Skip navigation

Yesterday I linked to a blog post that referred to a model I’d proposed to map the political spectrum.  In it, the author linked to a different model of the political/social/cultural spectrum, and built an analysis upon that framework that conflicted with my interpretation, with this line being the crux:

To understand the fight between Wilkinson and Brooks, you need to understand that Wilkinson’s tribe is not “Moderate Conservative,” it is “Brahmin.”

Now I like my model.  I have an emotional attachment to it, given that I designed it, but I also think it’s a very good approximation of the state of political discourse.  So one response I could take is to attack the Moldbug model that conflicts with mine.  Indeed, I think Moldbug’s write-up is pretty vague, and I’m unclear about some classifications.  But overall, I like the model.  It’s interesting and different.  And while it may conflict with my model at times, they’re largely compatible.  Going forward, I’d much rather use both models to assess political dynamics; at times my model will probably work better, and at times Moldbug’s will.

The analogy here is to maps.  If maps could be perfectly accurate, you’d only need one.  But when they’re not perfect, it’s better to have two than one.  When they agree, you’re more likely to find truth.  When they disagree, you realize you have to put additional work into understanding the situation.

I’d say the same about liberalism, conservativism, libertarianism, realism, interventionism, and so on.  I don’t think any of these is entirely wrong or right.  They’re models, maps, that help explain the world.  In some cases I’ll prefer one model to another.  Generally speaking, I’m most confident about claims where all the maps agree.


8 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. […] in Philosophy, Political Discourse, Sports Earlier I posted about my preference for simultaneously accepting multiple models that conflict with each other, and applying them to different situations.  One reason to do so is […]

  2. […] is they recognize the fallibility of their prior assumptions, and are able to analyze the world through multiple frameworks. « Idea of the Day LikeBe the first to like this […]

  3. […] ambiguity results from accepting multiple conflicting models. « The Fallacy of Mood Affiliation LikeBe the first to like this […]

  4. […] but independent.  I don’t mean this analysis to be exhaustive; it’s merely one way of framing the […]

  5. […] that their views are theories, based on their own (highly limited) perception of the world, that their theories clash, and that in order for them to improve their and our understanding of their world, they need to […]

  6. By Point and Counterpoint « Contrarian Moderate on 12 Jul 2011 at 11:44 am

    […] and reinforce the boundaries between themselves.  Or they can recognize that complicated systems can be understood in multiple ways, respect each other, try to better understand where the other side is coming from, and work to […]

  7. […] the most extreme and moronic opponents) you never have to do so, because you’ll never have to change your views.  This is, in my humble opinion, a very bad thing.  It turns you into a fundamentally unthinking […]

  8. By Narrative Art As Ethics | Contrarian Moderate on 20 Aug 2013 at 11:23 pm

    […] this framework as the only way to watch movies, or the best way.  I’m perfectly open to other frameworks*.  I’m also not claiming that my likes and dislikes always match up perfectly with these […]

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: