You can tell a lot about the credibility of many
views in public discourse by analysing the groups of people who subscribe to
them. You can't always tell everything - and obviously you should also draw from
further analysis of the propositions - but a good subsidiary way to consider
which group is right is to consider the type of people in each group, and work
outwards from there. You also get indication, as I've stated before, of what
else they are predicted to believe, and then you can start to join the dots and
understand that the structure and bad logic of one belief is connected to
structure and bad logic of another, and so forth.
Let's take the example of a matter I raised recently in this Blog post, and expand on the psychology even further:
Opinion A: Israel is committing genocide in the Middle East.
Opinion B: Israel is not committing genocide in the Middle East.
Swathes of people are firmly convinced of Opinion A, and swathes of people, myself included, are firmly convinced of Opinion B. Those who hold Opinion A are unlikely to be convinced otherwise, and ditto those who hold Opinion B.
So how do we tackle such a subject, when it causes
so much irreconcilable division, so much animosity (even between people with
whom we otherwise get on well and like), and evokes so many painful emotions,
given the near-inevitable continued bifurcation between Opinion A and B folk?
Even if you knew nothing about the particular propositions at hand, you can get some idea of the likely credibility of the claims by observing the individuals at the group level. I will give you my impression of both groups, from my experience of hearing comprehensively from both sides, and from knowing quite a few people, including extended family, who are based in the Middle East, and have openly shared their perspective. While there are always exceptions, the individuals in Group B (Israel is not committing genocide in the Middle East) tend to be much more balanced, objective and thoughtful in their analysis, while allowing for fair criticism of Israel's handling of some situations. They are also a much broader and more diverse group of people, whose views on other matters would be much harder to predict.
The upshot
is, when I look at individual beliefs people have, I try to discern the
character and tendencies of the groups behind particular opinions, because it
offers a subtle but powerful lens through which to evaluate the driving forces
behind those beliefs. Obviously, careful examination of evidence and argument
should always take primacy, but knowing the patterns in individuals’ broader
beliefs can illuminate potential biases, inconsistencies, and blind spots, and
confer high degrees of predictability on what else they are likely to believe.
One final point regarding the claim that Israel is committing genocide: Israel possesses overwhelming military superiority and, if its objective were simply the physical destruction of the Palestinian people, it has the capability to inflict vastly greater casualties than it has. That alone should at least give reasonable observers pause before assuming genocidal intent.
