Posted: Feb 28, 2010 4:01 am
Yes, I was trying to draw on certain points in that video to make a point. But it probably wasn't that successful.
The thing is I watched some of these people I knew really well through these debates latch onto various forms of TB. One I know is into dianetics, some decided they didn't believe in money. I even know the predicates many of them built their belief system on. My grandmother (mothers side) had 14 kids and my mother had 6. My cousins run into several hundreds. It's no small group of people. What I noticed was a common thread, or set of variables, that set people up for TB. These variables was more predictive of peoples interpretations of their family experiences than the family experiences were on the variables.
The variables was at the most basic level how authority related to morality, with the wild card being the degree on which morality is considered absolute. Absolute truth can also replace absolute morality in this equation. When morality is taken as an absolute TB is an almost certainty, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they land on. The relationship between authority and absolutes tends to land a disproportionate share in the political right wing. Ironically authority can be either moral or immoral, good or evil, in both left and right wing. The case that doesn't believe in money put authority in the evil category, yet is right wing. The 'No True Scotsman' plays a pivotal role to maintain absolutes in the face of seemingly incongruent variables. TB in the left wing will more often replace absolute morality with absolute truth, but not always. Morality also has two sides, one hinges on control to maintain morality while the other hinges on an absolute lack of harm.
I could make a long list of the various combinations, but everybody lives within a spectrum across these extremes. I even have a default perspective, within a combination of those variables, that I must actively set myself outside of in order to modify that default in individual circumstances. Yet I've also noticed that if I actively shift my default perspective in a certain direction more often than the other, my automatic default will start shifting in that direction. The dynamics is at work in all of us regardless of upbringing. It's when we accept any hard rule as an absolute barometer of truth that we begin to slide inexorably toward TB. It can be quiet minor in the beginning, but through a long term process of cognitive dissonance everything must eventually land on one side of the fence or another, with 'No True Scotsman' guarding the gate.
Hopefully that did a better job of articulating my point.
The thing is I watched some of these people I knew really well through these debates latch onto various forms of TB. One I know is into dianetics, some decided they didn't believe in money. I even know the predicates many of them built their belief system on. My grandmother (mothers side) had 14 kids and my mother had 6. My cousins run into several hundreds. It's no small group of people. What I noticed was a common thread, or set of variables, that set people up for TB. These variables was more predictive of peoples interpretations of their family experiences than the family experiences were on the variables.
The variables was at the most basic level how authority related to morality, with the wild card being the degree on which morality is considered absolute. Absolute truth can also replace absolute morality in this equation. When morality is taken as an absolute TB is an almost certainty, regardless of which side of the political spectrum they land on. The relationship between authority and absolutes tends to land a disproportionate share in the political right wing. Ironically authority can be either moral or immoral, good or evil, in both left and right wing. The case that doesn't believe in money put authority in the evil category, yet is right wing. The 'No True Scotsman' plays a pivotal role to maintain absolutes in the face of seemingly incongruent variables. TB in the left wing will more often replace absolute morality with absolute truth, but not always. Morality also has two sides, one hinges on control to maintain morality while the other hinges on an absolute lack of harm.
I could make a long list of the various combinations, but everybody lives within a spectrum across these extremes. I even have a default perspective, within a combination of those variables, that I must actively set myself outside of in order to modify that default in individual circumstances. Yet I've also noticed that if I actively shift my default perspective in a certain direction more often than the other, my automatic default will start shifting in that direction. The dynamics is at work in all of us regardless of upbringing. It's when we accept any hard rule as an absolute barometer of truth that we begin to slide inexorably toward TB. It can be quiet minor in the beginning, but through a long term process of cognitive dissonance everything must eventually land on one side of the fence or another, with 'No True Scotsman' guarding the gate.
Hopefully that did a better job of articulating my point.