Snobbery, Know-It-Allism, & Unearned Superiority

catgun

…are three contributing killers of discourse, especially online.

Aspiration for intellectual infallibility is killing the very root of discourse: curiosity. Help control the cat population!

We’ve reached an Orwellian opposite where the people with the closed, impenetrably stubborn minds claim to be the most open. But “LOL, right, like I’M a square!” is of course a square assertion; such a person has boxed his or herself in, and desperately clings to conserve their idea of their identity.

I find that boring. My favorite people are aware that they’re works in progress – those who don’t claim perfection, but strive to improve, and empathize with those doing the same. When someone who’s, say, not a senior citizen, presents an image of full formation, I’m turned off. Hipsters and hicks alike. Gimme humility!

It’s not just the lack of (self-)acceptance or need to remain “correct.” It’s the requisite will to confirm any biased thought as they see fit, to serve whichever narrative they’ve decided serves them best. There’s no real entrance or exit allowed with such a mind – a veritable pre-golden ticket Wonka factory.

Lack of curiosity is unnatural – we have only learned all we’ll ever know once we’re dead. Ideally we progress until then. Confirming one’s biases while rejecting all conflicting information is not progress, unless one’s goal is to steel and suffocate their brain.

Enter Unquestioned Political Party Allegiance.

“But I’m well-informed!” Where do you get your information, and do you also read purveyors of the opposite ideology? Indoctrination ≠ information.

“My political allegiance is correct; the other is evil!” Do you realize the “other” (you little hypothetical xenophobe, you!) thinks that, too?

“All the other side does is LIE!” See above, but more so, why mindlessly align with a major political party, instead of defining your own unique principles? Why so binary?

Cling, cling, cling.

Square. Boring.

Destructive. Believing we’ve chosen the correct political party (or religion, though politics seems more prevalent) leads to instant, unearned feelings of superiority, disrespect for the other, and in turn, no ability to debate them.

We sideline ourselves, consuming media from representatives of our chosen ideologies who think, research, talk and debate for us.

We can’t magically internalize these representatives’ knowledge, so when we’re presented the opportunity to debate real principles, too many of us can only resort to slogans, ad hominem personal attacks, or aggressively changing subjects in the absence of our ability to articulate.

We feel artificially empowered having (chosen to have) been convinced that we’re on the correct side, and therefore feel justified defending that side however sloppily or despicably as necessary to “win.”

But no one wins. The result: not only are no minds changed, but we’re further divided from opposition, further convinced that we’re good/smart and they’re evil/stupid.

A lot of perfectly good relationships are ruined because of this. How many times have you seen the unfortunate “UNFRIEND ME IF YOU BELIEVE X, Y, Z, etc” post online? These are exactly the type of people we should want to debate! There’s already some common ground and a mutual respect to build off of – ideal foundation for mind-expanding discourse. Because of this I’ve never understood the derision/fear of talking politics at the proverbial family get-together. We can always agree to disagree – or better yet, admit a deficiency of knowledge in a given field, and do some research before meeting up again.

For each of us there was a time when we first began to cling to whatever biases we hold. We weren’t always so stuck or set. We have a pulse and therefore the ability to change our minds. It’s a privilege and a vital strength.

That said, choose your battles out there. Snark, sarcasm (as well as non sequiturs, or any other tools for hiding in plain sight), and ad hominem attacks are several of the biggest “tells” that one is arguing with a brick wall – a person who denies his or herself (or never learned) the ability to think critically, independently, and curiously. Often they have tied their very identity to their idea that they’re of superior intelligence and morality, and will fight like a cornered badger to desperately conserve this and to avoid humiliation, rather than improve or learn something new – such would be to admit a deficiency; heavens no!

Pleas and Suggestions:

Encourage questions, rather than ridicule someone who doesn’t already know or believe something that you do. And don’t interpret being questioned as intentionally impolite. “How DARE that Troll ask me to articulate my beliefs!”

Encourage discourse. It’s the foundation of real progress. If people can’t discuss their disagreements, they will ultimately regress to violence. This can(/will?) end very, very terribly (see: the French Revolution – seriously, it’s mind-blowing).

Entertain others’ opinions. If your principles are defined (reminder: “I belong to Political Party X” is not a principle) you will be able to more easily navigate the rocks in the water.

Admit deficiencies. It’s the only way to move on. I saw a new one the other day, in a YouTube comment “debate” where someone replied, “Well OBVIOUSLY I was wrong about …” – in other words: “No DUH – only a MORON like You wouldn’t realize that I realized I was wrong.” I don’t know if that’s a step in the right direction or not.

I talk or e-mail with at least 40 unique customers a day for my job, many of whom need help, but have no idea how to ask for it, or are ashamed to have to ask, so they’ll adopt a combative voice. Insecurity and deficiency should be handled with humility, not aggression.

Civilization itself requires good communication, discourse and debate. Unless we’ve simply grown tired of this experiment in civility, and want SICK BURNS and SLAMS and REKTS instead; when you see these online spats, it’s rare that anyone appears to actually want to help or even change anyone’s mind, so much as claim victory or superiority.

I wonder about a link between exploration and empathy — the kindness and patience we gain for others from our own willingness to wade into the wilderness of uncertainty.

What do you think? Holler,

-Matty

4 thoughts on “Snobbery, Know-It-Allism, & Unearned Superiority

  1. i think you’re spot on! This is all so well said… im going to try not to attack said Wilderness of Uncertainty. Everyone needs to at least be capable of a visit to here though. (I myself call it reality)

    Its hard seeing it from all sides, but once you find that happy place (balance) and can ACCEPT that ‘everyones right and everyones wrong’ or maybe that ‘no ones right and no ones wrong’…. then you are on your way to the next step in the right direction! This article should be the front page of the pamphlet for the survivors guide to this uncertainty!

    *readers- the first time you wanna debate politics or have an opinion on a better example than the French Revolution while reading this… scroll to the top and start again!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Great article Matty. I know I’m am not as formerly educated as the next person, maybe that’s why I am open to debate and learn another’s view. Too often do I see, what I take as arrogance, people so firm in their believes that their mind will not budge. I’m getting a little on in years but I hope my brain will never stop believing that it can learn. You CAN teach an old dog new tricks! On the contrary, when did that well travelled cat loose it’s curiosity? I’m smart enough to realize I’m not the smartest guy in any room and the biggest room in my life is the room for improvement. I’ve learned many valuable lessons from “simple minded” folks, while sometimes a scholarly person can teach me little. I learned to love my life and not take it for granted from the most disadvantaged people who seemingly live a much happier life than i do. How is that? Never stop learning you know-it-all’s. Thanks for the good read.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “…are three contributing killers of discourse, especially online.”

    I think those last two words are so inherent to the decay of constructive discourse that we have seem to seen run amok. I am not going to try and get all McLuhan here. I know this topic has been covered with every type of sauce many times over so I’ll be brief. I struggle to call social media exchanges as ‘conversations’.

    ‘Intellectual Ping Pong’ has a diminished chance when the other person has as long to type a response as they wish, or choose to not response at all. When they are not bound to the human act of an honesty check through eye contact. Inflection, intonation and non-verbal communication is cast aside, but emojis are there. I think the popularity of emojis is a direct response to the inability to show ‘feeling’ (however simplified they are) in 140 characters.

    Also, in a pub conversation, there is not a running total of thumbs up and thumbs down to a back and forth. This is not to say ‘real-life’ conversation is infallible, just as you wrote. It is to say that if I had to make a top ten of my most positive productive exchanges in recent memory, none of them would be through a social media site. (Yes I realize I am typing a response to a posting, but I know where you live so I can verbally and physically assault you in real life).

    I am not looking to rid CyberSpace of back and forth, however petty. I just don’t look for my mustard in the bread aisle.

    You are great at getting a mind excited to think.
    TB

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Pingback: It Doesn’t Matter if Health Care is a Right | Matthew t Day

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s