Information Selection and Political Polarization – A Pledge to our Readers
We do what we can to keep the battle of ideas raging.
Here at Tallinn University of Technology, our professor Wolfgang Drecshler pointed out today that as ICT enables more choice in where to get political commentary and analysis, the tendency is that people choose to only get it from sources with whom they already agree. The predictable effect is more political polarization and less real public debate.
To the extent that the authors of Evolution-Revolution are amongst those who humbly provide political commentary and analysis, we pledge to do what we can to help prevent such polarization. By eclectically embracing the ideas of the political left, right, and radical center, we sincerely hope that none of you will agree with us all the time.
8 comments
I agree.
I am lookin forward to more news from the radical center ;)
Why is bipartisanship and/or a centrist label held as a virtue in so many places by so many people, when the same compromised or "blended" principles, applied to engineering a complex physical instrument, will invariably lead to catastrophic failure?
Please don't misunderstand this perspective as suggesting a repression of ideas or a lack of civilized debate. As always, the proprietors of this venue should be commended for their broad-minded approach to understanding the sciences of life and history.
However, there are also times when conclusions must be drawn and the correct answer defended unapologetically. At such times, the idea of "healing a schism between right and left" makes about as much sense as "healing the schism between right and wrong."
Nevertheless, due to our natures or our histories, we seem inexorably drawn to espouse "The Center," which lacks definition except perhaps as a varying function of space and time. Why is this our proclivity? Do we fear debate? Do we fear that our civilizations cannot withstand rational, dissenting discussion? Or do we fear that we ourselves cannot maintain civility and rationality? Perhaps the answer is simply that we seek to abdicate responsibility. Regardless of the answer, it is a curious property of the present human condition, and one that is likely to determine a great deal about our futures.
Very well put indeed. Now, radical eclecticism is not about healing schisms or promoting bipartisanship – quite the opposite. The center does not need to be a place of agreement and compromise between right and left (or wrong) – it can also be one of partisan opposition against both extremes. As such, the authors liken themselves to Butch Cassidy (Stephan) and the Sundance Kid (Jørund) in the last scene of the movie of the same name.
I wholeheartedly agree that it is important not to lock oneself to a certain perspective. As Nietzsche said, objectivity comes from viewing reality from as many angles as possible.
On a further note, I'm very happy to be portrayed as the Sundance Kid
> By eclectically embracing the ideas
> of the political left, right, and
> radical center, we sincerely hope
> that none of you will agree with us
> all the time.
You are wrong, that won’t work.
> “You are wrong, that won’t work.”
…and as such you have predicted the emergence of an Evolution-Revolution cult following – made up of people who always agree:)
[...] conclude we again invoke our Pledge to our Readers. Sweeping generalizations are seldomly right. The world is complex and truth or objectivity – [...]
Leave a Comment