4 ms·

it says that people distrust people of opposite political parties more than of different races Yes. like that's a bad thing No. It did not say this. distru

it says that people distrust people of opposite political parties more than of different races Yes. like that's a bad thing No. It did not say this. distrusting people because of their beliefs instead of their race seems an improvement to me Equating political party = belief is a big problem. It's basically the definition of tribalism. You're forced to pick a side.

RodericDay 11y ago
At the point where you've picked a party, you've picked a side all by yourself. For example, knowing that someone is a self-described "American republican" in 2016 doesn't let me know if they are a good person or a bad person, but it does let me know that abortion rights for women isn't one of their main priorities. The goal is not to do away with categorization/heuristics entirely. It's to continually revise and improve them. Political party affiliation is on a whole different ballpark than race.
- sillysaurus3 11y ago
  Actually, you haven't. You are allowed to pick either group A or group B. Both groups are idiotic in their own ways. On the spectrum from hardcore libertarianism to hardcore conservatism, the two political parties are huddled closely together in the middle of it. You don't get a choice. But you get to be branded for the rest of your life as one of those two groups. It's a game I refuse to play.
  - pessimizer 11y ago
    You're not forced to pick from either, as you seem not to have. If you decide to publicly pick one, you will be judged for that. Exactly what better criteria would you use to judge people if not their choices and actions?
    - sillysaurus3 11y ago
      Talk to them. Ask them for their point of view. Listen carefully to what they say, and try to put yourselves in their position. Only then should you hate them, if you really choose to. Not before.
  - JshWright 11y ago
    Do you mean liberalism? Libertarianism and Conservatism aren't that far apart to begin with.
    - sillysaurus3 11y ago
      Thanks, fixed.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      Burkean conservatism and classical liberalism (modern right-libertarianism) are leaps and bounds apart. Just go read Russell Kirk's essays chewing off libertarians.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
bryanrasmussen 11y ago
well, political parties have platforms describing their beliefs and goals as a party. I know if I'm a member of political party it is because I agree with a large number of those beliefs and goals. So I naively assume that other people who are members of political parties must also agree with those beliefs. So it seems to me that not equating political party with belief would be a very strange thing - why do you think people are in political parties?
frobozz 11y ago
> Equating political party = belief is a big problem Why? I agree that it's wrong to assume that because person A supports party B, they agree with the party's position on Issue C. However, Surely the party you support is the one that best reflects your beliefs. If it isn't, then why are you supporting that party? > You're forced to pick a side. You're forced to pick a side, secretly, in a booth once every n years, for whatever reason you want (beliefs, best looking candidate, best sandwich eating technique, fair roll of die), for a few seconds (though you may live with the consequence of that choice for longer). Even then, only if you live in a jurisdiction with compulsory voting, and even then, only if ballot spoiling is illegal. You are not forced to pick a side and wear badges and proclaim it in public between elections and campaign in favour of it or against another side and tell everyone that their candidate is the bees knees etc.
- jm_l 11y ago
  To your first point, I think that's correct when you reach a certain level of granularity, like specific issues. Very often what can happen when people lose the distinction between Party and Belief is that (as touched on in the article): 1. We can only think of two viewpoints 2. We unintentionally assume viewpoints at a level of less granularity; In explanation of (2), consider that the Iyengar's study finds implicit bias not against "People who Disagree with you on Issue C" but "The Word Republican/Democrat" and that this bias was also exhibited by Independents and Leaners. To your second point, that the side-picking is mostly separate from everyday life, consider the last section of the Iyengar study, which finds that even in non-political contexts, like awarding scholarships, a signal on a resume indicating ties to a Party exerts a very strong impact on which candidate is selected. The obvious answer is to say, "Don't associate yourself with the D/R Party unless you agree with all of their viewpoints," but I believe we can end up with an even better answer that allows people to get organized even when they don't completely agree on every single thing, and for us to perhaps make fewer incorrect judgements based on this organization.
  - EdHominem 11y ago
    > The obvious answer is to say, "Don't associate yourself with the D/R Party unless you agree with all of their viewpoints," [...] Well yeah. The point of a party is to obliterate the minor differences and bull forward efficiently. You're supporting all their platforms even if you only like a few. > I believe we can end up with an even better answer that allows people to get organized But can you think of one that doesn't involve signing up for someone else to represent you, lock-stock-and-barrel? I think so, but I think we need to look beyond parties.

RodericDay 11y ago

At the point where you've picked a party, you've picked a side all by yourself. For example, knowing that someone is a self-described "American republican" in 2016 doesn't let me know if they are a good person or a bad person, but it does let me know that abortion rights for women isn't one of their main priorities. The goal is not to do away with categorization/heuristics entirely. It's to continually revise and improve them. Political party affiliation is on a whole different ballpark than race.

sillysaurus3 11y ago
Actually, you haven't. You are allowed to pick either group A or group B. Both groups are idiotic in their own ways. On the spectrum from hardcore libertarianism to hardcore conservatism, the two political parties are huddled closely together in the middle of it. You don't get a choice. But you get to be branded for the rest of your life as one of those two groups. It's a game I refuse to play.
- pessimizer 11y ago
  You're not forced to pick from either, as you seem not to have. If you decide to publicly pick one, you will be judged for that. Exactly what better criteria would you use to judge people if not their choices and actions?
  - sillysaurus3 11y ago
    Talk to them. Ask them for their point of view. Listen carefully to what they say, and try to put yourselves in their position. Only then should you hate them, if you really choose to. Not before.
- JshWright 11y ago
  Do you mean liberalism? Libertarianism and Conservatism aren't that far apart to begin with.
  - sillysaurus3 11y ago
    Thanks, fixed.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Burkean conservatism and classical liberalism (modern right-libertarianism) are leaps and bounds apart. Just go read Russell Kirk's essays chewing off libertarians.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

bryanrasmussen 11y ago

well, political parties have platforms describing their beliefs and goals as a party. I know if I'm a member of political party it is because I agree with a large number of those beliefs and goals. So I naively assume that other people who are members of political parties must also agree with those beliefs. So it seems to me that not equating political party with belief would be a very strange thing - why do you think people are in political parties?

frobozz 11y ago

> Equating political party = belief is a big problem Why? I agree that it's wrong to assume that because person A supports party B, they agree with the party's position on Issue C. However, Surely the party you support is the one that best reflects your beliefs. If it isn't, then why are you supporting that party? > You're forced to pick a side. You're forced to pick a side, secretly, in a booth once every n years, for whatever reason you want (beliefs, best looking candidate, best sandwich eating technique, fair roll of die), for a few seconds (though you may live with the consequence of that choice for longer). Even then, only if you live in a jurisdiction with compulsory voting, and even then, only if ballot spoiling is illegal. You are not forced to pick a side and wear badges and proclaim it in public between elections and campaign in favour of it or against another side and tell everyone that their candidate is the bees knees etc.

jm_l 11y ago
To your first point, I think that's correct when you reach a certain level of granularity, like specific issues. Very often what can happen when people lose the distinction between Party and Belief is that (as touched on in the article): 1. We can only think of two viewpoints 2. We unintentionally assume viewpoints at a level of less granularity; In explanation of (2), consider that the Iyengar's study finds implicit bias not against "People who Disagree with you on Issue C" but "The Word Republican/Democrat" and that this bias was also exhibited by Independents and Leaners. To your second point, that the side-picking is mostly separate from everyday life, consider the last section of the Iyengar study, which finds that even in non-political contexts, like awarding scholarships, a signal on a resume indicating ties to a Party exerts a very strong impact on which candidate is selected. The obvious answer is to say, "Don't associate yourself with the D/R Party unless you agree with all of their viewpoints," but I believe we can end up with an even better answer that allows people to get organized even when they don't completely agree on every single thing, and for us to perhaps make fewer incorrect judgements based on this organization.
- EdHominem 11y ago
  > The obvious answer is to say, "Don't associate yourself with the D/R Party unless you agree with all of their viewpoints," [...] Well yeah. The point of a party is to obliterate the minor differences and bull forward efficiently. You're supporting all their platforms even if you only like a few. > I believe we can end up with an even better answer that allows people to get organized But can you think of one that doesn't involve signing up for someone else to represent you, lock-stock-and-barrel? I think so, but I think we need to look beyond parties.