In any matter there’s the:

BASELINE / CONSENSUS / PARADIGM

 

Sometimes it’s simple to gauge, sometimes not

Sometimes the consensus of the mass is obviously the reflection of the current state of the technology/culture/economy/politics,

e.g. that cars are the default means of transportation. No secret knowledge on the matter that disrupts the consensus

Sometimes the deciding paradigm is understood but by handful of individuals

e.g. string theory in physics. No brilliant genius sitting in some basement has a better theory as yet

 

Of course with the latter — we can just trust the authority, can we not?

And historically this has worked out fine, with a few exceptions

Because, contrary to popular belief — authority is earned.

It’s not invented, not bought, it’s earned

Oh and yes, the more we achieve in this world — the more it speaks of competence

And this competence is distilled into knowledge

And this knowledge is then institutionalised

And thus authority emerges

(*and yes it is sometimes perverted, but the OVERARCHING MECHANISM of authority is not false some social construct — it is a reflection of expertise and ability, which are real, and which are earned)

 

But of course, sometimes there’s a conflict of different authorities

And of course, in many subjects the masses are in conflict too

We always speak of polarisation, as though there’s nothing we manage to agree on — but this of course is not true.

We, the actual members of the modern western society — agree more on than we disagree

It’s just that it is that which we disagree on — which is what we tend to focus on

Focusing on what we agree on would be tautological, we already agreed on it, it’s assumed, no need to repeat ourselves, right?

 

…No, need to repeat ourselves, in general.

That’s why we have illusion of this profound disagreement, when really we agree on so many things

HOWEVER,

We actually get TOO comfortable in assuming consensus between one another,

And assuming what is the BASELINE / CONSENSUS / PARADIGM

In particular when we don’t naturally come into contact with other opinions

To put it simply: we are too quick to assume that our beliefs are the mainstream beliefs

(while simultaneously still overestimating the degree to which we are disagreeing with one another)

 

Why is this a problem?

Because understanding the ASSUMPTIONS, the CONTEXT — is the absolute INEXORABLE FIRST STEP in any debate, any conversation, any dialectic

And when we inaccurately assume certain parameters as shared, when we erroneously take them for granted — of course all the subsequent arguments from those premises will be in disagreement (or at best accidental agreement)

 

Therefore the absolute first step is to actually define the terms

 

This is ESPECIALLY true if you’re making an exceptional claim

in which the burden of proof is on you to convince others that it makes sense,

since by DEFAULT they can be expected to hold NON-exceptional believes

I think we profoundly overrate exceptional claims, grand statements, conspiratorial

without nearly scaling our scepticism enough

I’m not a big fan of dumb scepticism. Lot of scepticism is stupid, where it’s just a nitpick on someone actually making something exceptional work. We should be sceptical of dumb, lazy scepticism

But in general the more something escapes the norm — the more sceptical we should be

 

Indeed, the problem of the norm and deviation from it is again the problem of gauging what IS the norm, what is the BASELINE / CONSENSUS / PARADIGM

And if that is failed, misunderstood — then even innocuous claim will be misleading, specious

Because if you failed to grasp what IS the normal, what is the COMMON ground, what is the accepted paradigm — then likely what you’ll propose will, by definition, by different, and thus, well, abnormal, exceptional

 

And this is why we looked at the problem of the norm, the normal, the baseline

Because it’s not so clear what it is

IN PARTICULAR if you are insulated

It’s not trivial

Therefore must be every now and then questioned

 

Therefore

Every now and then,

OF COURSE ask yourself,

“what if I’m wrong?”,

…but this is easy

the trick is to EVEN ask:

“what is something that I TAKE FOR GRANTED — but others may not?”

What knowledge do I possess, that others may not possess?

e.g. if you’re a string theorist — MAYBE not everyone shares the same theoretical baseline to now discuss some weird branch of it

but of course, also,

Which of my assumptions do I believe to be an ABSOLUTE NORM, absolute COMMON SENSE? — when in reality not everyone actually shares those assumptions,

e.g. shocking as it is — there are people who don’t share your assumption that the planet earth is round

This example is of course a bit extreme

But we believe plenty unsubstantiated nonsense, like a bearded guy in the sky

 

…Btw see what I did there?

I ASSUMED right of the bat that it’s “unsubstantiated nonsense”, the belief in god

I smuggled that assumption, I didn’t consider that someone may profoundly disagree with that statement

With people around me, it’s pointless to consider that point, we’re can’t be bothered with fairytales that have absolutely zero correlation to our problems

With someone else — it’s something very important, you know, that I accused them of believing unsubstantiated nonsense

Of course it’s relevant to our following dialogue that I believe that they are prone to believe nonsense without proof

 

So, again, to simply conclude:

-OF COURSE when you make exceptional claims — you better lay exceptional foundation, so that others can follow how you emerged on those exceptional conclusions, so exceptionally different to theirs

-but IN GENERAL — think twice before you state one of the things you take absolutely for granted

 

The latter is really not that complicated,

If you know SOMEONE who espouses those beliefs — that’s already some food for thought. You can extrapolate that those people DO exist.

And you know, maybe even more striking example is…:

if half the fucking country has so starkly different views to you… then maybe the VIEWS you take for granted, assume to be so OBVIOUSLY TRUE — are NOT SO OBVIOUS

Which doesn’t mean they are right or wrong

Just means that maybe you misunderstand what the baseline is

 

I’m tired of someone stating a controversial view like it’s a FACT

That’s absolute clown behaviour

We call it “lack of self awareness”,

But epistemically it’s just being a fucking dumb dogmatic cunt, who has their head so deep up their asses that they don’t even realise their fringe beliefs are NOT normal

I’m tired of that

But I’m as tired of someone stating an OBVIOUSLY NON-OBVIOUS, DEBATABLE, CONTESTED belief, as though it’s truth

Almost waiting to get into a violent conflict with one of the MANY that don’t espouse that view,

There’s plenty such subjects, where distribution is, for instance, 50% to 50%, or 70% to 30%, etc.

Is 30% little? Absolutely not. That’s not fringe

So acting as though those are some nazis, extremists, and your beliefs are the NORMAL beliefs, the NORMS, the RIGHT THINGS to ESPOUSE — is as delusional as it is insulting

 

Therefore please,

Try to maybe put a NUMBER on the BELIEF you held,

As well at the counter-belief

Number such as APPROXIMATION:

-how common it is, within a group, %

-how well substantiated it is, 1 to 10

-how likely it is to be true, 1 to 10

etc.

So that you get a little bit of meta-awareness to:

-where you think you have consensus — but you don’t

-where you think you don’t have consensus — but you do

-where your views are truly original, for better or worse

-which ‘extremist’ views are not so extremist after all

-etc