Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016
So, I know this is a complicated issue that has been discussion with a lot of emotion and even anger. I find it very difficult to make any sense of it all, because it strikes me that in every discussion some crucial things are mixed up so much that the entire discussion strikes me as unproductive most of the time. In single back and forth&#x27;s, we mix up:<p>- the meaning of words
- the specificity of the argument (say, actor income versus a country  versus the global economy)
- the ethical assumptions underlying our argument
- the actual facts<p>Personally I&#x27;ve been raised, developed my thoughts and occupy an environment that can be considered <i>strongly</i> on &#x27;the left&#x27; of the spectrum (yes, also vague). That said, I really try to properly <i>understand</i> the &#x27;other&#x27; side(s).<p>But it&#x27;s difficult, considering that my <i>entire</i> world view is built on assumptions, arguments, lines of reasoning that are built on &#x27;facts&#x27; and &#x27;knowledge&#x27; that is &#x27;leftist&#x27;. My left-wing viewpoint is like a realist painting while my right-wing viewpoint is more like a crude child&#x27;s drawing. So <i>obviously</i> I&#x27;m more likely to reject the latter, and judge its proponents harshly, because it seems so stupid and primitive.<p>So I guess my question is... How would I best go about developing a more nuanced picture of the &#x27;other&#x27; side(s) so that I can try to find &#x27;truth&#x27; that is not conveniently aligned with my upbringing and current viewpoints, however difficult (or impossible) that might be?<p>I&#x27;ve been trying to subscribe to blogs that don&#x27;t align with my views. I&#x27;ve also been trying to look into philosophical views that seem to further this, but I find it difficult because I don&#x27;t really <i>know</i> what axioms underly these views so alien to me. So I don&#x27;t always know where to look. I&#x27;ve been trying to respectfully read economic or social arguments (including pg&#x27;s recent essay) that I have some fundamental issues with, but it all falls apart through sheer complexity and ambiguity (see: the discussions here where half the time people seem to discuss what pg <i>actually</i> said). And whenever some discussion <i>does</i> go into &#x27;facts&#x27;, I&#x27;d really have to read the sources where half the time I would need to study that particular field to even understand the abstract, not to mention that I can&#x27;t really check the accuracy of these facts in the first place (and we all know that the further we get from the &#x27;natural&#x27; sciences, the more ambiguous and slanted these facts become).<p>Here&#x27;s the thing. I was raised an Evangelical Christian, and now I&#x27;m (basically) an atheist. The difference between these two paradigms is huge. I&#x27;ve <i>believed</i> both these sides with full conviction, so I know in quite a bit of detail how to defend many beliefs from either side. I feel that as a result, I can often pinpoint at which point in an argument things diverge, and I also feel I can reasonably choose in which direction to go. It also feels a bit schizophrenic and uncomfortable.<p>But the only reason I can do this is that I&#x27;ve basically studied theology and I&#x27;ve been immersed in this now-alien point of view for about 25 years, not counting the period of overlap where I was very confused about matters.<p>Obviously I cannot do that with an issue such as this. So what <i>can</i> I do, aside from try to assume that the viewpoint alien to my own is probably not as stupid or superficial as it seems? How can I assess a commenter&#x27;s viewpoint when I don&#x27;t have any knowledge of their background, honestly, or expertise as a <i>person</i> (which I do feel is important. we <i>need</i> to take shortcuts at some point).<p>It&#x27;s incredibly frustrating, but I don&#x27;t want to get stuck in convictions that I just happen to have chanced into, basically.