Maybe understanding that opposition from the other tribe was not the reason for failure can help overcome polarization?
- Your counterculture did not fail because the other counterculture opposed it. (They did, but that’s not why.)
- Your counterculture failed because the majority did not agree with it.
- The majority rejected your counterculture because it was plainly wrong about many things.
- It would help if you understood how younger generations relate to meaningness; they are right that some of your main issues are illusory.
- You need to let go of the sacred myths of your tribe. Decades ago they inspired genuinely positive social change, but now they produce only frustration and hatred and stalemate. Everyone born after 1970 thinks they are idiotic. You are stuck pretending to believe, but even you secretly know they aren’t true.
- Your counterculture and the other one also agree about many things!
- Some of what you agree about is wrong; you should admit that and drop it.
- Some of what you agree about is right; you should work together to support it.
- Much of what you imagine you fight about is symbolic, not substantive. Your advocacy of these issues is mostly a statement of tribal identity, and claims for high status within your tribe.
- When your symbolic issues blow up into actual political conflicts, often you are fighting to establish tribal dominance, not to accomplish pragmatic improvements in society.
- If you understand what you really disagree about, and why, you may be able to find pragmatic compromises, instead of both sides demanding total victory.
While the piece (who wrote it?) is uneven in parts, it is both interesting and important. Here is the whole on-line manuscript. Here is the critique of Bayesianism as Eternalism. For the pointer I thank Jake Seliger.