|
|
|
|
@ -25,9 +25,9 @@ even more uncomfortable with. |
|
|
|
|
This style of rhetoric, the "taking apart an argument so I don't have |
|
|
|
|
to think about it too hard", has become very common in modern |
|
|
|
|
discourse. This is driven by the "fight or flight" response of the |
|
|
|
|
amygdala in our brains [^1]. A feeling of physical anxiety floods us when |
|
|
|
|
we are on the defensive, for whatever reason. And all logic goes out |
|
|
|
|
the window. |
|
|
|
|
amygdala in our brains. [^1] A feeling of physical anxiety floods us |
|
|
|
|
when we are on the defensive, for whatever reason. And all logic goes |
|
|
|
|
out the window. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many of the arguments you see online (and many offline too, don't get |
|
|
|
|
me wrong!) center around this emotional response and it is one that |
|
|
|
|
@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ Admitting to being wrong is seen as a weakness and connected to shame, |
|
|
|
|
a loss of status, and humiliation. And so, we are never wrong. We |
|
|
|
|
attack our intellectual oponents in order to relieve ourselves of the |
|
|
|
|
responsibility of having to engage with an argument that makes us |
|
|
|
|
uncomfortable. This is how filter bubbles get created too [^2]. |
|
|
|
|
uncomfortable. This is how filter bubbles get created too. [^2] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[^1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response#Reaction |
|
|
|
|
[^2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble#Ethical_implications |
