Keep your identity small
I finally understand today why politics and religion cause such surprisingly useless discussions.
As a rule, any mention of religion in any forum ends with religious disputes. Why? Why does this happen to religion, and not to talk about javascript, baking cookies or other topics that people discuss in the forums?
The difference with religion is that it does not seem to be necessary for people to be qualified enough to express an opinion. All they need is strong faith (beliefs), and anyone can. Not a single thread about Javascript grows as fast as a thread about religion, because in the case of Javascript, you actually need to sort out the question to leave comments. But with religion - anyone can be an expert.
')
And suddenly I understood - the same thing with politics. Politics, like religion, is a topic where there is no “threshold for peer review” in order to express one’s opinion. And again, all that is required is a strong conviction.
Does politics and religion have anything in common that would explain this? One of the possible explanations: they deal with questions for which there is no clear answer, therefore, it is safe to have the opinion itself. Since no one can prove an opponent wrong, every opinion is equally valid.
But still it is not. There are definitely political questions for which there are clear answers, such as how much the policy of a new administration will cost. But even such clear political questions share the fate of those where the answers can be blurred.
I think that the similarity of religion and politics is that they become part of a person’s personality, and therefore people cannot lead a fruitful discussion about it. People by definition are fanatics of their own identity.
What topics affect a person depends not on the topic, but on the person. For example, a discussion about a battle in which citizens of one or more countries participated is likely to be reduced to a political dispute. But with the discussion about the battle that happened in the Bronze Age, this is most likely not going to happen. No one will know on which side to be. So the cause of all the problems is not politics, but personality. When people say that the discussion has turned into a religious war, they actually mean that people have "turned to the individual."
That is why it is erroneous to assume that the question has no answer, since it provokes religious wars. For example, the question about the merits of programming languages ​​usually grows into a religious war — too many people consider themselves to be programmers in X or Y. And this usually makes people think that the question does not have the correct answer and all languages ​​are equally good. Obviously, this is not true: everything else that people create can be done well or badly, why should this not be so with programming languages? And, in fact, it is possible to lead a fruitful discussion and the merits of programming languages ​​as long as no one begins to "get personal."
To summarize, one can, in principle, lead discussions on any topic, as long as the topic is not part of the identity of any of the participants. Politics and religion, in this sense, are dangerous topics precisely because they are part of the personality of so many people. Although, in principle, you can talk about them normally with some people.
The most interesting thing in this theory is that if it is correct, it will not only help to understand which discussions to avoid, but also contribute to the emergence of good ideas. If people cannot keep an open mind about what has become a part of their personality, then the best solution is to allow as few things as possible to your personality.
As a rule, any mention of religion in any forum ends with religious disputes. Why? Why does this happen to religion, and not to talk about javascript, baking cookies or other topics that people discuss in the forums?
The difference with religion is that it does not seem to be necessary for people to be qualified enough to express an opinion. All they need is strong faith (beliefs), and anyone can. Not a single thread about Javascript grows as fast as a thread about religion, because in the case of Javascript, you actually need to sort out the question to leave comments. But with religion - anyone can be an expert.
')
And suddenly I understood - the same thing with politics. Politics, like religion, is a topic where there is no “threshold for peer review” in order to express one’s opinion. And again, all that is required is a strong conviction.
Does politics and religion have anything in common that would explain this? One of the possible explanations: they deal with questions for which there is no clear answer, therefore, it is safe to have the opinion itself. Since no one can prove an opponent wrong, every opinion is equally valid.
But still it is not. There are definitely political questions for which there are clear answers, such as how much the policy of a new administration will cost. But even such clear political questions share the fate of those where the answers can be blurred.
I think that the similarity of religion and politics is that they become part of a person’s personality, and therefore people cannot lead a fruitful discussion about it. People by definition are fanatics of their own identity.
What topics affect a person depends not on the topic, but on the person. For example, a discussion about a battle in which citizens of one or more countries participated is likely to be reduced to a political dispute. But with the discussion about the battle that happened in the Bronze Age, this is most likely not going to happen. No one will know on which side to be. So the cause of all the problems is not politics, but personality. When people say that the discussion has turned into a religious war, they actually mean that people have "turned to the individual."
That is why it is erroneous to assume that the question has no answer, since it provokes religious wars. For example, the question about the merits of programming languages ​​usually grows into a religious war — too many people consider themselves to be programmers in X or Y. And this usually makes people think that the question does not have the correct answer and all languages ​​are equally good. Obviously, this is not true: everything else that people create can be done well or badly, why should this not be so with programming languages? And, in fact, it is possible to lead a fruitful discussion and the merits of programming languages ​​as long as no one begins to "get personal."
To summarize, one can, in principle, lead discussions on any topic, as long as the topic is not part of the identity of any of the participants. Politics and religion, in this sense, are dangerous topics precisely because they are part of the personality of so many people. Although, in principle, you can talk about them normally with some people.
The most interesting thing in this theory is that if it is correct, it will not only help to understand which discussions to avoid, but also contribute to the emergence of good ideas. If people cannot keep an open mind about what has become a part of their personality, then the best solution is to allow as few things as possible to your personality.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/51449/
All Articles