The Assumption of Relativity

[Vinowen]

So I'm in Europe right now visiting friends and fam, and I have some downtime at the moment before I take off to another part of London, but I wanted to post something as I've been derelict in posting what with ls apps and social whatnots. I have little time to do this so I will type fast just to get it out there. My apologies in advance.

So here's something I think is finally ready to be brought out of an idea here and there and actually put into written form. I've been using this term several months whenever I hear it being brought up in conversation. As I am American and have most experience studying American culture, politics, and media I'm going to use as my pro-noun: American, though it can definitely be used in nearly any society that values politeness. And something that I will further test out in my travels here in Europa to see if this is a uniquely American phenomenon.

The Assumption of Relativity: A Growing Fallacy of Modern Discourse?

In one sentence: An assumption of relativity occurs when someone cedes that in any argument where there are two sides to be known that each side has relatively equal value almost by virtue of its very existence before actually gaining knowledge of said issue.

In the American mind I believe this is a result of the dualistic social fabric of the American. The American lives in a world that is most often defined by an appearance of duality, of polemics. In politics the American has two parties to choose from as a result of game theory. Three things conspire to make a two party system in American politics: First-Past-The-Post elections, No spending caps on elections, and finally, a lack of proportional representation.

Appearance is key, because often times these can be very much contrived since the American lives in an open society where physical coercion to side with an issue is in most circumstances not tolerated. Therefore groups will conspire to manufacture a sense of legitimacy using the cultural currency of science and cultural mores.

As it pertains to poli-soc issues: Aristotle was wrong when he said that human beings are political animals. At least when it comes to Americans. Not only is political literacy not very high among Americans, most people (and I'm talking 60-70+% majorities here depending on what data you're looking at) will not actually admit to being political. Therefore most political discussions entered into in America are done so through ignorance (in the strict sense of the term), but also oddly enough through sincerity. This sincerity lends itself to the social mores of providing someone the benefit of the doubt, even if that person is a total stranger or fictional media character.

This is also why sincerity of belief is so strongly valued in American discussions because it is the most common currency that everyone can readily acknowledge and identify with since most people assume that we're probably just groping around the dark anyhow.

Examples:

1_Tragedy of the commons: Think wikipedia science articles.
2_Evolution vs Creationism: This is mostly an American thing since Christianity in the west has no sense of the general western religious symbols that make up Christianity (it's a continuation or at most a hybrid of western religious tradition with the levant/occident more than anything else).

Problems:

1_If you think that one of the main purposes of mass broadcast media that resides in a set amount of channels is to educate and inform people, then this plays abnormally high. It's a common assumption in media that conflict sells. However, often times people don't know the ethically questionable process media producers do to actually find the people needed to go on a show. What's worse, a common assumption in mass broadcast media journos is that if they make the appearance of relativity then they're being objective, rather than playing into the hands of the public relations industry. Objectivity denotes reality, and an objective reality is something that we can test and is based on independent findings of factual evidence.

2_It's annoying. Like really annoying especially if it's something that you know about (and by know I mean in the biblical sense). The main reason: it puts the onus on you to be the dick and/or asshole in the conversation. When no one's really a specialist or is actually that knowledgeable on a subject the gravitation towards vague sentiments and a subconscious memory recall to some seemingly random talking point increases exponentially.

Understandably, everyone wants to be fair, however at the end of the day if presented with two choices one will not get simultaneously two different results in one universe.

Causes:

1_Niceness. No one wants to be the dick/asshole. And not a lot of people seem capable of arguing dispassionately so they throw chaff.
2_Laziness. This is an intellectual kind of laziness that in reality often serves to mask the participants actual beliefs due to cause #1.

Ack! Time's up!

[edited for spelling]

[N.U.]

Jefferson wrote in one of his letters about the Shay's rebellion that people have the right to protest even if they are misinformed. In that situation, it is the responsibility of the elected official to inform the public, not chastise them.

I can't say I entirely agree with that sentiment today as information is so readily available, but some parts of it do still ring true. It is still the responsibility of the elected official to inform the public, and it is still the people's right to protest even if misinformed or uninformed, but I think we're long past not chastising them for being mis- or uninformed.

[Vinowen]

I think I'm going to rename this the "Assumption of Relativity Cop-Out".

As I think the fact that it seems more of a cop-out is more an accurate description of what I'm complaining about.

[so niceeee]

your post pretty much describes any argument I've ever had with my sister with regards to religion, politics, oh and my personal favorite.....
my silly "man-made science!!!".


that one is def. my fav

[so niceeee]

Jefferson wrote in one of his letters about the Shay's rebellion that people have the right to protest even if they are misinformed. In that situation, it is the responsibility of the elected official to inform the public, not chastise them.

I can't say I entirely agree with that sentiment today as information is so readily available, but some parts of it do still ring true. It is still the responsibility of the elected official to inform the public, and it is still the people's right to protest even if misinformed or uninformed, but I think we're long past not chastising them for being mis- or uninformed.

though information is certainly widely accessible and available, that doesn't mean it's accurate information. primary source referencing becomes less and less popular these days thanks to bloggers with opinions.

[Daemonfey]

In the American mind I believe this is a result of the dualistic social fabric of the American. The American lives in a world that is most often defined by an appearance of duality, of polemics. In politics the American has two parties to choose from as a result of game theory.

Just to throw it in...

I think you'll recall the many times I've mentioned that there is never just two ways to see things. That simply "being" means that there is as many ways of perception as there is the amount of people "perceiving."

I do realize the shitty two-way street means more and more..."one-way."

Ok...that probably made no sense, so I'll just go to bed now.

[xvim]

There are always multiple ways to view an issue, true. Which is a primary factor in this Assumption of Relativity theory here. The relative value placed on various view points is often artificially leveled, whether it be out of politeness or intellectual laziness. The 'competing' ideas of Creationism and Evolution do not carry equal weight, they're not equivalent ideas at all, one is a fairy tale, even the people who believe in Creationism throw their hands up in the air and say the process is a mystery they can never hope to unravel, it's magic. It's not a matter of opinion, it's denial of fact. Granting mysticism and folk lore the same relative value as science and provable fact creates a climate where people can condemn the abortion doctor assassin while claiming to 'understand where he's coming from.' He's coming from CrazyMurder Town, he's not coming from a rational place that we need to accept and understand as a valid point of view. The only thing we need to understand about him is how to recognize when someone else is coming from the same place he is so we can prevent them from killing people too.

[N.U.]

Jefferson wrote in one of his letters about the Shay's rebellion that people have the right to protest even if they are misinformed. In that situation, it is the responsibility of the elected official to inform the public, not chastise them.

I can't say I entirely agree with that sentiment today as information is so readily available, but some parts of it do still ring true. It is still the responsibility of the elected official to inform the public, and it is still the people's right to protest even if misinformed or uninformed, but I think we're long past not chastising them for being mis- or uninformed.

though information is certainly widely accessible and available, that doesn't mean it's accurate information. primary source referencing becomes less and less popular these days thanks to bloggers with opinions.

Agreed, but that just stresses Vin's original point (I think, if I understood correctly) that everybody thinks everyone's opinion has equal weight on any given subject when it really doesn't. Why should opinion about the interpretation of a legal statute, for example, have the same amount if validity as neios/QX/Enki?

The answer is it shouldn't, but in today's internet where anyone with an opinion can post that opinion for all to see, it has become just that.

[Dunnadd]

A lot of journalists make the same assumptions - either because it's less work than researching or investigative journalism, or because their employers are making less people do more work so more of it is half-baked. In TV news i can't count the number of times i've heard lines like 'The truth is hard to know and probably lies somewhere in the middle (between two sets of opposing claims)'. Call me picky, but isn't it the media's job to do investigative journalism - or at the least a bit of research plus talking to some experts - in order to find out where the truth lies rather than just assume it's half way between one side's claims and the other's.

[Vinowen]

Jefferson wrote in one of his letters about the Shay's rebellion that people have the right to protest even if they are misinformed. In that situation, it is the responsibility of the elected official to inform the public, not chastise them.

I can't say I entirely agree with that sentiment today as information is so readily available, but some parts of it do still ring true. It is still the responsibility of the elected official to inform the public, and it is still the people's right to protest even if misinformed or uninformed, but I think we're long past not chastising them for being mis- or uninformed.

though information is certainly widely accessible and available, that doesn't mean it's accurate information. primary source referencing becomes less and less popular these days thanks to bloggers with opinions.

Agreed, but that just stresses Vin's original point (I think, if I understood correctly) that everybody thinks everyone's opinion has equal weight on any given subject when it really doesn't. Why should opinion about the interpretation of a legal statute, for example, have the same amount if validity as neios/QX/Enki?

The answer is it shouldn't, but in today's internet where anyone with an opinion can post that opinion for all to see, it has become just that.

I wonder if it's almost a weird side effect of everyone gets a trophy. There is I think a narcissistic aspect of it though. With people spending more and more of their time seeing people as distant virtual avatars on a myspace, facebook, or hyves. The result of which is perhaps a subconscious projection of their own sense of self, their own ego, onto any abstract and otherwise anonymous opinion. AKA: Surely no one could be so out there to do such and such because I know I would not, and so assuming 'surely they must think like me, except perhaps slightly different.' Aka: Brad tuns to Janet and says, "There's nothing to worry about Janet. They're probably foreigners with ways different than our own."

In TV news i can't count the number of times i've heard lines like 'The truth is hard to know and probably lies somewhere in the middle (between two sets of opposing claims)'. Call me picky, but isn't it the media's job to do investigative journalism - or at the least a bit of research plus talking to some experts - in order to find out where the truth lies rather than just assume it's half way between one side's claims and the other's.

I think the big thing is that the station has to be somewhat amorphous in order to stay malleable enough to be profitable in the long-term sense. Many people in the USA think dualistically and in an almost knee-jerk fashion go, "oh yeah we have MSNBC and Fox News in the states." But, what I think is not clear to people is that they are trying to make editorial shows that while the individual anchors may be sincere rarely ventures outside conventional narratives. Fox News is owned by NewsCorp (which just goes to show that "people" still can own "people" regardless of what Abraham Lincoln says). There have been a couple times when Rupert Murdoch was concerned that this investment in a network that would also be an editorial magnet for an AM Radio/decentralized American largely exurb-rural culture might get to the point where the people hired would possibly high-jack the network too far off what's considered in America to be a legitimate news source (which is far and wide, but if you're going to be on television...).

[Vinowen]

So I was wanting to revisit this thread again now that I'm back in the USA.

This little bit by Paul Krugman on April 3rd, is somewhat descriptive of what I'm talking about.

And it's really the phrase that he used that I liked: "We are not mirror images."

One thing Chait doesn’t mention, though, is that the willingness of right-wingers to believe this particular myth has a lot to do with projection. On the right, people are for smaller government as a matter of principle — smaller government for its own sake. And so they naturally imagine that their opponents must be their mirror image, wanting bigger government as a goal in itself.

But it’s not true. I don’t know any progressives who gloat over increases in the federal payroll or the government share of GDP. Progressives have things they want the government to do — like guaranteeing health care. Size per se doesn’t matter. But people on the right apparently can’t get that.

I think this is perhaps a more concise way or perhaps an aspect of describing an assumption of relativity. People locking themselves into worlds of their own design wherein their view becomes narrowed through a disassociation from a fact-based reality and is further reinforced by their echo chamber.

I also wanted to include this recent real life example of an e-mail transcript I received. I found myself unable to comment on it because the one of the participant's is a relative's employer. I've highlighted certain interesting statements all other editorial notations are in brackets ][. It occurs only between two people that I have codenamed Dr. Strangelove and General Turgedson (relative's employer). It gets the most 0_o and dehumanizing toward the end.

Here is your chance.

Everyone should get a shot at this. Takes all of fifteen seconds and that is if you take a look at his current stats.

First, I can't believe CBS is actually doing this.

Second, that they're brave and honest enough to actually show the ongoing polling results.

Take the poll yourself and when you submit your grading of how he is handling the top issues, a second page will come up showing You the current results of how America is voting.

Remember, this isn't Fox doing this. This is mostly people who watch CBS. That's telling.

DO THIS! and pass it on.

This is a CBS poll on Obama's first year performance....

I checked, it is really CBS webpage, I could not believe it either.

Here's your chance to grade the President!

Please forward this to your Friends!

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/19 ... shtml?tag=

Anybody seen the polling from the millions of people with no insurance? Oh yeah, forgot, CBS, TEA Party etc don't poll them.

Still waiting for that poll.

Don't get excited [Original E-mail Sender], 71% of voters and 52% of REPUBLICANS feel strongly your girl Sara Palin is un qualified.

I guarantee you that within a year Obama will be back on top. Ya know like it or not he actually said what he was going to do and then did it...kind of radical for a President to actually go do something. No wonder everyone is pissed...we miss those do nothings

Keep chasing those polls!

Sound’s like [Dr. Strangelove] here is still drinking the cool-aid.

“Millions of people who don’t have insurance huh?”

How many of those people have cell phones, cable, cigarettes, beer and just plane chose not to pay for insurance. Last I heard everyone gets treated at the E-room of any hospital in the country regardless of having insurance or not. It would be a lot cheaper to buy the “Millions of People” insurance policies rather than creating another Government controlled industries.

Wait until the big “Zero” (Obama) gets his fingers in to Boeing! Than see how you feel because heaven forbid, Boeing makes a “Profit”.

Ask your company HR people what this new insurance plan will cost them and how many more jobs the “lazy B” will ship over seas. I hope you don’t like your insurance policy that you have right now because it is going to “Change” and not for the better. You are going to have to share with the millions of others who don’t have insurance.

So on behalf of those millions of people I want to say Thanks [Dr. Strangelove] for sharing.

WOW...that is real Jones Town stuff! People are unemployed, uninsured, hungry, etc all because they CHOOSE to be. OK...show of hands...how many here who feel this way are currently uninsured??? Just remember there are more without every year...it grows. Our neighbors who had $100K / year jobs a year or two or three ago are now among those with no health care coverage...and many more who DO have jobs have no access due to restriction. I know this could NEVER happen to us.

I admit I am prejudiced. My wife has had the best and most expensive cancer treatment there is, we have lived in Canada for a couple of years where I paid taxes and she had a major surgery. Again...my view is not about quality of care or individual taxes or anything individual. It is about access to health care. I agree the federal government should have NOTHING to do with providing health care. BUT the private health care providers will NOT do it. They have been around for decades and they are more and more restrictive. Do you understand that? The "free market" that should take of everything takes care of only the best, most profitable business there is and provides ZERO coverage for the rest.

Had I lost my job with Boeing a few years ago like the 8+ million at the car manufacturers, banks, ENRON, brokerages, teachers, cops, lawyers and so on, today my wife would have NO insurance, ZERO. I know that because I checked. Her pre existing cancer would have prevented me from buying ANY coverage at any cost. I understand that that is OK with many people. This is all about haves and have nots.

A test...where was this outcry a little while ago when the multi TRILLION dollar prescription drug deal sailed through? Oh, wait , that was supported by millions of dollars in lobbying from pharmaceutical companies...never mind.

Good debate, but providing access to health care for the most people we can will always be a good thing to me. I had to pay for that stupid, wasteful BS in Afghanistan and Iraq, and those multi trillion tax cuts for people who make much more than I do and it is now time (past time!) for us to make sure we all have access to health care.

Just my view

Some good points [Dr. Strangelove], but do think that having the Gov mandate that you purchase a product is a good idea. It’s not only wrong it’s unconstitutional.

Trying to implement this health care plan right now in our current economic situation is BS. Why isn’t the big Zero fixing the job situation in this country? You know why, because Gov can not fix the job situation. Its companies like Boeing and others and small business owners who take the risk every day that will get this country back on track not some professional politicians that only worries about what he can get out of the things if votes on. But if the gov keeps placing burdens of those companies you will see this recession last a lot longer. Face it [Dr. Strangelove] he is in way over his head. Look at Governor Chris Christy [Gregoire]. Now that’s how you fix the problem. Cut spending and cut taxes. It takes a person with some balls to do that. Zero doesn’t have what it takes, balls.

The war on terrorism has kept the terrorist out of our country and keeps them busy on foreign soil. I guess you would rather we sit here and do nothing about the terrorists that want you dead because of the rights and freedoms you have. It seem you are ok with giving more of those rights and freedoms away by letting the Gov run more of your life. I’m not.

I’m grateful that your wife was in this country when she got sick. She was provided the best care that the world has to offer. Let’s hope that no one you know will get sick in the future because that great care is going to be diminished because of this new health care bill. Our only hope is that the people of this country (you included [Dr. Strangelove]) wake up and vote the A-holes out of office in 2010 and 2012 and put people in who will fix this mess.

So were do you stop at how much the gov can run your life [Dr. Strangelove]. Are you willing to let them take 50% 60% even 80% of you income? That way, if you become part of the unemployed the gov can take care of you. Don’t you think those friend of yours who lost there jobs making 100k a year should have been a little more responsible with the money they earned. Why didn’t they save more money? They had good jobs. Oh its because they spent it as fast as they earned it plus spent more money they didn’t have by buying a house they could not afford, cars, toys and vacation all on credit. Now you want to blame the Gov for their lack of control. They could have bought health care insurance instead and had money set aside to cover the premiums if they ever got laid off, I guess that was not important to them then. They were making over 200K a year. If they had lived with in their means they would not be with out health insurance today. It all comes down to personnel responsibly, something that Liberals like yourself don’t want to hear. You would rather have the gov take care of you.

As to the trillion dollar drug deal, go look at who was in control of the congress when that was past. The same A-Holes who want to take your money now.

Let’s see what gov helped programs have ever worked. Post Office, No they are Broke. Med-Care, NO they are broke. Social Security, No they are Broke. Am-Track, No they are Broke. Mike can you think of anything the gov helps run that really ever works? Now you think they can run the health care system?

Good luck.

Good points....

1) if it is unconstitutional (believe me, it's not) then I am baffled why these protectors of freedom allowed Medicare, Medicaid, state unemployment, and of course (pharmaceutical kick back program) the Medicare prescription drug program all to go unchallenged? For that matter why did states allow interstate highways to be built?

This is political nonsense. I liked and voted for McKenna, never again, just another political hack.

2) I agree Government cannot create jobs. Why didn't you speak up when Obama's predecessor reduced revenues by trillions all under the BS guise of "job creating tax cuts"? Except for cutting Warren Buffet's taxes by millions what good are those cuts doing today. I admire the job the governor's are doing but they have no choice. I personally am ashamed that we have our university students sitting in classes of 600-800, have laid off teachers, police and prosecutors, raised tuitions 7-8% per year AND the 85% who are still working have been asked to do NOTHING!!! All I hear is "no new taxes" while we levy higher costs and fees on students and lower benefits and resources on our schools, military personnel and public services.

3) Regan raised taxes and the economy did just fine, Clinton raised taxes and the economy did just fine. I am tired of continued subsidies to all kinds of business (reduced capital gains taxes, tax deductions for all sorts of personal expenses, "business expenses" etc). in the form of tax deductions while simply shifting the burden to the working middle class.

Just remember....NOBODY was even talking about this issue, let alone doing ANYTHING about it for the last eight years. I am NOT thankful I was in this country when my wife got sick, I AM thankful I worked for Boeing when she got sick. Millions are out there today in this country who can't get any care. She got the care she got because of Boeing.

I am really interested to hear if anyone is really interested in the common good of our people out there. My view is the people that are happy with the status quo still out number those that are have-nots. The demographics are changing and when things get bad enough, they will tip.

[Dr. Strangelove],

You sound like a man that has a heart. To bad you can not see the downward spiral this county is in. This health care plan is unconstitutional not like the few items you listed. Those are taxes this health care bill will force you to purchase a product. The unemployed don’t pay for any of those programs you listed because they don’t pay taxes. But this new plan will require you to purchase a product whether you are employed or not. Highways don’t even compare to this mandatory health insurance plan. If you don’t buy gas (which has taxes per gallon) you don’t need to drive which means you do not use the highways therefore you are not required to pay for the highways. No one will fine you if you use the highway with out buying gas. Highways were built as part of Eisenhower national protection plan so the military could mover around this country to protect you and me. [I'm sorry, but I gotta say something about this. That may be an explanation given to the interstate highway system, but it sure as hell isn't the why or how of what the US decided to build an interstate highway. Historical nitpicking I know, but still it's kind of important.]

Regan not only cut taxes he reduced taxes that is why the economy did fine. (Remember Carter, I would take him over the big Zero and Carter was the worst President we ever had.) Clinton benefited from those cuts and then slowed it down again by removing the tax cuts Regan provided. It was the Dem controlled congress that started this current recession by forcing banks to make substandard loans to people who should never had loans to begin with and starting programs they can not fund themselves.

Why do Liberals think that everyone should go to collage? 60% of the collage student that graduate default on the loans they took to go to school. Another 30% never work in the field they got degrees in. Most of the collages today are just liberal mind washing machine that create people that want a socialist system were we all feel good and get along. What BS. How many people do you think make a living because Warren Buffet (the big evil man he his) makes money. Do you think he just sits at home like some cartoon character on his pile of money NO! He reinvest his money in to companies like Boeing and other so they can expand and grow and Lord forbid make a profit so they can share it with stock holders and (hold on [Dr. Strangelove]) with the employees who pay taxes to fund the programs you listed. What a concept. MAKE MONEY TO SPEND MONEY. That’s called an economy not a “welfare state” which is what it sounds like you want. If you want that so bad why don’t you quit your soft job at Boeing and move on to a commune? That way you can share evenly with all the rest of the commune. This is called Communism. It worked so well for Russia. China liked communism so well that they had to develop capitalism to help the communist form of government. (How do you think they could afford to buy our debt, by making a profit).

It sounds like you should go back to Canada. Their system is more like what you want this country to become. That way we can keep our country for the truly hard working Profit making Capitalist that created the only country in the world that everyone want to move to. I don’t see Canada with a large immigration problem. Americans aren’t jumping the fence to get in to Mexico or Canada. Um I wonder why? Because our system works! We are a free society. That’s why you and I can voice our opinions with out the fear of oppression. I just don’t like being told what I have to buy and what happened if I don’t want to.

Read the attached link.

http://www.cbiz.com/page.asp?pid=8617

Have a great evening. I have to go home and take a swim in my piles of money that I have because I’m one of those bastard that owns a business that tries to makes a profit. Remember that anyone who takes a pay check is taking profit. That makes you one of the bad guy [Dr. Strangelove] because I know you don’t work at Boeing for free.

My first response to this exchange was mostly that it was "Sound and fury, signifying nothing..."

However, the projection from General Turgedson onto Dr. Strangelove I would say is fairly stark and amplified by the condescending use of repeatedly using Dr. Strangelove's name.

In reality it's not a real debate because General Turgedson can only argue one way since he's been conditioned by some pervasive assumptions about Dr. Strangelove's stance so throughout the exchange he has to continually try and force Dr. Strangelove into his "assumption box of projection" because he's never actually met Dr. Strangelove or knows anything about him other than where he works because of an e-mail tag.

[Vinowen]

Also, who knew that collages were such a subversive activity for our nation's youth.

[neios]

I have never seen a washing machine collage. I imagine it would be quite difficult to hang.

[Fuzzly]

You can't correct anyone in this country. No adult is allowed to correct someone else's children. Nobody can tell a parent how to raise their kids. Don't tell me how to do my job. My religion says the Earth is 24 years old, don't you try to correct me.

Look at Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution. Even when everybody knows their diets are causing severe problems for the children, everybody acts like "Who are you to tell us different."

We are the highest authority when it pertains to anything in our realm of experience. You have a science article that says something? Well one time I experienced something that goes against the conclusion so the article must be wrong!

[neios]

I just wish more dumb people weren't fully convinced that getting smarter is bad because smart people are fags, and that they'd stop mistaken their stupid for down-home amurikan commone cents.