I wonder if, in addition to the factors listed, we've moved up a Maslovian hierarchy of social issues, now grappling with tougher coordination problems.
It's simple to ban disposal of toxic sludge in a river; decarbonizing requires much broader buy-in. Same with desegregation vs. a stronger version of racial justice. COVID mask wearing and restrictions are similarly externality-laden.
Collective action problems seem to be polarizing, conducive to a sense of "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
While I agree with Arnold's enlightened view of argumentation based on the merits, it seems that polarized people dispute the merits of the process itself. Thus, reasoned debate itself becomes difficult. For example, on the left, those who believe in CRT also believe that free speech - an element of reasoned debate - is itself racist, and so refuse to engage in debate. An example on the right is the notion of "alternative facts," that is, the merits of patent falsehoods. How does one have a rational discussion with someone who doesn't believe in rational discussion or who won't acknowledge demonstrable facts?
2. Any dissension makes you wholly morally wrong, i.e. being "right" is all or nothing
3. The only cause of disagreeing with "moral correctness" is being a bad person
Then there is no desire to learn more or to discuss. The purpose of interaction is not to discuss and learn, it's to punish. And here is where I think you misunderstand a great deal of the problem, Prof. Kling. My dealings with third wave feminists and CRT advocates have not been discourses, but rather more akin to the pop culture view of the Inquisition.
I wonder if, in addition to the factors listed, we've moved up a Maslovian hierarchy of social issues, now grappling with tougher coordination problems.
It's simple to ban disposal of toxic sludge in a river; decarbonizing requires much broader buy-in. Same with desegregation vs. a stronger version of racial justice. COVID mask wearing and restrictions are similarly externality-laden.
Collective action problems seem to be polarizing, conducive to a sense of "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."
While I agree with Arnold's enlightened view of argumentation based on the merits, it seems that polarized people dispute the merits of the process itself. Thus, reasoned debate itself becomes difficult. For example, on the left, those who believe in CRT also believe that free speech - an element of reasoned debate - is itself racist, and so refuse to engage in debate. An example on the right is the notion of "alternative facts," that is, the merits of patent falsehoods. How does one have a rational discussion with someone who doesn't believe in rational discussion or who won't acknowledge demonstrable facts?
"Many causes: [...] other. . ."
Lack of interest. When you already believe that:
1. You are unambiguously morally right
2. Any dissension makes you wholly morally wrong, i.e. being "right" is all or nothing
3. The only cause of disagreeing with "moral correctness" is being a bad person
Then there is no desire to learn more or to discuss. The purpose of interaction is not to discuss and learn, it's to punish. And here is where I think you misunderstand a great deal of the problem, Prof. Kling. My dealings with third wave feminists and CRT advocates have not been discourses, but rather more akin to the pop culture view of the Inquisition.