http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/craftiness-of-right-by-tristero-in.html

This can be applied to anybody in general, not just righties. Posted here, not as an attack, but for edification! I like to watch these happen and evolve. See below for part of why:

The motivation to avoid acceptance grows as a function of the number of self-serving issues being maintained in a given person does.

To clarify that, let's say we've got Bob the Bigot, and his good buddy Joe.

Now Bob is a really great guy, but maybe somewhere along the line he had a bad experience with one very specific kind of person, but that's it. Bob is healthy otherwise.

If pressed on this issue, Bob may own up to it more easily than Joe will.

Joe is also a bigot, but has wrapped himself in lots of supporting dogma to the point where lots of triggers can enter this mess. He's nearly identified by it.

Acceptance then to Bob is really not all that costly. Having the discussion may well result in the average person understanding. Maybe not approving, but understanding. Bob's self-image is not really threatened.

Joe, on the other hand, has a huge investment in this. Should that discussion happen, the average person is gonna say, "WOW!" and may think of Joe quite differently after the exchange.

That's the essence of what I was trying to get at. Joe has a lot of self-serving stuff going on, therefore, the motivation to employ these kinds of dodges runs very high.

Just some stuff to think about! Any and all discussion welcome --encouraged actually, just don't make it personal on this thread. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this.

Ok, so I'm gonna post here as it helps me think sometimes. I'm thinking about exceptions, why they are difficult to talk about and how the motivation to dodge comes about. This kind of introspection of our core nature is very interesting to me.

I'll often take it and build on it until I have a fairly solid model. That's tested through interaction with others over time, watching how things go. Said interactions are basically everywhere. I don't always go looking for them, though that's necessary at times depending on what is being observed. Usually, they are just tagged and when it comes up, I then watch and learn!

To refine the above:

There is a tension within us. Everybody operates under some assumptions of one kind or another. Additionally, we may have based our self-image off the idea these assumptions are indeed fact, when they are really just assumptions.

When these kinds of assumptions are challenged, there is resistance. How much of it really depends on the degree to which ones self is defined by whatever assumption is challenged.

If there is little to no self investment, then the challenge can be easily met and, more importantly, the result isn't all that important. If an assumption is demonstrated wrong, or less than accurate, that person with little self investment will find it interesting and likely beneficial.

Robust discussion can occur in this space.

On the other hand, should a given assumption be tied to a fairly inclusive number of self-image definitions, resistance is quite high! Redefinition of the self is generally very costly and coupled with a lot of fear.

Those are natural things too. One does not want to surrender self-identity, unless there is a damn good reason.

Where the self is involved then, the motivation to dodge is high.

There is also the notion of the self being a distinct thing apart from what that self has learned and chosen to believe.

And that's it for now. Thinking on that last one for a bit.