5 ms·

Walter Lippmann warned about a century ago, in his seminal “Liberty and the News.” "Men who have lost their grip upon the relevant facts of their environment ar

Walter Lippmann warned about a century ago, in his seminal “Liberty and the News.” "Men who have lost their grip upon the relevant facts of their environment are the inevitable victims of agitation and propaganda. The quack, the charlatan, the jingo . . . can flourish only where the audience is deprived of independent access to information" I no longer agree with this, personally. Politics is not a truth-seeking exercise. It's no science, law or even journalism. It's an allegiance & authority forming exercise. Part of that is forming a supporting narrative but this is more an output than an input. Truth may inform or that narrative, but only somewhat, and so do other things. You can almost define a "political issue" as one where identity & allegiance shapes opinions more than fact. Imagine most any conflict. Russians & Ukrainians. Israelis and Palestinians, etc. Most people's political position is dictated by their national identity. No facts will convince most Russian nationalists that Ukraine has a moral right to crimea. When a question is political enough, facts are subservient to opinion. People will engage with facts that support their opinion, not the other way. In fact, even the terms "facts," "opinion," or "truth" are somewhat misleading. The operative concepts in politics are "identity," "allegiance" and feelings. (1)identity in this sense: http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html

nerdponx 8y ago
This state of things is not an accident. It is precisely the result of information asymmetry between voters and politicians. When you have no information, you must go on other sources. If you grow up lacking information, used to acting on feeling, you don't know how to process information and tend to reject i when you have no information, you must go on other sources. If you spend your life lacking information, used to acting on feeling, you don't know how to process information and tend to reject it. Or you have been convinced that you are knowledgeable and informed, by people interested in keeping you uninformed. Politicians benefit when politics works this way. They always have and will continue to do so. And now that we have a news media, they are complicit. No facts will convince most Russian nationalists that Ukraine has a moral right to crimea Maybe so, but when powerful interests benefit from such a state of affairs, it's almost illogical to assume that said interests had no hand in crafting it.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  > The complexity of the so-called individual that’s been praised for decades in America somehow has narrowed itself to the ‘me’. When I was a young girl we were called citizens – American citizens. We were second-class citizens, but that was the word. In the 50s and 60s they started calling us consumers. So we did – consume. Now they don’t use those words any more – it’s the American taxpayer and those are different attitudes. -- Toni Morrison, http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/05/toni-morrison-writing-race-media-new-yorker-festival http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/05/toni-morrison-w... > Nowadays, all you do is hear the media's description of what the candidate is saying, and one of the strange things about it is that politics is now presented in terms of politicians and not politics. I don't think the media is interested in politics, they're interested in politicians, which is a wholly different subject... who's doing this, about their private life, about their background, about what they must be thinking, might be thinking when they said something, why did they say it; but what they say is very, very hard to hear. And I think this is, in a sense, indeed quite deliberately, destroying the genuine democratic base on which people are elected. -- Tony Benn, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqxnmKTmjkQ&t=2h36m47s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqxnmKTmjkQ&t=2h36m47s Another thing I find really tragic and harmful is how politics is considered as this dirty thing professional politicians do. If we all think that way, it truly is left to mostly crooks, people who meddle with it for gain or other motives, rather than citizens who try to bear the responsibility they have anyway. We need more Stav Shaffir's [0] in the world, and less cynicism and rationalizations for not doing anything, either. [0] https://www.youtube.com/user/stavshaffir/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/stavshaffir/videos I don't mean this as some kind of ad for a politician, but having seen a bunch of videos of her debating (often enough in front of empty seats or at people making faces at her, but that doesn't take one iota away from her sobriety and focus, which is something to behold), as well as how she came to get into politics in the first place, I really think she's one of the most inspiring people I've seen so far in the 21st century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stav_Shaffir#Political_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stav_Shaffir#Political_career
thedevil 8y ago
> Politics is not a truth-seeking exercise. It's no science, law or even journalism. It's an allegiance & authority forming exercise. You've articulated well something I've been trying to say for a while. I've been saying I try to avoid politics because politics is the opposite of math - the more you learn, the more stupid your thinking becomes. I feel like my explanation just made me sound like a hater and yours nails the problem on the head.
- WhompingWindows 8y ago
  I personally like how Obama viewed politics, as a game of football, perhaps like the recent "worst superbowl ever" where there is NOT much happening most of the time, just posturing/attempts. Lot of injuries, insults, fights, scandals, doping, but also occasionally beautiful plays that remind you sometimes teams are able to score. Analogy does break down on bi-partisanship, as ideally we'd get infrastructure, prescription drugs, and many other bi-partisan things done, and there are few "cooperative" things about sports when it comes to one team vs another.
- ultraluminous 8y ago
  Well, your explanation is also fundamentally wrong. There is nothing "stupider" about learning how to arrive to a consensus and how to drive a result. The notion that learning math "makes" your thinking "smarter", but also simultaneously unable to affect a large scale change on society (cause politics are stupid!!1) is so obviously wrong I'd question the underlying assumption.
thanatropism 8y ago
Politics is the continuation of war by other means.
- HenryKissinger 8y ago
  Easy there, Clausewitz.
- runyor 8y ago
  A joke on one hand, a great inside on the other. It is not just about allegiance seeking but also about beating other groups. And it's not just for fun but for zero-sum resources like budget, "more moral standpoint", natural resources, human resources, votes, views etc. So altogether probably 3 points to consider (reason to do politics - zero-sum resources, challenges to succeed in - other teams try to get a bigger piece of the cake, and ways to achieve success - building alliances).
mc32 8y ago
>Politics is not a truth-seeking exercise. It's no science, law or even journalism. It's an allegiance & authority forming exercise. I don’t think journalism belongs there. Journalism is more similar to politics. It’s not particularly truthseeking and is more inclined toward narrative and painting a story via omissions and not being disinterested. Even The Economist, which is generally well thought of by all sides, is up front about their agenda (global free trade), even they are prone to being agents of misinformation and taking the wrong side for the sake of their ideology.
- WhompingWindows 8y ago
  I think it's naive to treat all journalism as a monolith. There are certain outlets like the National Enquirer that are absolute garbage, i.e. Bill Clinton in jacuzzi with 2 aliens. Then there are reputable outlets like WaPo or NYT which have a lot of great work done. Those outlets also publish editorials/opinions which become politicized, but one can hardly blame those outlets as EVERYTHING is politicized these days (music, sports, film, TV, etc.)
  - mc32 8y ago
    I would have agreed with you 15 years ago, even 5, but after Wikileaks and Snowden, it’s obvious they are as truthseeking as Pravda. They are about narrative, not about news or seeking truth. They have taboo subjects they will not pursue in psychology, social sciences, even in human reproduction, if it does not align with their view, but they’ll run with a limited study that’s not been replicated if it fits their narrative. Now, they do have their occasional flash in a pan to pad their reputation from time to time, but that’s overwhelmed by their narrative campaigns. Re: the enquirer. I think most people treat it as distraction/entertainment and are distinct from what were once “serious” newspapers.
    - ultraluminous 8y ago
      "after Wikileaks and Snowden" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden "In 2013, Snowden was hired by an NSA contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton, after previous employment with Dell and the CIA.[1] On May 20, 2013, Snowden flew to Hong Kong after leaving his job at an NSA facility in Hawaii, and in early June he revealed thousands of classified NSA documents to journalists Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Ewen MacAskill. Snowden came to international attention after stories based on the material appeared in The Guardian and The Washington Post. Further disclosures were made by other publications including Der Spiegel and The New York Times. " It's fairly ironic given the context of the article and GP's comment, but it doesn't sound to me like you're forming your opinion on "the media" on a rational, factual basis. I also suspect that you (perhaps subconsciously) exclude whichever bloggers/youtube'rs/podcasters from your personal definition of "the media"
kadendogthing 8y ago
>(1)identity in this sense: http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html I call this "leaving your ego at the door"
PavlovsCat 8y ago
You might by the same token say art is about selling ads or products. Some would say that's how art can get abused, others might even call it not art by definition because of that. (I'm not sure where I stand on that at all, but I think it's obvious to everyone that art is way more and way deeper than just fashionable things to sell product, even if you consider the things made just to sell product art, too) I think the same about politics (in the context of democracies where people are equal when it comes to citizenship), that's no more about authority and allegiance than families are about alcoholism and beatings. Same for journalism and other things, the medical professions and even lawyers, and so on. Even if it was $cynical_thing for most or even all people, we simply are no longer aware of the meaning and what we lost. Even if it was "just" an honest aspiration.. I'm not saying politics or anything was ever perfect or super good, but it used to be much better than giving up on it. And at any rate, our losing it has no bearing on the thing we lost. That's still there, waiting to be rediscovered. Land doesn't disappear just because we drift out into the ocean and no longer see it. We may well perish, but it will not be for lack of land, just for lack of our vicinity and affinity to it. When all directions are the same, and nothing has real value, we might as well swim further out into the ocean.
tremon 8y ago
Politics is not a truth-seeking exercise. It's no science, law or even journalism. It's an allegiance & authority forming exercise. This is partly true. Politics is - by definition - an allegiance-forming exercise. Whether it informs authority depends on existing power structures. But I don't see how that contradicts the section you quoted. Do you disagree with the prior premise "people lacking facts are susceptible to manipulation" or the latter "independent access is sufficient defense against manipulation"? Personally, I still agree with the former, and regarding the latter I think that independent access to information is a required but not sufficient defense against manipulation. The second requirement, as better explained by my sibling nerdponx, is having the skillset to independently evaluate that information. For me, this is where the education system has been systematically failing us (btw I'm European, and I don't believe Europe fares much better in this respect. We're lagging ten years behind maybe, but heading the same direction). Then there's the third requirement: time. In order to have a healthy democratic society, every citizen needs information, the skills to analyze that information, and the time to analyze and incorporate that information. To me, this is where our attention-stealing economy is failing us: every media interruption, every six-second soundbite, every screaming ad brings us further away from a healthy society. And it's not as if I have any solution for that, other than pi-holing every aspect of the modern web and disconnecting most consumer media offerings. But my personal solution will not change the world. When a question is political enough I'd rephrase that as "when a question is emotional enough". The reduction of politics to emotion is very much a modern phenomenon, and, I fear, one that will ultimately bring down our society. But not all of politics is emotion, and it certainly isn't the politics we should aspire to.
- dalbasal 8y ago
  Do you disagree with the prior premise "people lacking facts are susceptible to manipulation" or the latter "independent access is sufficient defense against manipulation"? I guess that I think they're not important questions. I don't even think manipulation is at the root of the problem. I don't think people are seeking truth, when they discuss or think about politics. There is no point where people assess the facts objectively and make independant decisions based on those judegments. What people are doing is assessing their identity and allegiance, then justifying it with a narrative. They may reference facts in their rationalizations, but the opinion came first, then the assessment of facts. IE, the facts did not cause the opinion. Better facts, access to information, requisite knoweldge and interest... these generally don't inluence people's politics . Political identity does, and facts play a very small role in that. Think of religion for analogy. Religuous people might be engaged with the philosophy, history or current facts about their religion. If you ask them why they are a methodist, they may reference a theological essays or something that the church does. But, those things rarely impact the decision. More informed people don't make different decisions about their religion. What does effect a person's religious choice? Identity. Say our methodist marries a catholic or moves to a Farsi village or form a mentorship relationship with a rabbi. This is much more likely to affect their religious choices than any fact could.
49531 8y ago
This analysis of politics is only coherent if you ignore the existence of ideology entirely. It's true that "facts" don't necessarily unite people of competing ideologies because that's not how ideology works. You could say a politically charged fact like "People of race A commit crime at 2x the rate of people of race B". One person might then conclude "We need to put more police in predominantly A neighborhoods". Another might conclude "We should bus kids from A neighborhoods to B neighborhoods to normalize education rates". While yet another might say "Our public education shouldn't be funded primarily via property taxes, which systemically leads to under-education of lower-class individuals". Same fact, different conclusions. You can't reduce it down to just "allegiance" or "feelings". I'd argue that understanding your ideology is the only way to make sense of politics. Most folks never really stop to examine their ideology, and just end up wherever they've been left by teachers / parents / talking heads.
- dalbasal 8y ago
  I think we basically agree, just using words differently. Ideology is, in my usage, an identity. *"I am an X." X can be socialist, catholic, christian democrat, moderate, african, working class woman, flat-earther... Some are more fixed than others. But genrally, people make political decisions based on these political identities. Your example is perfect. More or better facts will not change people's understanding of that politically charged fact. It will usually be a byproduct of their wider political identity... including ideological affiliation. Ideological affiliation is probably the most important form of identity.
  - chongli 8y ago
    Identity is more fundamental then ideology. People get to choose their ideologies, they don't get to choose their identity. Identity is negotiated between the individual and society. Some people argue otherwise, that an individual can arbitrarily decide their identity, but I don't think most people agree with this. The Rachel Dolezal [1] case is a pretty good illustration of this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal
fallingfrog 8y ago
Speak for yourself; my political aim is to destroy all forms of hierarchical power. Identity and allegiance are just ways that rulers seek to divide and control people. Politics is not about those things except on the shallowest possible level, and among authoritarian personality types.
- dalbasal 8y ago
  .. I started with "I."
savanaly 8y ago
Perhaps thinking of facts as "asymmetric weapons" would help? [0] [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-of-our-weapons/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-o...
specialist 8y ago
I too grudgingly, fitfully made the worldview transition from "platforms" to "identity". Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691178240/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691178240/ -- The silver lining is that issue-based efforts have risen to fill the vacuum. I'm as partisan as they come, and I think this is a huge leap forward. If we (USA) replace FPTP with Approval Voting and Proportional Representation, perhaps the policy-based coalition forming will transition back from 501c3's to campaigns & caucuses.

nerdponx 8y ago

This state of things is not an accident. It is precisely the result of information asymmetry between voters and politicians. When you have no information, you must go on other sources. If you grow up lacking information, used to acting on feeling, you don't know how to process information and tend to reject i when you have no information, you must go on other sources. If you spend your life lacking information, used to acting on feeling, you don't know how to process information and tend to reject it. Or you have been convinced that you are knowledgeable and informed, by people interested in keeping you uninformed. Politicians benefit when politics works this way. They always have and will continue to do so. And now that we have a news media, they are complicit. No facts will convince most Russian nationalists that Ukraine has a moral right to crimea Maybe so, but when powerful interests benefit from such a state of affairs, it's almost illogical to assume that said interests had no hand in crafting it.

PavlovsCat 8y ago
> The complexity of the so-called individual that’s been praised for decades in America somehow has narrowed itself to the ‘me’. When I was a young girl we were called citizens – American citizens. We were second-class citizens, but that was the word. In the 50s and 60s they started calling us consumers. So we did – consume. Now they don’t use those words any more – it’s the American taxpayer and those are different attitudes. -- Toni Morrison, http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/05/toni-morrison-writing-race-media-new-yorker-festival http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/05/toni-morrison-w... > Nowadays, all you do is hear the media's description of what the candidate is saying, and one of the strange things about it is that politics is now presented in terms of politicians and not politics. I don't think the media is interested in politics, they're interested in politicians, which is a wholly different subject... who's doing this, about their private life, about their background, about what they must be thinking, might be thinking when they said something, why did they say it; but what they say is very, very hard to hear. And I think this is, in a sense, indeed quite deliberately, destroying the genuine democratic base on which people are elected. -- Tony Benn, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqxnmKTmjkQ&t=2h36m47s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqxnmKTmjkQ&t=2h36m47s Another thing I find really tragic and harmful is how politics is considered as this dirty thing professional politicians do. If we all think that way, it truly is left to mostly crooks, people who meddle with it for gain or other motives, rather than citizens who try to bear the responsibility they have anyway. We need more Stav Shaffir's [0] in the world, and less cynicism and rationalizations for not doing anything, either. [0] https://www.youtube.com/user/stavshaffir/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/stavshaffir/videos I don't mean this as some kind of ad for a politician, but having seen a bunch of videos of her debating (often enough in front of empty seats or at people making faces at her, but that doesn't take one iota away from her sobriety and focus, which is something to behold), as well as how she came to get into politics in the first place, I really think she's one of the most inspiring people I've seen so far in the 21st century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stav_Shaffir#Political_career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stav_Shaffir#Political_career

thedevil 8y ago

> Politics is not a truth-seeking exercise. It's no science, law or even journalism. It's an allegiance & authority forming exercise. You've articulated well something I've been trying to say for a while. I've been saying I try to avoid politics because politics is the opposite of math - the more you learn, the more stupid your thinking becomes. I feel like my explanation just made me sound like a hater and yours nails the problem on the head.

WhompingWindows 8y ago
I personally like how Obama viewed politics, as a game of football, perhaps like the recent "worst superbowl ever" where there is NOT much happening most of the time, just posturing/attempts. Lot of injuries, insults, fights, scandals, doping, but also occasionally beautiful plays that remind you sometimes teams are able to score. Analogy does break down on bi-partisanship, as ideally we'd get infrastructure, prescription drugs, and many other bi-partisan things done, and there are few "cooperative" things about sports when it comes to one team vs another.
ultraluminous 8y ago
Well, your explanation is also fundamentally wrong. There is nothing "stupider" about learning how to arrive to a consensus and how to drive a result. The notion that learning math "makes" your thinking "smarter", but also simultaneously unable to affect a large scale change on society (cause politics are stupid!!1) is so obviously wrong I'd question the underlying assumption.

thanatropism 8y ago

Politics is the continuation of war by other means.

HenryKissinger 8y ago
Easy there, Clausewitz.
runyor 8y ago
A joke on one hand, a great inside on the other. It is not just about allegiance seeking but also about beating other groups. And it's not just for fun but for zero-sum resources like budget, "more moral standpoint", natural resources, human resources, votes, views etc. So altogether probably 3 points to consider (reason to do politics - zero-sum resources, challenges to succeed in - other teams try to get a bigger piece of the cake, and ways to achieve success - building alliances).

mc32 8y ago

>Politics is not a truth-seeking exercise. It's no science, law or even journalism. It's an allegiance & authority forming exercise. I don’t think journalism belongs there. Journalism is more similar to politics. It’s not particularly truthseeking and is more inclined toward narrative and painting a story via omissions and not being disinterested. Even The Economist, which is generally well thought of by all sides, is up front about their agenda (global free trade), even they are prone to being agents of misinformation and taking the wrong side for the sake of their ideology.

WhompingWindows 8y ago
I think it's naive to treat all journalism as a monolith. There are certain outlets like the National Enquirer that are absolute garbage, i.e. Bill Clinton in jacuzzi with 2 aliens. Then there are reputable outlets like WaPo or NYT which have a lot of great work done. Those outlets also publish editorials/opinions which become politicized, but one can hardly blame those outlets as EVERYTHING is politicized these days (music, sports, film, TV, etc.)
- mc32 8y ago
  I would have agreed with you 15 years ago, even 5, but after Wikileaks and Snowden, it’s obvious they are as truthseeking as Pravda. They are about narrative, not about news or seeking truth. They have taboo subjects they will not pursue in psychology, social sciences, even in human reproduction, if it does not align with their view, but they’ll run with a limited study that’s not been replicated if it fits their narrative. Now, they do have their occasional flash in a pan to pad their reputation from time to time, but that’s overwhelmed by their narrative campaigns. Re: the enquirer. I think most people treat it as distraction/entertainment and are distinct from what were once “serious” newspapers.
  - ultraluminous 8y ago
    "after Wikileaks and Snowden" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden "In 2013, Snowden was hired by an NSA contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton, after previous employment with Dell and the CIA.[1] On May 20, 2013, Snowden flew to Hong Kong after leaving his job at an NSA facility in Hawaii, and in early June he revealed thousands of classified NSA documents to journalists Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Ewen MacAskill. Snowden came to international attention after stories based on the material appeared in The Guardian and The Washington Post. Further disclosures were made by other publications including Der Spiegel and The New York Times. " It's fairly ironic given the context of the article and GP's comment, but it doesn't sound to me like you're forming your opinion on "the media" on a rational, factual basis. I also suspect that you (perhaps subconsciously) exclude whichever bloggers/youtube'rs/podcasters from your personal definition of "the media"

kadendogthing 8y ago

>(1)identity in this sense: http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html I call this "leaving your ego at the door"

PavlovsCat 8y ago

You might by the same token say art is about selling ads or products. Some would say that's how art can get abused, others might even call it not art by definition because of that. (I'm not sure where I stand on that at all, but I think it's obvious to everyone that art is way more and way deeper than just fashionable things to sell product, even if you consider the things made just to sell product art, too) I think the same about politics (in the context of democracies where people are equal when it comes to citizenship), that's no more about authority and allegiance than families are about alcoholism and beatings. Same for journalism and other things, the medical professions and even lawyers, and so on. Even if it was $cynical_thing for most or even all people, we simply are no longer aware of the meaning and what we lost. Even if it was "just" an honest aspiration.. I'm not saying politics or anything was ever perfect or super good, but it used to be much better than giving up on it. And at any rate, our losing it has no bearing on the thing we lost. That's still there, waiting to be rediscovered. Land doesn't disappear just because we drift out into the ocean and no longer see it. We may well perish, but it will not be for lack of land, just for lack of our vicinity and affinity to it. When all directions are the same, and nothing has real value, we might as well swim further out into the ocean.

tremon 8y ago

Politics is not a truth-seeking exercise. It's no science, law or even journalism. It's an allegiance & authority forming exercise. This is partly true. Politics is - by definition - an allegiance-forming exercise. Whether it informs authority depends on existing power structures. But I don't see how that contradicts the section you quoted. Do you disagree with the prior premise "people lacking facts are susceptible to manipulation" or the latter "independent access is sufficient defense against manipulation"? Personally, I still agree with the former, and regarding the latter I think that independent access to information is a required but not sufficient defense against manipulation. The second requirement, as better explained by my sibling nerdponx, is having the skillset to independently evaluate that information. For me, this is where the education system has been systematically failing us (btw I'm European, and I don't believe Europe fares much better in this respect. We're lagging ten years behind maybe, but heading the same direction). Then there's the third requirement: time. In order to have a healthy democratic society, every citizen needs information, the skills to analyze that information, and the time to analyze and incorporate that information. To me, this is where our attention-stealing economy is failing us: every media interruption, every six-second soundbite, every screaming ad brings us further away from a healthy society. And it's not as if I have any solution for that, other than pi-holing every aspect of the modern web and disconnecting most consumer media offerings. But my personal solution will not change the world. When a question is political enough I'd rephrase that as "when a question is emotional enough". The reduction of politics to emotion is very much a modern phenomenon, and, I fear, one that will ultimately bring down our society. But not all of politics is emotion, and it certainly isn't the politics we should aspire to.

dalbasal 8y ago
Do you disagree with the prior premise "people lacking facts are susceptible to manipulation" or the latter "independent access is sufficient defense against manipulation"? I guess that I think they're not important questions. I don't even think manipulation is at the root of the problem. I don't think people are seeking truth, when they discuss or think about politics. There is no point where people assess the facts objectively and make independant decisions based on those judegments. What people are doing is assessing their identity and allegiance, then justifying it with a narrative. They may reference facts in their rationalizations, but the opinion came first, then the assessment of facts. IE, the facts did not cause the opinion. Better facts, access to information, requisite knoweldge and interest... these generally don't inluence people's politics . Political identity does, and facts play a very small role in that. Think of religion for analogy. Religuous people might be engaged with the philosophy, history or current facts about their religion. If you ask them why they are a methodist, they may reference a theological essays or something that the church does. But, those things rarely impact the decision. More informed people don't make different decisions about their religion. What does effect a person's religious choice? Identity. Say our methodist marries a catholic or moves to a Farsi village or form a mentorship relationship with a rabbi. This is much more likely to affect their religious choices than any fact could.

49531 8y ago

This analysis of politics is only coherent if you ignore the existence of ideology entirely. It's true that "facts" don't necessarily unite people of competing ideologies because that's not how ideology works. You could say a politically charged fact like "People of race A commit crime at 2x the rate of people of race B". One person might then conclude "We need to put more police in predominantly A neighborhoods". Another might conclude "We should bus kids from A neighborhoods to B neighborhoods to normalize education rates". While yet another might say "Our public education shouldn't be funded primarily via property taxes, which systemically leads to under-education of lower-class individuals". Same fact, different conclusions. You can't reduce it down to just "allegiance" or "feelings". I'd argue that understanding your ideology is the only way to make sense of politics. Most folks never really stop to examine their ideology, and just end up wherever they've been left by teachers / parents / talking heads.

dalbasal 8y ago
I think we basically agree, just using words differently. Ideology is, in my usage, an identity. *"I am an X." X can be socialist, catholic, christian democrat, moderate, african, working class woman, flat-earther... Some are more fixed than others. But genrally, people make political decisions based on these political identities. Your example is perfect. More or better facts will not change people's understanding of that politically charged fact. It will usually be a byproduct of their wider political identity... including ideological affiliation. Ideological affiliation is probably the most important form of identity.
- chongli 8y ago
  Identity is more fundamental then ideology. People get to choose their ideologies, they don't get to choose their identity. Identity is negotiated between the individual and society. Some people argue otherwise, that an individual can arbitrarily decide their identity, but I don't think most people agree with this. The Rachel Dolezal [1] case is a pretty good illustration of this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal

fallingfrog 8y ago

Speak for yourself; my political aim is to destroy all forms of hierarchical power. Identity and allegiance are just ways that rulers seek to divide and control people. Politics is not about those things except on the shallowest possible level, and among authoritarian personality types.

dalbasal 8y ago
.. I started with "I."

savanaly 8y ago

Perhaps thinking of facts as "asymmetric weapons" would help? [0] [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-of-our-weapons/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-o...

specialist 8y ago

I too grudgingly, fitfully made the worldview transition from "platforms" to "identity". Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691178240/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691178240/ -- The silver lining is that issue-based efforts have risen to fill the vacuum. I'm as partisan as they come, and I think this is a huge leap forward. If we (USA) replace FPTP with Approval Voting and Proportional Representation, perhaps the policy-based coalition forming will transition back from 501c3's to campaigns & caucuses.