To think this is just a way of calling people thick

[SpringSnow]

AIBU to think that when left leaning types complain about people being "pitted against each other", they're actually trying to say that they think people who have opinions they don't like are being stupid or gullible, and to think that's insulting? To me it's like saying "you're too thick for this debate, obviously your opinions are fed to you by the ruling class/the Daily Mail". This isn't a thread about a thread, just a strategy I've seen used on threads where contentious issues that usually divide the left and right are discussed.

I think that humans are innately critical thinkers and realise when they're reading shite.

Now that's naive.

I'll be honest, I've got not bloody clue what half of this conversation means.

Nor me. I must be thick

Tbf this kind of argument where it is suggested that people hold a certain viewpoint because there is a bigger picture which they have failed to consider is not exclusively levelled at people with right wing views, it’s quite a common way to discuss issues. Off the top of my head i have seen it used recently about people taking a stand against single use plastic, eg ‘reducing household waste is a drop in the ocean compared to waste/pollution caused by industry’

I can see how it could be perceived as some sort of intellectual rank-pulling, but an alternate interpretation is that it’s just a way of saying ‘there’s another angle to look at this from, which is this’. I am not sure really how one could make such a point in disagreement with someone without implying that their argument or point of view is in some way wrong or lacking - of course the person with opposing views would think that wouldn’t they? That’s what disagreement is

motherhoodfail The DM is particularly bad, wouldn't you agree? But I wouldn't read just one paper, ever. I think a lot of people do read the DM and assume it's a proper paper when it is really mostly propaganda.

Thing is, a lot of people just go with the flow. So if you take a random discussion, I don’t know, say vaginal birth vs ECS, you are going to have a portion of those people having done very thorough research, and another portion having done very little research. Yes, those who have the ability (and time and desire) to look at things from all angles will have looked into every side of the argument. A lot of people though will have only looked at information that backs up their current beliefs, which does indeed pit one group against the other. It’s not saying they’re stupid (though no doubt some are) just that they’re getting information from sources that have an agenda and they’re going along with it. Sometimes that’s deliberate and sometimes it’s not. It is a fact though and I don’t see how it’s insulting to point that out. If everyone say down and thought things through carefully, considering all options and viewpoints, the world would be a very different place.

But some people aren't particularly well educated, or critical thinkers, or easily able to assess the quality of information presented to them. And not everyone is intelligent.

But you can't know what isn't being put in the paper, OP. I think you're being deliberately naive.

also, no one paper delivers a range of views effectively. You might read something and think 'that makes sense ' but not have thought about a different view. That's just being human. That's what commentary and debate is for. Over time, you may gradually become less likely to see things in a different light, especially if everyone around you holds your view. Humans are a lot more than critical thinkers.

Not at all. I’d just think it was 2 sides with opposing opinions; nothing to do with intelligence.

But some people aren't particularly well educated, or critical thinkers, or easily able to assess the quality of information presented to them. And not everyone is intelligent.

@maxthemartian - oh no, we can't allow people who aren't "intelligent" to hold their own views can we?

Eh? They can hold whatever views they like! I'm not stopping anyone.

I don't think anyone was saying that a lack of intelligence means you shouldn't be allowed to hold views. I thought the point being made was that if you were less intelligent, or simply less informed about a subject, your views might be more likely to have been formed from others' opinions.

E.g. (to take the thread others have mentioned as an example), I wouldn't offer an opinion on different ways of giving birth, as I know absolutely nothing about it - but if pushed for an opinion, I would look at those offered by people with more knowledge, and agree with the ones that seemed most sensible.

It's more about the quality of the argument than the argument itself.

A person or a paper makes a statement "I think x is is right because I've seen Y". This argument matters to them but it is a pretty rubbish argument or reason for doing something.

While 'I think X because on a population level Y has proved to be true and I know this because of study C" this is a good argument. However, to produce an argument like that requires time and effort.

The DM tends to make statements that can not be backed up and therefore lack rigour. This is linked with the rise of populism and the way some people despise experts.

People can think what they like but you must agree it is better for society if at least some of those opinions are fact based?

I think that humans are innately critical thinkers and realise when they're reading shite.

They're really not though, There's a whole load of research about conscious and unconscious bias and about positive reinforcement.

Even the most educated people are guilty of it, it's really important to challenge what you read and to be careful to not get stuck in an echo chamber. That's true of left and right.

I think experience /s , usually due to age, gives a much broader view of events. Plus it gives you many many more years of newspaper and book reading and media absorption to form your opinions, young people often dismiss oldies, but it will be the same for them when they are older. and wiser