4 ms·

Do we really need to turn this article into a hot take on the 2016 election? This isn't useful and the responses amount to bickering over talking points/politic

Do we really need to turn this article into a hot take on the 2016 election? This isn't useful and the responses amount to bickering over talking points/political messaging and signaling. Concocting "Us" Vs "the political class wanting to manipulate us"/"the system"/"Clinton's hectoring"/"the parties and their disdain for voters" narratives does not advance political discussion in any way. It may not be easy or convenient, but people need to step up and start participating in politics (at all levels, not just national) instead of viewing it this way. Why don't we call out charismatic political figures for casting politics this way? It advances individual politicians, with their own flawed views, over democracy as a method of solving problems that everyone must participate in.

Chris2048 9y ago
> This isn't useful > does not advance political discussion in any way Citation needed
dmix 9y ago
The comment wasn't politically charged though, it was a neutral analogy and a nuanced opinion about the election, not supporting one side. But the risk in using politics in your analogies is that it triggers tribal instincts: > If you want to make a point about science, or rationality, then my advice is to not choose a domain from contemporary politics if you can possibly avoid it. If your point is inherently about politics, then talk about Louis XVI during the French Revolution. Politics is an important domain to which we should individually apply our rationality—but it's a terrible domain in which to learn rationality, or discuss rationality, unless all the discussants are already rational. http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ It's makes it more likely replies will overlook the neutral nature of the comment and petty protectiveness of party or ideology will kick in.
- comex 9y ago
  I don’t think the comment was neutral at all. Especially: > The bad news is that the parties seem to want to continue in their disdain for voters, which will continue to be reciprocated. The view that both parties (the “political class” mentioned earlier in the comment, or the “establishment”) disdain voters is popular among Bernie fans and Trump fans, but not so much Clinton fans, given how much she was (reasonably) equated with the establishment, despite her being full of policy ideas meant to benefit the working class. The comment also implies that future candidates like Bernie would be “good news” who could overcome the elite/ordinary rift, presumably by blowing up the existing establishment as Bernie meant to (and to some extent did). And yet. As a Clinton fan myself, as soon as I started reading the comment I had a eureka moment. It makes a lot of sense to me to analogous the election as an interrogation. But I‘d characterize the analogy differently - less objective, more based in perception and emotion. For example, take voters who were pre-inclined to empathize with Trump, for any of a variety of reasons - economic anxiety, racism, a sense that Washington doesn’t care (-> empathy for the outsider), the natural tendency to empathize with the underdog, etc. Note that I said empathize, not just support. I think most voters are drawn to candidates they can empathize and identify with; by contrast, they’re very reluctant to support a candidate they dislike even if they think the candidate’s policies would be better for them. And once a voter is drawn to a candidate, being an “X supporter” starts to become a part of their own identity - and the larger a part it becomes, the more they invest their emotions and time in that identity, the more cognitive dissonance is created by questioning their views (since it would invalidate that investment), and the more biased and illogical the voter’s reasoning becomes. So whenever Clinton attacked or belittled Trump, proto-Trump supporters had a choice: - Feel personally attacked, respond wjth anger, end up hating Clinton more. ...or… - Take the criticism in stride, separate the identities and realize they don’t need to defend Trump on every point, end up cooling on him a little. Different people will make different choices, but if your goal as Clinton is to win them over, you really need to go out of your way to portray empathy for them and sympathy for their previous attraction to Trump. You need to stop it from being “us versus them”. Which is hard enough to start with; then consider that if you want to energize people on the other side of the political spectrum, those who are near you and (especially) those who are even further left, the best way is with harsh attacks, by making it as “us versus them” as possible, to strengthen their political identity. There are variations on the approach but it’s always needed to some extent, and sadly, it’s probably a better way to increase your vote total, since it’s easier to motivate someone to (vote, maybe even campaign for you) who already supported you than to get someone to change their mind. But wait, you might say, Clinton didn’t just attack Trump himself. What about the comment where she said half of Trump supporters fit into a basket of deplorables? Well, I think it was a blunder. But it, along with the many other claims of Trump being x-ist, presents a similar choice for Trump supporters of how to react. One option might be “sure there are lots of deplorables but I’m in the unaffected 50%” - but that’s a fundamentally uncomfortable position, for many reasons including: how can you be sure you’re unaffected if most of the other supporters seem to be saying the same things you are? (FWIW, I’m not saying there aren’t some people who really had zero sympathy for Trump’s racist proposals but supported him anyway; but those are probably mostly reluctant supporters who ended up voting more against Clinton than for Trump. That’s a different case.) More realistically, I think the choice is: - See no evil: decide that you’re not racist, your fellow supporters aren’t racist, Trump’s not racist, and the whole thing is just “identity politics” and “political correctness” run amok. ...or… - Look inward: realize that just about everyone has implicit biases, even if they try to avoid it - biases based deeply in the environments they’ve lived in and the experiences they’ve had. Confront the fact that you are imperfect and will never truly be rid of them - not to mention the fact that as a Trump supporter you probably started with more than average. Work towards self-improvement. (By the way, the right does not have a monopoly on implicit - or even explicit - bias. But that’s a long story of its own.) Anyway, both scenarios are similar to the choice of an interrogatee, especially a terrorist: - View any poor treatment or belittlement during captivity as an extension of the same evil you were fighting. See no evil on your side, and confirm your belief that the other side really is just plain evil. Further solidify your identify as a Member of the Resistance and act as ‘bravely’ and protectively as possible (i.e. by refusing to divulge information). ...or... - Accept that the interrogator thinks they’re doing the right thing in opposing you and has a reason for thinking that (e.g. from the example in the article, “we want to prevent killings”). Separate your identity from the resistance’s; accept that parts of the interrogator’s motivation may be valid, that even if your cause is just, the resistance has caused a lot of pain to people. End up cooling on your cause a little (if only due to the instinctual desire to compromise when in a debate). Clearly, the more the interrogator respects you, empathizes with you, and avoids belittling you or your cause, the more you’re probably motivated to compromise. And politics isn’t so different. One important difference between an interrogation and politics: For an interrogator to win, you don’t need to actually be turned to their side; you only need to cool on your side enough to decide to act in self-interest rather than in the cause’s interest. And only briefly, long enough to start talking: once you’ve started talking, you probably won’t suddenly change your mind and stop, partly due to diminishing returns of not talking, partly because that would be embarrassing. With politics, self-interest is less of a factor and the persuasion has to last until Election Day. Also, in an election, no human witnesses your final choice of candidate: on one hand, that makes it easier to change your mind without feeling embarrassed; on the other hand, it makes it easier to change your mind back after being persuaded, and to act selfishly (which in this case is a bad thing) rather than in the interest of everyone. There’s also a pride/showing off factor in interrogations, where the interrogatee wants to talk/brag about what they did. I don’t see as much of a parallel in politics, since there are fewer secret plans there, but... maybe just having your would-be persuader praise the success of your old political organization, and/or get you to recount that success to them. Anyway, I’m running out of time to write this comment, so I’ll leave it at that, even though I’d like to expand the analogy and maybe talk about the primary contest. If there’s a takeaway, though, it’s to reinforce: in elections, perceptions, emotion, and narrative are supreme. Compared to that, objective truth matters very little.
  - posixplz 9y ago
    There are so many problems with this response. Mostly related to your inexplicable efforts to ascribe meaning that was not conveyed in the OP comment. I won't go through your entire wall of text, because it is an emotional response to a salient and accurate neutral analysis. But I do want to point out that your post seems to place an inordinate amount of trust in our current set of elected officials. For example, your assertion that candidates do not hide behind secret plans. What a silly, and frankly incorrect, assertion. Many of our current president's policies, foreign and domestic, were opaque and largely summarized by his now-infamous regurgitation, "you'll find out - after I'm elected."
    - comex 9y ago
      Regarding secret plans, I apologize for writing unclearly. I did not mean to imply that candidates lack secret plans, but that voters lack them. I was pointing out that in a criminal interrogation, the interrogatee (if guilty) likely made secret plans for the crime that they’re now being interrogated about, and may have some primal urge to show off by explaining how good those plans were. However, there’s no directly equivalent motivation for a voter to switch to a different faction, since the voter likely doesn’t have any secrets to show off to the new group. There may be exceptions. (There are also other motivations to reveal one’s secrets in an interrogation besides showing off, and perhaps I should have been more general. In the first example in the article, for instance, it seems less about showing off and more about finding a willing recipient for Diola’s political diatribe - premised on explaining why he did it, but apparently including enough of what he did and planned to satisfy the interrogator. But anyway.) Regarding othermkn’s comment, I’m not sure what meaning you think I incorrectly read into it. The first paragraph is pretty neutral, as it talks only about what voters perceive - and it’s inarguable that many voters in 2016 felt ignored by the ‘political class’ or elites. However, the second paragraph states outright that “the parties seem to want to continue in their disdain for voters”, which implies that the parties objectively did disdain voters, something I question (at least when it comes to the Democratic Party). I further stated: > The comment also implies that future candidates like Bernie would be “good news” who could overcome the elite/ordinary rift The comment makes explicit that continued disdain is “bad news”, implying that overcoming it would be good. It technically doesn’t state outright that Bernie’s message itself was “good news”, as opposed to the fact that his candidacy showed that outsiders can get “as far as he did”. But I thought it could be reasonably inferred, given the resonance between the rest of the comment and the message of Bernie and many of his fans. I went on to be slightly more speculative: > presumably by blowing up the existing establishment as Bernie meant to (and to some extent did). But I don’t think it’s a reach to say that if (a) you think the elites disdain voters and (b) you praise outsider candidacies, then your goal is indeed to get the elites out of power (not just change their minds or something).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tomjen3 9y ago
Personally I thought it was an interesting perspective, which is exactly what I come to HN for. >Concocting "Us" Vs "the political class wanting to manipulate us"/"the system"/"Clinton's hectoring"/"the parties and their disdain for voters" narratives does not advance political discussion in any way. You are completely right in the short term, but in the long term, we need to get over the hurdle if we are (collectively) to advance at all. And if we don't get over that step, why should people become interested in joining politics in the first place? As opposed to something more effective like protesting and, well, stay home (which I honestly also consider a political act).

Chris2048 9y ago

> This isn't useful > does not advance political discussion in any way Citation needed

dmix 9y ago

The comment wasn't politically charged though, it was a neutral analogy and a nuanced opinion about the election, not supporting one side. But the risk in using politics in your analogies is that it triggers tribal instincts: > If you want to make a point about science, or rationality, then my advice is to not choose a domain from contemporary politics if you can possibly avoid it. If your point is inherently about politics, then talk about Louis XVI during the French Revolution. Politics is an important domain to which we should individually apply our rationality—but it's a terrible domain in which to learn rationality, or discuss rationality, unless all the discussants are already rational. http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/ It's makes it more likely replies will overlook the neutral nature of the comment and petty protectiveness of party or ideology will kick in.

comex 9y ago
I don’t think the comment was neutral at all. Especially: > The bad news is that the parties seem to want to continue in their disdain for voters, which will continue to be reciprocated. The view that both parties (the “political class” mentioned earlier in the comment, or the “establishment”) disdain voters is popular among Bernie fans and Trump fans, but not so much Clinton fans, given how much she was (reasonably) equated with the establishment, despite her being full of policy ideas meant to benefit the working class. The comment also implies that future candidates like Bernie would be “good news” who could overcome the elite/ordinary rift, presumably by blowing up the existing establishment as Bernie meant to (and to some extent did). And yet. As a Clinton fan myself, as soon as I started reading the comment I had a eureka moment. It makes a lot of sense to me to analogous the election as an interrogation. But I‘d characterize the analogy differently - less objective, more based in perception and emotion. For example, take voters who were pre-inclined to empathize with Trump, for any of a variety of reasons - economic anxiety, racism, a sense that Washington doesn’t care (-> empathy for the outsider), the natural tendency to empathize with the underdog, etc. Note that I said empathize, not just support. I think most voters are drawn to candidates they can empathize and identify with; by contrast, they’re very reluctant to support a candidate they dislike even if they think the candidate’s policies would be better for them. And once a voter is drawn to a candidate, being an “X supporter” starts to become a part of their own identity - and the larger a part it becomes, the more they invest their emotions and time in that identity, the more cognitive dissonance is created by questioning their views (since it would invalidate that investment), and the more biased and illogical the voter’s reasoning becomes. So whenever Clinton attacked or belittled Trump, proto-Trump supporters had a choice: - Feel personally attacked, respond wjth anger, end up hating Clinton more. ...or… - Take the criticism in stride, separate the identities and realize they don’t need to defend Trump on every point, end up cooling on him a little. Different people will make different choices, but if your goal as Clinton is to win them over, you really need to go out of your way to portray empathy for them and sympathy for their previous attraction to Trump. You need to stop it from being “us versus them”. Which is hard enough to start with; then consider that if you want to energize people on the other side of the political spectrum, those who are near you and (especially) those who are even further left, the best way is with harsh attacks, by making it as “us versus them” as possible, to strengthen their political identity. There are variations on the approach but it’s always needed to some extent, and sadly, it’s probably a better way to increase your vote total, since it’s easier to motivate someone to (vote, maybe even campaign for you) who already supported you than to get someone to change their mind. But wait, you might say, Clinton didn’t just attack Trump himself. What about the comment where she said half of Trump supporters fit into a basket of deplorables? Well, I think it was a blunder. But it, along with the many other claims of Trump being x-ist, presents a similar choice for Trump supporters of how to react. One option might be “sure there are lots of deplorables but I’m in the unaffected 50%” - but that’s a fundamentally uncomfortable position, for many reasons including: how can you be sure you’re unaffected if most of the other supporters seem to be saying the same things you are? (FWIW, I’m not saying there aren’t some people who really had zero sympathy for Trump’s racist proposals but supported him anyway; but those are probably mostly reluctant supporters who ended up voting more against Clinton than for Trump. That’s a different case.) More realistically, I think the choice is: - See no evil: decide that you’re not racist, your fellow supporters aren’t racist, Trump’s not racist, and the whole thing is just “identity politics” and “political correctness” run amok. ...or… - Look inward: realize that just about everyone has implicit biases, even if they try to avoid it - biases based deeply in the environments they’ve lived in and the experiences they’ve had. Confront the fact that you are imperfect and will never truly be rid of them - not to mention the fact that as a Trump supporter you probably started with more than average. Work towards self-improvement. (By the way, the right does not have a monopoly on implicit - or even explicit - bias. But that’s a long story of its own.) Anyway, both scenarios are similar to the choice of an interrogatee, especially a terrorist: - View any poor treatment or belittlement during captivity as an extension of the same evil you were fighting. See no evil on your side, and confirm your belief that the other side really is just plain evil. Further solidify your identify as a Member of the Resistance and act as ‘bravely’ and protectively as possible (i.e. by refusing to divulge information). ...or... - Accept that the interrogator thinks they’re doing the right thing in opposing you and has a reason for thinking that (e.g. from the example in the article, “we want to prevent killings”). Separate your identity from the resistance’s; accept that parts of the interrogator’s motivation may be valid, that even if your cause is just, the resistance has caused a lot of pain to people. End up cooling on your cause a little (if only due to the instinctual desire to compromise when in a debate). Clearly, the more the interrogator respects you, empathizes with you, and avoids belittling you or your cause, the more you’re probably motivated to compromise. And politics isn’t so different. One important difference between an interrogation and politics: For an interrogator to win, you don’t need to actually be turned to their side; you only need to cool on your side enough to decide to act in self-interest rather than in the cause’s interest. And only briefly, long enough to start talking: once you’ve started talking, you probably won’t suddenly change your mind and stop, partly due to diminishing returns of not talking, partly because that would be embarrassing. With politics, self-interest is less of a factor and the persuasion has to last until Election Day. Also, in an election, no human witnesses your final choice of candidate: on one hand, that makes it easier to change your mind without feeling embarrassed; on the other hand, it makes it easier to change your mind back after being persuaded, and to act selfishly (which in this case is a bad thing) rather than in the interest of everyone. There’s also a pride/showing off factor in interrogations, where the interrogatee wants to talk/brag about what they did. I don’t see as much of a parallel in politics, since there are fewer secret plans there, but... maybe just having your would-be persuader praise the success of your old political organization, and/or get you to recount that success to them. Anyway, I’m running out of time to write this comment, so I’ll leave it at that, even though I’d like to expand the analogy and maybe talk about the primary contest. If there’s a takeaway, though, it’s to reinforce: in elections, perceptions, emotion, and narrative are supreme. Compared to that, objective truth matters very little.
- posixplz 9y ago
  There are so many problems with this response. Mostly related to your inexplicable efforts to ascribe meaning that was not conveyed in the OP comment. I won't go through your entire wall of text, because it is an emotional response to a salient and accurate neutral analysis. But I do want to point out that your post seems to place an inordinate amount of trust in our current set of elected officials. For example, your assertion that candidates do not hide behind secret plans. What a silly, and frankly incorrect, assertion. Many of our current president's policies, foreign and domestic, were opaque and largely summarized by his now-infamous regurgitation, "you'll find out - after I'm elected."
  - comex 9y ago
    Regarding secret plans, I apologize for writing unclearly. I did not mean to imply that candidates lack secret plans, but that voters lack them. I was pointing out that in a criminal interrogation, the interrogatee (if guilty) likely made secret plans for the crime that they’re now being interrogated about, and may have some primal urge to show off by explaining how good those plans were. However, there’s no directly equivalent motivation for a voter to switch to a different faction, since the voter likely doesn’t have any secrets to show off to the new group. There may be exceptions. (There are also other motivations to reveal one’s secrets in an interrogation besides showing off, and perhaps I should have been more general. In the first example in the article, for instance, it seems less about showing off and more about finding a willing recipient for Diola’s political diatribe - premised on explaining why he did it, but apparently including enough of what he did and planned to satisfy the interrogator. But anyway.) Regarding othermkn’s comment, I’m not sure what meaning you think I incorrectly read into it. The first paragraph is pretty neutral, as it talks only about what voters perceive - and it’s inarguable that many voters in 2016 felt ignored by the ‘political class’ or elites. However, the second paragraph states outright that “the parties seem to want to continue in their disdain for voters”, which implies that the parties objectively did disdain voters, something I question (at least when it comes to the Democratic Party). I further stated: > The comment also implies that future candidates like Bernie would be “good news” who could overcome the elite/ordinary rift The comment makes explicit that continued disdain is “bad news”, implying that overcoming it would be good. It technically doesn’t state outright that Bernie’s message itself was “good news”, as opposed to the fact that his candidacy showed that outsiders can get “as far as he did”. But I thought it could be reasonably inferred, given the resonance between the rest of the comment and the message of Bernie and many of his fans. I went on to be slightly more speculative: > presumably by blowing up the existing establishment as Bernie meant to (and to some extent did). But I don’t think it’s a reach to say that if (a) you think the elites disdain voters and (b) you praise outsider candidacies, then your goal is indeed to get the elites out of power (not just change their minds or something).

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

tomjen3 9y ago

Personally I thought it was an interesting perspective, which is exactly what I come to HN for. >Concocting "Us" Vs "the political class wanting to manipulate us"/"the system"/"Clinton's hectoring"/"the parties and their disdain for voters" narratives does not advance political discussion in any way. You are completely right in the short term, but in the long term, we need to get over the hurdle if we are (collectively) to advance at all. And if we don't get over that step, why should people become interested in joining politics in the first place? As opposed to something more effective like protesting and, well, stay home (which I honestly also consider a political act).