effective, but our response on refugees has been disgraceful given the humanitarian crisis the war has created. Our sanctions have been slow enough to allow a lot of the wealth to be moved.
It’s easy-peasy for Boris to act the good guy in this war scenario. A gift for him, really, in that he’d be hard put to do it wrong. The platitudes pretty much write themselves and all the other tricky business can be shoved onto the back burner and forgotten about.
Not sure our supplying of missiles etc. to the Ukrainian government counts for very much, given that we are one of the world’s major arms producers and suppliers. It makes good business sense and the diplomatic kudos that goes with it does no harm. Also, at home, it gives our arms industry a more positive spin to counteract what the other materiel we’ve supplied is being used for by the Saudis.
“I will admit to being wrong if proved”.
Chortle.
What? I thought I’d covered myself*.
—–
* in ordure, probably….
It’s ironic that in a thread about soldier/scout mindsets we’ve ended up with “here are my thoughts – now you provide facts to disprove them”.
For what it’s worth, I think your view on all facets of Brexit is pretty fixed, and relatively core to your identity. Even if I were minded to play this game, I’m happy to concede there probably isn’t a fact out there that will change it much.
But then, I’m not the Lord Mayor of Brexit: in fact, I didn’t even vote for it. I do, however, believe it’s worth asking yourself the honest question “what was I wrong about/what benefits might Brexit confer or have conferred” and seeing what comes back. If the answer is “nothing”, then either the issue really is just that Manichean, or that’s some high quality soldiering right there.
It is/became a question of identity, didn’t it? And that is an emotional thing, where facts don’t really count except unless they support the identity you have. I feel European, so I don’t like Brexit. She feels British, so doesn’t like the idea of being ‘tied’ to Europe.
I get that a lot of people voted for Brexit because ‘a plague on all your houses – we’re being left behind’. I just don’t think the fire is any better than the frying pan. I also think Johnson reporting lies from Brussels for years stoked a fire that didn’t take much to light.
More importantly, I was serious about my curiosity to see Brexit benefits. You may not be Lord Mayor of Brexit (what a chain of honour that would be), but you did say above that Brexit brought greater speed of movement by being outside the EU for vaccines and Ukraine. I reasoned that those were not valid examples. If there are any valid examples, then fine – I’ll recognize them. Britain shot itself in the foot. It would be good to staunch the bleeding, rather than revel in the crimson flow of blood.
As I say: high quality soldiering (although “the crimson flow of blood” is beautifully visceral imagery, congrats).
Come on Bingo, can’t you see that Zelensky saying “The UK is the leader in defence support for Ukraine. The leader in the anti-war coalition. The leader in sanctions against the Russian aggressor” just proves he’s a shill for the dark Russian money which delivered oh why bother
Not sure if that’s praise (high quality) or criticism (soldiering) – I’m probably too blinkered to see. But as it’s just a repeat of what you said before and there’s no answer to what I said about vaccines and Ukraine, I guess we’ve spiraled to a standstill. It was fun, I guess, but also frustrating.
BTW, thank you for liking the blood, blud. A bit too close to the conniving rhetorical flourishes of Johnson, I fear, but it was a temptation I couldn’t resist.
Edit – for hp
I did say “Johnson does seem to have been strong on supporting Ukraine, I’ll admit”. It wasn’t said with pleasure, because prejudices, but it was said. Johnson seems to be an opportunist, so I think the opportunity to be a war hero is now stronger than the opportunity to feed Tory coffers. Political waters are murky, so it’s fair enough to recognize his acts as honourable. I’m just cautious about a man with a dodgy past like Johnson.
Don’t paint me as (too much of) a conspiracy theorist.
I didn’t vote for Brexit but some of this document is just plain silly. Benefits include blue passports and enabling businesses to use the Crown stamp on pint glasses while ignoring the chaos caused by the end of free movement of goods and people.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1054643/benefits-of-brexit.pdf
I want to make it very clear that I have no intention whatsoever of ever reading that document.
You’re not missing much.
I’m still very worried about the effects of Brexit. The two areas within my sphere that have been worst affected are language schools (Italians are definitely more interested in Dublin now) and access to healthcare (though I’m not at all clear about the situation. Pre-Brexit I know it was possible -albeit a bureaucratic palavar- for Italians to access an NHS specialist in the UK, now it seems that’s no longer a viable option).
But what’s happening in Ukraine really puts everything into a different perspective.
“Doesn’t labelling anyone as “racist” require a soldier mindset though?”
That’s an interesting question. I don’t know. I think maybe it depends how you define “racist”: whether it’s something you are, or actions you do. I tend toward the second, but I think we naturally gravitate toward conferring simplistic identities on our enemies. (We do it to ourselves too, but also allow ourselves much more nuanced wiggle room.)
I’d like to think “racist” is something which should describe a person’s pattern of behaviour, in which case I don’t think describing them as such is unforgivably soldiery (and in any case, not even Julia Galef thinks it’s possible or desirable to be all scout, all the time).
I think if someone’s associated with enough demonstrably racist acts, language, organisations and people, it’s probably OK to call them a racist without offending the principle of scout mindset too much. Writing someone off as irredeemably racist for one incident, though? I’m less sure, and really depends on the incident.
It’s tricky, labelling people wholesale. And reminds me of the old joke: “you fuck ONE chicken…”
This is where Alan Watts can be useful. His suggestion that we use more verbs rather than nouns when we talk means that we move away from the fixed/permanent state (‘reification’ is, I believe the social science term) of the noun (‘Racist!’, ‘Fascist!’ ‘Terf!’ etc etc) and into a more fluid existence, informed by behaviour and time (‘being racist’ etc); there’s a far greater sense that changing is an option.
I think the last few years have been a truly glaring demonstration that Left/Right does not equal nice/nasty. Or at least that there are horrendous bellends on both sides, given a pass by their compatriots for reasons of convenience. It’s why “comrade” always gets an eye roll, without fail.
As ever, Joan Didion covers it all off rather well;
“Of course we would all like to “believe” in something, like to assuage our private guilts in public causes, like to lose our tiresome selves; like, perhaps, to transform the white flag of defeat at home into the brave white banner of battle away from home. And of course it is all right to do that; that is how, immemorially, things have gotten done. But I think it is all right only so long as we do not delude ourselves about what we are doing, and why. It is all right only so long as we remember that all the ad hoc committees, all the picket lines, all the brave signatures in The New York Times, all the tools of agitprop straight across the spectrum, do not confer upon anyone any ipso facto virtue. It is all right only so long as we recognize that the end may or may not be expedient, may or may not be a good idea, but in any case has nothing to do with “morality.” Because when we start deceiving ourselves into thinking not that we want something or need something, not that it is a pragmatic necessity for us to have it, but that it is a moral imperative that we have it, then is when we join the fashionable madmen, and then is when the thin whine of hysteria is heard in the land, and then is when we are in bad trouble.”
Reminded me of this scene:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/bridget-jones-s-diary-5583257.html
How sad, and how disappointing, that in all of the fine debate above, no-one, that’s absolutely not one person, has mentioned the most important breakthrough in human thinking of the 21st century. Nay, of the whole of the last two-and-a-bit millenia. I refer, of course, to the recent availability of dark chocolate Tunnocks Caramel Wafers. Never mind the end of history, it’s the end of philosophy. Perfection has been created on earth.
What!!!
Nuclear fission step off, this changes everything!
I’m renaming this thread “I am very scout mindset; in fact it’s a core component of my identity, and I will crossly dismiss any suggestions to the contrary”. 😉
Please, I beg, don’t make this thread a “my corner is better than your corner” Brexit bunfight. My old heart couldn’t take the irony. It’s too hilarious, in a really hilarious-but-not-really way.
Irregular verb:
You are biased
S/he is deluded
They are evil
I am coincidentally vindicated in my priors by all the the possible evidence.
Re. the Ukraine / Brexit thing above. If Bingo had wanted to do a social experiment he couldn’t have designed it better. If the most intractable, complex and scary foreign policy crisis in a generation turns out to coincidentally absolutely confirm everything you thought six months ago, I suspect you’re not as scout as you might’ve hoped.
I mean, neither am I, but at least I do know that. Scout mindset is something I’m bad at but aspire to. Reading some posts above, it’s VERY interesting that all Bingo had to do was mention Brexit and some people dive straight for their trenches. We all have our triggers, I guess.
😉
I’m quite willing to admit being one of those triggered on Brexit. However I do try to check out articulate critiques of why Brexit happened:
as well as reasoned defences of Brexit:
https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/ten-reasons-that-justify-the-uks-decision-to-leave-the-european-union/
though, regarding the latter, I also try to find arguments against them, because my identity is not (just) being British. I do think we are better if we don’t limit ourselves to a national status, but regard it as one of many identities. But, I also think it’s important to find the truth, even, actually especially when it contradicts what I feel.
On Ukraine, those 3 adjectives are absolutely true. Although, like anyone, I would like to have a simple narrative, I have no idea what is happening, why it happened or what will happen. All I have is what I see or hear from those better-informed and wiser than me. Although a Quaker, and looking always for pathways to reconciliation, I think it’s important to read and learn from military strategists and hawks as well, to try to understand a bit better.
The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you. I can prove it with these these two new terms called soldier and scout which you can use to , er, describe yourself with. These are quite different.
Well, the point of the book is that they’re not supposed to be identity labels but ways of thinking, both of which are necessary but one of which often doesn’t get enough of a look in. Understandably and sweetly enough, it’s been read as “good” / “bad” and so people have decided that they’re the good one. And then promptly had a screaming row about something close to their identity which they’ve been cross about for six years. 😂
I was just teasing.
Oh me too! For all that the thread has disappeared into an honestly hilarious irony vortex, I’ve enjoyed both its strands immensely.
Derren Brown’s Audible podcasts are rather fun. Lightweight but fun.
Here’s one which might be mildly relevant: https://www.audible.co.uk/pd?asin=B08WWTM1HH&source_code=ASSORAP0511160006&share_location=player_overflow
“ To err is human…but so is our need to deny we have erred. How ‘cognitive dissonance’ prevents us from admitting errors and learning from our mistakes – leading to medical disasters, miscarriages of justice, warping love and causing life-long feuds. But also how we can learn to deal with cognitive dissonance and redefine our attitude to failure.”
I guess threads go off on tangents, people respond to a comment rather than focus on the thread subject. A certain incoherence can and often will emerge. It is not so strange, it does not necessarily signify so much.
Yep. And as the old saying goes: “We’re a community of many types of people, who all have the right to feel comfortable and who may not think what you think, believe what you believe or see what you see or share your sense of humour. Please keep things clean, friendly, and polite. Arguments do happen and the debate can get lively but please – Address the point, not the person.”
And as the other old saying goes, “I need you more than want you / and I want you for all time / and the Wichita lineman is still on the line”. Think on, son. Think on.
Give it a rest eh?
Eh?
Edit: in a genuine spirit of scoutiness, what do you think’s gone on here? I’m just being silly. What’s happening for you?
A few people have offered some suggestions about why the Brexit and Ukraine examples are too simplistic. I think they are reasonable retorts. But I think these responses have just been blown off – take a look at your replies to your own posts above.
There was an worthwhile debate to be had here – and initially there was one – but once any form of disagreement comes down to “well, that’s exactly what a soldier would say, isn’t it”, it’s not a discussion any more. It could well be that that your comments were just aimed at being silly, but they struck me as belittling, so I jumped in. Maybe I’m just a humourless soldier – it wouldn’t be the first time.
In case you’re still reading – the scout / soldier concept was central to a course I attended about 15 years ago led by a bloke called Roger Schwarz. It was aimed at diffusing conflicts at work and the real light bulb moment for me was the concept of having a genuine curiosity about why someone has a different position from you, and to look at interests rather than positions i.e. forget the label, explore the underlying interests. It’s something I reflect on in pretty much every day, with varying degrees of success.
Just to jump in here, Roger Schwarz’s ‘mutual learning’ courses are excellent. Along with Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication (aka Compassionate Communication), there’s plenty food for thought. Having said that, this site/forum seems to me to be pretty darn good in both respects.
I mean, honestly I did find the whole thing funny, and maybe that says nothing good about me, but in my defence, it was very funny.
My view on the Brexit thing is that the issues have been rehearsed pretty ad nauseam and the people who haven’t changed their minds have been telling us about that for six years. Bingo’s raising of it was more – I thought – about the *fact* that he’d partly changed his mind, rather than the issues themselves. It was that which was interesting – I really didn’t fancy having yet another bloody Brexit argument but I did find what I saw as the resulting ironies genuinely funny given what had been said so far in the thread. (I posted an article which specifically poked fun at people who are incapable, by reason of their team identity, of admitting that this government
has done some things OK. That precise thing then happened. I laughed. 🤷♂️)
We’re not obliged to engage in a debate we don’t feel like, after all, and I’ll be quite happy never to mention Brexit again. But I was interested in what Bingo said about the liberation he found in changing his mind, because I’ve also changed my view on it and found the same thing. Not changed teams, not turned into a Leaver – just changed my mind a bit. Some people haven’t, but I’m not obliged to engage and try to change their minds because it’s quite clearly never, ever going to happen. That’s ok.
That, to my mind, was what the conversation was about: the thinking about the issue, not the issue itself. So I engaged with the bit I was interested in and not the bit I wasn’t.
Happy to be the butt of the joke, but I wasn’t digging in for Brexit trench warfare. It’s clear Brexit is done and dusted, and we have to move on.
I’ve got a lot of respect for Bingo – articulate and well-reasoned if any of us are. If he had new found good arguments in favour of Brexit, I’d have liked to have heard them, but if you’re scouting for truth in unfamiliar places, then what is found has to stand up to scrutiny.
*Sigh*
This is a thread about open-mindedness and admitting when you’re wrong. I offered a couple of areas where I consider myself to have been wrong, or which have surprised me and caused me to examine my own views.
I’m not really up for a debate on those points, and I wasn’t offering them up as an invitation to debate (though I do appreciate the kind offer to show me how I was right the first time).
As you’ve been honest about on this thread; you know your own views on Brexit, they’re unlikely to change much and your interest in hearing arguments in favour of Brexit is largely to figure out how to counter them. That’s all entirely fair, and your prerogative.
My prerogative is to choose to turn down your kind offer of an opportunity to provide you with facts to change your mind on this subject. It’s genuinely not something I’m interested in doing; I know this is a rarity for the Internet, but I really don’t need you to agree with me.
I’m also pretty certain that there is no level of evidence I can provide that would convince my would be interlocutors on these subjects. When literal quotes from Volodymyr Zelensky are dismissed with “yeah, well he’s bound to say that”, where else is there to go? Regrettably, I lack the requisite high jump training to even attempt to clear an evidence bar of this magnitude.
My invitation to you was to, in turn, consider some of your own shibboleths; a process I would consider to be far more useful (and relevant to the topic at hand) than yet another tedious internet back and forth on Brexit. I could not disagree with more with the statement that there was “a worthwhile debate to be had here”. Nor do I think it’s accurate for my argument to be condensed to “that’s what a soldier would say”.
The only worthwhile point in the entire endeavour from where I’m sat is to invite those who claim themselves scouts to actually think as scouts (and goodness me, the overuse of these terms has really knocked all the usefulness out of them by now) in areas where they might otherwise not. That, and maybe poking a little fun. If the latter is wrong, then lord I don’t wanna be right.
Thanks – I’ll shut up now.
Although, if anyone does have first hand experience of how Brexit’s going I for one (and one for I) actually would be interested. Not sure where to put it (worth another thread?) and as mentioned any debate about the rights or wrongs has been done to death. But… I would like some idea of what the future holds for the UK. The papers of course give an idea (“Queues! Of lorries! In Dover!”) but with Covid/Ukraine it’s hard to get a convincing picture.
What’s happening for me is: I’m quoting the FAQs, you’re quoting Wichita Lineman, I’m feeling a strange but not unpleasant combination of fear and arousal.
Same! Which of course was my plan all along.
“A certain incoherence can and often will emerge” – well the only thing I have to say about that is, “Ip lip bip nip bip”
Dyb dyb dyb!
This is an interesting read which I thought fitted this thread decently well. Ian Leslie on “Seven Varieties of Stupidity”: https://ianleslie.substack.com/p/seven-varieties-of-stupidity?s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=direct