[FRIAM] Poetry Slams vs biologic Percean Logic Machine Emulator

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

Very interesting connection! Thanks for the link.

I'm skeptical of the *schism* idea (including the recent bow shot by Steve equating steel/straw to trial by combat), though. I lump "talking past each other" in the same boat. The suggestion that point-counterpoint or talking past each other happens at all *disrespects* the community (of 2 in combat, as well as many in, say, neighborhood association meetings).

What gets beyond any narrative- or logic-based conception is the question "What should we DO?" That question will often weed out the bad faith participants right off the bat. Anyone who answers with "Nothing" is revealed to be bad faith immediately. But in that context, the risk of a long-term social dichotomy is that we'll normalize the answer "Nothing." 

Luckily, neither side of this situation (from insurrection to populism) is saying "Do nothing." That call to action is a very stable foundation for consensus, scientific or social, regardless of the apparent (but not actual) contradiction between the proposed actions. As wrong as they are, those gun-toting insurrectionists agree with *me* that action is necessary. All we need do is engage them in "What actions should we take?"

On 1/12/21 11:00 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:
> I am re-reading an article from the Stanford Social Innovation Review (https://ssir.org/issue/fall_2012 <https://ssir.org/issue/fall_2012>) by Andrew Hoffman entitled "Climate Science as Culture War" that might inform this thread.  The article is an interesting and still relevant dive into cultural processing and group cohesion dynamics.  Hoffman points out the difference between a "scientific consensus" and a "social consensus", the latter possible only when sharing common ground on identity, worldview, and belief systems, reinforced by one's own reference group. Political affiliation is the strongest correlation with political positions, and Republicans see scientific consensus, for example, as giving in to "liberal" views.
> 
> Using climate change as an example of an issue enmeshed in the "culture wars" of a decade ago, Hoffman writes about "the great danger of a protracted partisan divide", worrying that "the debate will take the form of what I call a 'logic schism'--a breakdown in debate in which opposing sides are talking about completely different cultural issues."  The theory of "cultural cognition" is important here:  strengthening our bonds to other groups as a way of strengthening our definition of self and staying consistent in our beliefs. Also, there are a series of positive feedback loops going on, affirming our information when it comes from sources inside our "cultural community" that support our existing positions 

-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ