>That's always happened, but it seems to have become much more common.

That seems like one of those things that has always been extremely common, but is difficult to see when reading history rather than news. People always justify their own thoughts and goals over trying to understand another point of view.

Yes, but I think the differences in the ability to disseminate criticism to a large audience over time have have changed how this affects society. That is, people have always done this, and probably always done it about the same amount, but haven't always had it visible to hundreds, thousands or millions of others as easily as it is now. That's not really what I said before, but I think better encapsulates what I mean (or, at least, what I mean now that you've forced me to think about it a bit deeper ;)

I understand that reaching billions of people seems scarier, but how does it really differ from being able to convince the entire Roman Senate with one skilled oration? Convincing either group could lead to horrendous acts being committed.

The main difference is that there are more people, they can interact more, and their opinions matter slightly more than in the past. Those things also allow us to understand the deeper motives and purposes far better than ever before, even if we still foolishly ignore them.

> Being able to craft a statement justifying such an event, with all the mental gymnastics that might be involved if it's not a position you would support normally, is one step in recognizing those statements in real life.

I did a Poli-Sci degree and this was a standard thing: write me an essay on a position. Cool, now write me a paper that is 100% against that position.

We had an instructor, a former US Navy officer, that required us to write an essay that was a 100% earnest defense of Al Qaeda's worldview. I ended up leaning heavily on "Jihad Vs McWorld" and "Clash of Civilizations", though I think the latter (Clash) isn't really valid or useful anymore.

> Bottom line, being able to (or attempting to) write a PR document at that level requires a lot of understanding and thinking, and being willing to forego your initial prejudices to explore an idea as fully as possible. That's exactly what a good student does, so I can see why they thought this might be a useful exercise. I don't think a writing exercise causes "obedience" in any way.

PR releases are as much about what you think about the issue, but also what you think that others will think about the issue. That does a good job of bringing out your prejudices, and challenges you to think about what their true goals are and why.

> writing exercise causes "obedience" in any way

100% agree with you. But you are contradicting a point I never made. So... good job taking down your own strawman argument. It ironically really drives home the rest of your post.

I think the argument I laid out also applies towards selecting for obedience, in that it doesn't, at least not obedience to the state. It does select for people being able to follow the rules of the assignment in front of them, which is obedience, but I'm not really interested in a discussion about whether people should rebel against things like simple instructions for an assessment assignment.

> So... good job taking down your own strawman argument.

It would be easier to have a constructive discussion if you engaged with the point, rather than dismissed the argument out of hand. I think the points still apply, but since you've opted to either ignore them based on the assumption they don't apply, or have considered them and refuted them without explaining why, I'm now left to ask you which it is, and whether you can elaborate.

> It ironically really drives home the rest of your post.

Which part? That interpreting the position and arguments of others is hard work and requires skill? I agree with that. Hopefully you weren't implying I was only trying to to understand the position at a superficial level and looking for others to support me while being uninterested in what you're saying. I'm definitely not trying to do that, as evidenced by me replying to you, and engaging with you as to your meaning, and not just advertising to everyone else how wrong your position is without doing so.

First, giving a reply doesn't necessarily entail the person replying did so with a deep understanding for another's perspective. So I'm really not sure why you make that self serving logical step, but let's continue.

In terms of other people's perspective, oh, I see the value. When I was in college studying psychology, it's actually something we're taught to do to relate to patients. I've had to empathize professionally with people whose actions would make your stomach churn, I'm very familiar with the concept and the psychological mechanisms at play and the need for such open mindedness.

I'd absolutely want to see this question brought up by a professor in a class, but I think it's not very well fit for a 13-14 year old's university entrance exam. You can't possibly expect someone of that age to provide a nuance balanced answer so I don't think it's a good quality signal for an openness trait. In fact there's test for openness that have been devised by professionals, so if the university wanted to select for it, they could more objectively measure it. Based on this, I think we can agree the question is not very good for measuring openness.

To be clear, for older people this can be a good entrance question since it shows whether their inherent openness was developed or not. Given the context (13-14 year olds) one of 3 reasons you gave for using it is mostly gone.

Then you're left with it's value as an intelligence estimation. IQ tests are the gold standard for estimating intelligence. Since this type of question doesn't appear on IQ tests (for reasons that to some of us are really obvious), it also stands to reason it's not a very good question for that. So we've removed the 2nd reason you listed to ask it in an entrance exam.

Last in terms of communication, it would seem this type of question will result in very biased grading from the professors. To test the ability to communicate most academics use non-controversial topics. So again, not very useful for the purpose you state.

There was a specific decision to choose a pro-authority question to use for an entrance exam. Could this be random? Possibly.

But it seems in line with a current trend to select for obedience over competence. Since it's not particularly useful to it's stated purpose (as we've gone over) it makes sense it raises eye brows and it makes sense people question it. If there was no such trend, or if professionally developed test designed to objectively measure openness or IQ tests didn't exist, you'd have more of a point.

Notice how my language uses words like 'seem', 'appears', 'it would be reasonable', etc. I'm not saying I'm 100% right. I have a very nuanced and probabilistic point of view. But the parent comment I was answering to if you RTFA and RTFT and follow the conversation that you are jumping into, suggested that even thinking such a question to be controversy is mere 'ignorance'.

I believe I provided a reasonable argument against what I was answering to. And instead of continuing the thread with the kind of carefully crafted language and nuanced that I present, you ironically and sort of pedantically explained why it's important to consider other points of view without really getting my point. If someone doesn't agree with you, or if someone doesn't laugh at your joke, it isn't always because they didn't get it.

I highlighted the fact that you used the word 'causes' since it seems to highlight your lack of through thought toward answering my point, which to me qualifies as "reacting to the surface level of any ... topic". You seem more ready to answer than to understand. That's why I found it ironic and limited my original response to that part. Now since you insisted, you have my full perspective.

> First, giving a reply doesn't necessarily entail the person replying did so with a deep understanding for another's perspective. So I'm really not sure why you make that self serving logical step, but let's continue.

No, but that, and my follow up, means I was attempting to. We're supposed to engage here assuming good faith. I think that includes assuming someone that replies to you and makes arguments on points you've presented (or they think you've presented) is at least trying to understand the other's perspective. And that was what the last paragraph of my earlier comment was about, people stopping at that superficial level, or spreading an assumption of a stance around.

> You can't possibly expect someone of that age to provide a nuance balanced answer so I don't think it's a good quality signal for an openness trait.

Well, it's probably not a good signal for much of anything at that age if used in isolation. It's part of an entrance exam though, so it could be used in any number of ways, I imagine. It could also just be a matter of seeing how the applicants handle an unusual question and stressful question. My guess, given the age group it's targeted at, is that there's no (or very few) "wrong" answers, as long it's backed up. Is it the wrong answer for them to say they they think it was a mistake, and this is how they would relay the problem to the public, and apologize and/or assign blame?

> Then you're left with it's value as an intelligence estimation.

If we presume your assumptions about the reasons it may be in place are exhaustive, then yes. I prefer to assume at best we can approach closely understanding someone else's reasoning from outside observation. I think arguments that have "then all you're left with" generally assume far too much. As an example, in my prior paragraph I gave a possible reason to include it which you haven't covered so far. I could probably come up with one or two more. We aren't close to being able to say "than you're left with", or as I think it was intended to by synonymous to (but I may be wrong), "the only other explanation is".

> if you RTFA and RTFT and follow the conversation that you are jumping into, suggested that even thinking such a question to be controversy is mere 'ignorance'.

That's not how I interpret those comments. I specifically don't interpret them as "even thinking the problem is a controversy is ignorance". I do interpret the first comment from karatestomp as stating that they thought that the issue wasn't very controversial, and the second comment saying it played on people ignorance. I interpreted that as people ignorance of the details of the issue. That doesn't imply it's impossible to be upset about it based on the facts, just that the article is playing on people lack of knowledge regarding the facts.

> I believe I provided a reasonable argument against what I was answering to.

Specifically, I was referring to your response to me when I said you provided little explanation, and your words of that reply are below, in their entirety:

>> 100% agree with you. But you are contradicting a point I never made. So... good job taking down your own strawman argument. It ironically really drives home the rest of your post.

Which while possibly reasonable, wasn't entirely useful, IMO, so I asked for more information.

> you ironically and sort of pedantically explained why it's important to consider other points of view without really getting my point. If someone doesn't agree with you, or if someone doesn't laugh at your joke, it isn't always because they didn't get it.

I laid out some items I though fairly accurate and self evident in a factual manner. My actual argument was not stated so forcefully, and was I can see why they thought this might be a useful exercise. I don't think a writing exercise causes "obedience" in any way.

> I highlighted the fact that you used the word 'causes' since it seems to highlight your lack of through thought toward answering my point, which to me qualifies as "reacting to the surface level of any ... topic".

That wasn't actually the problematic behavior I was calling out. Reacting at a surface level will happen, it's human nature. I think the problematic behavior is what you do next, which is "and immediately seeking others lend support and credence to that interpretation rather than trying to understand the motivations and purpose." Engaging and attempting to understand a point of view, even if it's through argument and discussion, is not what I would consider problematic behavior.

Case in point, you reacted to the surface level of that, and missed what I was actually trying to communicate as what I saw as a problem. Calling someone out for that when they are already engaging is of little practical use, as I'm sure you're aware of at the moment, since it just happened to you. Unless you've run around promoting this misunderstanding as a prime example of someone else's bad behavior, you aren't really doing what I was talking about.

> Now since you insisted, you have my full perspective.

Yes, I do. Thank you. I still don't necessarily agree with you, but at least there was some discussion as to my points with regard to your argument.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. People are deeply different in their world perceptions.

I think you will love the Chinese saying of 'you can you up, no can no bibi'.

It does have a point I'll admit. But then we also need to consider the consequences of having such a perspective in the relationship between those who rule and those who are ruled. Most things are double edged swords. :)

> I think you will love the Chinese saying of 'you can you up, no can no bibi'.

Lol, after learning it the other day, I'm not sure, but I guess it depends on how it's used? I sort of view it as a recent version of "Haters gonna hate." :)

> But then we also need to consider the consequences of having such a perspective in the relationship between those who rule and those who are ruled.

Yeah. I'll fully admit that there's quite a lot of room for the item we were talking about to not be benign, and the consequences of it not being benign are pretty horrible.

It's one of those things where my stance is more along the lines of "well, it's not necessarily bad, and here's an example why." The caveat is that it should go along with "buuut... we should look closer to make sure it's mostly benign."

We agree. It's not necessarily bad. But it's also perfectly reasonable to be concerned.

I think the difference is that I see selection for obedience as something most institutions will do unconsciously. It's literally the primary function of any institution, to self preserve. And self preservation for a system means that it's parts cooperate to the maximum extent possible. So I think we need to have a strong push back against anything that COULD EVEN be an unconscious selection for obedience. Especially in institutions.

An individual professor choosing to bring these questions up would have a VERY different response from me. I'm very open minded and love exercises that promote that.