That was a very good read and something I'll need to give good thought at, so kudos on that! I can also issue very heavyhanded criticism at other people's work sometimes — and sometimes I am aware of that, but other times I'm just on automatic pilot. This was a very welcome reminder not to be a jerk.
I also wanted to bring something to your attention:
It reminded me of an experience I had. I used to be convinced that gays = bad. I didn’t think about it much: some long time ago my dad told me that, and I remembered. Once I was in a bar with a party of liberals, and this topic came up. I immediately announced my position on the issue, and they’re like “Phil, that’s messed up”. And we started to argue. I haven’t ever thought about the issue seriously and didn’t have any decent arguments, but I couldn’t stop arguing nonetheless. I had one goal — to win and save face. I still don’t know why.
A very solid psychological theory establishes that people's opinions are mostly an emotional process, not a rational one. This is the reason why you can spend lots of time arguing with people who lack the knowledge to support their points of view and can't seem to find obvious flaws in their own arguments. Here's the thing: when we're arguing, rationality doesn't really make us look for truth — it only looks for arguments which justify our position. If we lack the foundations to build proper arguments or our position is untenable, we'll just make up crap ones — and still we'll believe in them every step of the way. That's why arguing about most stuff, but particularly about politics and religion, is a painstaking process where there's often very little to be gain. We don't want to change our minds — we want to persuade others, but at the same time, we often reject the possibility that we ourselves are in the wrong.
If this is something you find interesting, I'll strongly suggest you read Jonathan Haidt's «The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion». Otherwise, at least I hope that you found the above explanation useful.
I also wanted to bring something to your attention:
A very solid psychological theory establishes that people's opinions are mostly an emotional process, not a rational one. This is the reason why you can spend lots of time arguing with people who lack the knowledge to support their points of view and can't seem to find obvious flaws in their own arguments. Here's the thing: when we're arguing, rationality doesn't really make us look for truth — it only looks for arguments which justify our position. If we lack the foundations to build proper arguments or our position is untenable, we'll just make up crap ones — and still we'll believe in them every step of the way. That's why arguing about most stuff, but particularly about politics and religion, is a painstaking process where there's often very little to be gain. We don't want to change our minds — we want to persuade others, but at the same time, we often reject the possibility that we ourselves are in the wrong.
If this is something you find interesting, I'll strongly suggest you read Jonathan Haidt's «The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion». Otherwise, at least I hope that you found the above explanation useful.