Systems that do harm, psych important things, typical mind fallacy, and argument dynamics

{crossposted from my tumblr here}

A dynamic I think I’ve run into repeatedly:

There’s some kind of thing that, as it exists right now, does levels of harm. At the same time, some people get psych important things out of it (to be clear, notout of the harm aspect itself, here).

Some people *don’t* get psych important things out of it, might get psych important things out of the other direction, etc. They might themselves get hit harder by the harm, or they just personally run into only the harm, since as noted they’re not getting things out of it. They can also have some typical mind fallacy about this (generally on the ‘underlying, wouldn’t even consciously think of it’ level). So when they call out the harm etc, they can take the approach of ‘get rid of the whole thing, it’s just awful’.

People who aren’t concerned with the harm *and* get psych important things out of the thing or have other reasons to support it then often regard those first people as enemies and reject the calling out parts. (Depending on people and dynamics, there might be typical mind fallacy here too, there might be not caring, etc).

This then puts into a pretty bad situation the people who *do* care about the harm and would want it not to happen, *and* get psych important things out of the thing. They’re unlikely to be comfortable with the first group, who not only don’t give weight to something psych important for them, but don’t see it. They’re unlikely to be comfortable with the second group, who aren’t caring about the harm. Neither group is likely to like them, and they can get caught in crossfire a lot. There isn’t particularly much space for ‘ok, let’s do work re things that can give this psych important things and *not* do this harm. How can we do that’ (this can often involve trying to identify the psych important things, which can also vary between people).

And then there’s often a lot of really sucky argument dynamics, on overt levels (what you see in arguments) as well as not (who might not even be entering the discussion even though the topic affects them and they have a perspective and etc). And other things.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: