- 20 Mar 2012 17:01
#13921107
Just finished reading Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions", which I thoroughly enjoyed and thought gave a very even handed analysis between two visions; the "constrained" vision and the "unconstrained" analysis. Sowell sought to describe the etymological differences between people who implicitly subscribe to the "constrained" vision and people who hold implicitly subscribe to the "unconstrained" vision.
The two visions (where a vision is an ascribed set of assumptions that are not necessarily articulable) can be summarized as:
"Constrained" - More focused on results rather than intentions, seeks trade-offs rather than solutions; man is essentially flawed and limited by his own limitations.
"Unconstrained" - More focused on intentions rather than results, seeks solutions instead of trade-offs; man can be molded to more nobler ends.
In the book Sowell discusses how a proponent of each vision views the other and how sincerity is valued by each vision. People with a more constrained vision of man often see those with the unconstrained vision as well-intentioned but ultimately mistaken. That is to say, people with a constrained vision readily admit that people can read and look at the same thing as they do yet reach a different conclusion - an unconstrained vision - sincerely. However, those with an unconstrained vision find it suspicious that people could come to a completely different conclusion to theirs and so often try to explain why that is. Yet the explanations are often meaningless; "they" must have been "bought" and character assassinations such as incompetency because "they" are "prejudiced".
Sowell then goes on to explain how prevalent the unconstrained vision is in the media and how such disagreements or "conflicts" of visions often reduce to puerile name calling or instant dismissal of ideas by those in the media. I immediately thought of the most egregious example of this: Bill Maher and his Realtime Show. It's a very popular show and I use to watch it. However, I quickly started to notice a disappointing trend whenever Maher had someone on with whom he disagreed with - it would often turn into a tsunami of rationalizations such as "he must have been bought by the big businesses", in other words the the person could not be sincere in his beliefs otherwise if he were sincere he would believe what I believe - he must have been "bought".
What is it with trying to explain away apparent insincerity? Does it not occur to people that their adversaries could sincerely hold opposite beliefs? I am keen to hear and digest your thoughts regarding this disparity between "visions". If the disparity is true, why? What could explain this?
Cheers.
The two visions (where a vision is an ascribed set of assumptions that are not necessarily articulable) can be summarized as:
"Constrained" - More focused on results rather than intentions, seeks trade-offs rather than solutions; man is essentially flawed and limited by his own limitations.
"Unconstrained" - More focused on intentions rather than results, seeks solutions instead of trade-offs; man can be molded to more nobler ends.
In the book Sowell discusses how a proponent of each vision views the other and how sincerity is valued by each vision. People with a more constrained vision of man often see those with the unconstrained vision as well-intentioned but ultimately mistaken. That is to say, people with a constrained vision readily admit that people can read and look at the same thing as they do yet reach a different conclusion - an unconstrained vision - sincerely. However, those with an unconstrained vision find it suspicious that people could come to a completely different conclusion to theirs and so often try to explain why that is. Yet the explanations are often meaningless; "they" must have been "bought" and character assassinations such as incompetency because "they" are "prejudiced".
Sowell then goes on to explain how prevalent the unconstrained vision is in the media and how such disagreements or "conflicts" of visions often reduce to puerile name calling or instant dismissal of ideas by those in the media. I immediately thought of the most egregious example of this: Bill Maher and his Realtime Show. It's a very popular show and I use to watch it. However, I quickly started to notice a disappointing trend whenever Maher had someone on with whom he disagreed with - it would often turn into a tsunami of rationalizations such as "he must have been bought by the big businesses", in other words the the person could not be sincere in his beliefs otherwise if he were sincere he would believe what I believe - he must have been "bought".
What is it with trying to explain away apparent insincerity? Does it not occur to people that their adversaries could sincerely hold opposite beliefs? I am keen to hear and digest your thoughts regarding this disparity between "visions". If the disparity is true, why? What could explain this?
Cheers.
"We fight for and against not men and things as they are, but for and against the caricatures we make of them."
"What are these crazy questions that they're asking of me?"
"What are these crazy questions that they're asking of me?"