Ideas are only the surface layer of an ego which is only concerned by survival
Arguing is pointless because it is at the level of ideas, but most people's beliefs are merely a surface layer to give their lives a semblance of coherence and control. Therefore, they will constantly look for justifications for conclusions that they must uphold, for this process is easier than rearranging one's beliefs, and much, much easier than changing one's life.
Examples and similar situations:
§1. Debates lead to defensive people, who look for arguments so as to justify their pre-supposed correct opinion. This leads to close-minded folk who look for the one "universal" worldview that will solve all of our problems, and demonize those who believe differently. Each side has already reached its conclusions - not through conscious thinking however, but through dogma mostly - and so almost all debates are essentially just a form of narrative warfare, and almost never a good faith container for intellectual discussions. I do think there is some value in a debate, in that it forces you to carefully examine what you say, but on the other side, I've seen it result in closed and rigid worldviews far too much that I don't bother with them, whether engaging in or listening to them.
§2. Those who are in power of the current system tell us that it is inevitable and the best thing there ever could be. How shocking. I wonder why they say such things? Could it be that they benefit from everyone believing that? Similarly, those who don't have power believe in ideologies that consist in distributing it, or tearing down the current social order.
This doesn't mean that either group doesn't make important points, this is about realizing something fundamental about politics: people believe in what benefits them, unsurprisingly. From that point on, all information and more importantly, the narratives that sprout from it, become laced with interest. Politicians aim at getting reelected, which isn't the same thing as creating a healthier social environment. Media aim at getting a lot of traction on their publications, which isn't the same thing as promote a healthy information ecology and encouraging constructive conversations. On and on. Incentive structures are more fundamental than content.
§3. Men who find it hard to talk and maintain relationships with women say that all women are crazy, that it's the fault of feminism, etc. Women who struggle finding good men say that men in general only care about sex, or are either sexist assholes or absolute cowards.
If someone isn't getting what they want (power, relationships, etc.), then building a theory about it and blaming other people or things is often easier than just trying again, and in different ways. That doesn't mean that the theories aren't valid and that there aren't ways in which our system makes it difficult for us to get what we want, just that theorizing is often a replacement for agency.
§4. And easier than theorizing is manufacturing excuses so as to resolve cognitive dissonance. As Visa puts it incredibly well here: "if you ever think someone isn’t creative you should look at their excuses". Excuses often create an entire web, in which every node refers to another one, often leading to circular reasoning, the most common one being "I don't do anything because I don't know what I want" and "I don't know what I want because I don't do anything". This pattern can be much more complicated and go incredibly deep, and rather than wrestle with it, I find it useful to use it as a curriculum: every excuse is an opportunity for learning and growth towards what you want.
As for other people's excuses, it's unlikely they want to change anyway, as sad as it to say. 1 Those who do, ask specific questions about things they've tried: "How do you approach gesture? My drawings always feel flat and stiff" rather than "How to get girls?" The latter just want to get results without truly changing themselves. That is much better than sitting around complaining about how no girl will talk to you though, or how every girl is just crazy and inferior to men, so I guess the result askers deserve some credit for having a good deal of agency, which simply needs to be refined through specifics and trial and error.
§5. With how much data there is nowadays, you could probably justify any theory with ample factual evidence. I don't agree with the postmodern view that there is no such thing as a fact, for me there most definitely are, but at the end of the day, human beings care about narratives to make sense of our world. These narratives rest upon a certain frame, a limited window through which we view the world and which contains certain assumptions too. And it is through those frames that propaganda actually happens. Lying is too obvious and creates far too much backlash. Framing is much more subtle, to the point that the frames of society become invisible to those who live in it. Arguing with those people is often a waste of time, because they've assimilated the frames so much that they are just seen as true.
Here are the general principles that I see behind the examples I've given. Essentially: minimizing cognitive dissonance is easier through beliefs than through action.
§1. Some beliefs could be described as load bearing. 2 If you imagine your life as a physical structure, some beliefs are at the bottom and allow the rest to stand on top of them. Unfortunately, these are rarely, if ever, solid in the face of reality. But to dismantle the tower so as to rebuild something is painful, along the lines of grief in fact, so people hold onto it for as long as they can. This is often called sunk cost fallacy, and is labelled as an irrational act, but it is worth looking at it for what it is: the denial phase of grief.
Some beliefs that fit this: that society can solve its problems through more technological progress 3, that safety is found in careers, mortgages, or anything the world provides, that political reforms can address the problems we find ourselves in, that one's dysfunctional relationship can be "fixed" with just a few conversations, that fulfillment is matter of material success, etc.
§2. People constantly feel the need to come up with explanations while coming across situations they don't understand, almost instinctively. This is useful, but it has many problems.
First of all, when applied to all of life, it can turn the mysteries of experience itself into problems to solve and understand through the mind. Ever looked at a sunset and shared how beautiful it is, and were met with someone who immediately felt the need to explain the phenomenon? This mystery-explanation mismatch is why some very intelligent people would make for awful companions in life.
The second major problem is that the main purpose for those explanations is not understanding but deferring confusion. In practice, people are content with overly simplistic frames of cause and effect - yeah everything that sucks right now is because Trump is our president - or simply referring to some other unquestioned thing - this math class will be useful for the next math class you see - or just coming up with batshit crazy explanations that sound nice, like how xxx - add a better example
And the third major problem I see is that those explanations are never tied to questions of real importance. As Thomas Pynchon said: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers." We are surrounded with, supposedly, smart people answering away at all sorts of technical questions, pondering over thought experiments and playing labyrinthic games through the endeavor of academic philosophy, yet none of those matter at all to the core of life: freedom, relationships, belonging, health, curiosity, clarity, peace, amongst other things. We know more and more about things which are increasingly irrelevant to our lives, each person digging up a reality tunnel that at most two or three other people will ever see, and then we wonder why people feel lost, alienated and lonely.
§3. Ideas often come up as a way to dissociate, from reality or emotions mostly. The nature of the mind is that it simulates rather than perceives, which is incredibly useful and powerful, but has a way of making people lose track of that sleight of hand (or mind?). The simulation is appealing because it is much easier to grasp, and also because it is something that one can control.
That control however is illusory, as opposed to the skills that a sailor acquires after years of hard-earned experience, which allows him to navigate the sea of life, as opposed to attempt to control it and delude himself that his endeavor is only a few mistakes away from being complete. That is to say, those who speak much about great ideas, especially on the behalf of others, are probably just looking for ways to control their small bubble of influence, which is ultimately utterly powerless against the forces of decay and death. Civilization is mankind's attempt to armour itself against reality, but in the face of death, everyone stands naked.
At the end of the day, talk is cheap, action is hard. That doesn't mean that talking or thinking are useless, but if someone talks a lot, especially on the internet, you better believe they are not engaging in doing the difficult things they should be doing. I am in fact talking about myself here, which is why this essay must end here.
1 The agency problem is definitely more complex than how I'm framing it, but it's been the case for much of my experience. Some people look for excuses and obstacles, others look for possibilities and solutions. No doubt that our environments shape us in that regard, but I find that with my finite time and life, I'm much more interested in spending time with those who wish to build things. My general prompt for developing agency would simply be: "Take baby steps towards what you want, and reflect on the specifics". If someone then says "I don't know what I want though" or "I don't know how I would pursue it" then I would just tell them to try anything. Unless you terribly fuck up your life, literally anything is better than stasis. And if they don't hear that, then I would just walk away.
2 Borrowing Visa’s terminology. See also this great tweet about load bearing coping mechanisms.
3 See Darren Allen’s excellent piece on the technological system.
Go back to the list of blog posts
2024-02-09