Why I sometimes hate discussing politics with others
I participate on a few different message boards that cover political issues. I can't count the number of times I've tried to break through and unpack bad argumentation, where the continued arguments are about something so trivial, and then try to introduce how to solve the problem rather than how to continue to complain about irrelevant connections.

Practically every time, one of two things happens:

1. My re-examination of the whole paradigm is dismissed with a one sentence response that is based on first level analysis, when what I'm talking about is already at least second-level analysis. Most of the time, in order to explain the leap to second-level analysis, I have to explain the situation in first-level analysis before making the jump to the next level. The argument is constantly bogged down in clouded thinking of individuals who are incapable of going beyond first-level analysis so they never even achieve the second-level that is required for second or higher level analysis. In other words, if it's not left with an explanation that makes sense in soundbyte terminology, there's no way to explain anything to anyone.

This is why much of our disagreements in this country will remain stupid disagreements. People are not interested in going to the next level to see how subsequent events may affect the long-term picture, showing why first-level events are not necessarily enough to understand the full ramifications. So, we end up getting stuck in stupid arguments. ("the war in Iraq is justified because we went after a bad person", "people are poor because they don't want to work", "capitalism is a bad form of economics because it exploits people", "my car won't start because when I turn the key in the ignition, nothing happens.")

2. If someone realizes second-level analysis is necessary, my posts get completely ignored, and the arguments continue in first-level analysis because that's easier to understand. It doesn't matter that what I propose might be the solution that benefits both sides. I'm limited in communicating at kindergarten level with people who are convinced that my inability to "understand" an issue at the most basic, needs-serving level means that they are on a higher level, even though I understand their perspective, yet they aren't willing to even try to learn mine. I cannot describe the amount of times where I've tried to interject with a "none of that matters. If we do THIS, then we can solve both sides" and that interjection is ignored so we can argue about caveman politics. Yeah, it may appear to be an elitist argument, but I don't see it that way because unlike an elitist, I am willing to communicate at that basic level and argue with the best of them. Is it asking so much to hope that the argument can go beyond an evil state of nature theoretic design?

It gets really frustrating. One of my talents is that I have the ability to communicate on a level that can interest a lot of people, from whatever educational background. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that I am capable of trying to drag everyone along to broaden their horizons if they are not willing to take the journey. That is probably what is most frustrating of all, because unlike elitists, I believe everyone is capable of understanding issues at a higher level of analysis; I just haven't figured out how to get them interested enough to try.

Stumble It!