4 ms·

> 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'

by 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.

by frobozz 11y ago

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.