John Pfaff: I feel like this gets it completely backwards in a way: Everyone is consistent. What can be tricky is figuring out HOW. That, to me, was the point of Cowie’s Freedom’s Dominion: racist whites’ use of “liberty” (to be free of Feds, but cruel to Blacks) WAS consistent: with a desire to oppress.

I feel like this gets it completely backwards in a way: Everyone is consistent. What can be tricky is figuring out HOW. That, to me, was the point of Cowie’s Freedom’s Dominion: racist whites’ use of “liberty” (to be free of Feds, but cruel to Blacks) WAS consistent: with a desire to oppress.

This is why it strikes me calling ppl hypocrites is pointless—not just bc ppl double down when insulted, but bc in a very real way it is WRONG. If you want to shape ppl’s views, you need to find what links their takes together and reach them THAT way (that was cultural cognition’s point, tight?).

My claim that someone’s views are hypocritical is correct only if we share a common framework. But most of the on-line “oh, but you think it’s fine to do that over THERE” alleged dunks are usually aimed at someone w a different framework. So their answer almost always is “well… yeah.”

But it is SO much easier to assess someone else’s takes thru my lens and then accuse them of inconsistency than to do the hard (or, honestly, depressing) work of understanding their throughline first. Feel like this is some sort of corollary of the fundamental attribution error.

I think you’re attributing a colossal amount of power to the rational higher functions of the human brain that they probably don’t have. We mostly act from deep (and probably inherent) evolved drives and tendencies, and then retro-engineer rational justifications after the fact.

To that extent, *none* of us are "consistent". The increasingly common take of the political Left (broadly my tribe, btw) that a bugbear Right Wing is simply Evil and Chaotic, while the Left is the storehouse of all that is good and wise in humans would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous.

The question is not whether you can shape others' views, but whose views can be shaped. The person you're arguing with is usually the least receptive audience for any argument, irrespective of how it's framed. So, yes, you can soften and maybe win them over, but you can hammer and win over others.

“What’s the matter with Bluesky”. Or, why don’t people post their own self-interest.

Agree about hypocrisy. The other side has a different moral framework that is consistent even though it is wrong. @georgelakoff.bsky.social’s Conservative Moral Hierarchy:

And Country above people

I think, even by my own lights, I am legitimately inconsistent sometimes. But this observation about most accusations of hypocrisy is terrifically insightful and usually accurate. Thank you.

Yes. 1. Cops DIDN’T go into an elementary school to stop a man shooting children 2. Cops did wade into colleges to arrest unarmed students How many consistent elements can we find? Yes, several consistencies

Yes, you have to take consistency as axiomatic, and from there build a theory of the person's actual beliefs, motivations, etc

"while people tended to make the (fundamental attribution) FA bias when making attributions about others, when they were asked to make the same assessment about themselves they tended to make situational attributions. In other words, the FA bias was reversed." Social Psychology - Crisp

Often the hypocrisy we spot is really only in how we frame what we think their beliefs/facts are. If you believe Trump is being framed then you are consistent with your belief in true "law and order."

Post