3 ms·

The article is about how motive attribution asymmetry leads to contempt, first for the "other political side" then eventually to individuals within that other s

The article is about how motive attribution asymmetry leads to contempt, first for the "other political side" then eventually to individuals within that other side. But I think it could go further and question why things get polarized into 2 sides. Our modern society is way more complicated and contains way more nuance than what a binary system can offer. I don't know what the answer is but I feel that political parties as a shortcut for evaluating individual policy goals is tremendously reductionist, and increasingly harmful to society.

fulafel 8y ago
Oftentimes first policy decision about a problem is whether to address it, so that's naturally a 1-bit kind of decision. Take the biggest problem, global warming, for example. Yes, it's an entire field of policy, science, etc by itself. But the voters mainly need to make the value judgement of whether to fix it even if it costs something.
excalibur 8y ago
> But I think it could go further and question why things get polarized into 2 sides. Our modern society is way more complicated and contains way more nuance than what a binary system can offer. It's not that great for the masses, but it's wonderful for the elite. If you can persuade the vast majority to pick a side, then you don't have to worry about engineering public opinion to your own benefit on each and every issue. All you need to do is control both the red and blue teams. Then you can regularly shit on the proles and retain their support, simply by blaming the "other side" for their misfortune.
- rjf72 8y ago
  I think this is probably the main point. By dividing people into two camps you help solidify your own grasp on power. Again the 2016 election is full of just so many interesting lessons. How many people voted for Clinton thinking 'Yes, this person genuinely stands for what I believe in and will make a great president!' How many people voted for her because the alternative was simply unacceptable meaning they feared 'wasting' their vote? And the exact same is true of people that voted for Trump. Think about how 'great' an achievement that is in terms of population control. You, as a player in the entrenched powers, have managed to get people to not only participate in 'your' democracy, but to actively vote for people they don't even want in office, and to actively attack people that vote for third parties. For instance already see the (rather orchestrated) massively negative reaction against Starbucks' Howard Schultz announcing his intentions of running for the presidency as an independent. How dare you run for president unless you declare yourself one of these two parties that fewer people than ever actually identify as, and that are ever more out of touch with the population! How dare you!

fulafel 8y ago

Oftentimes first policy decision about a problem is whether to address it, so that's naturally a 1-bit kind of decision. Take the biggest problem, global warming, for example. Yes, it's an entire field of policy, science, etc by itself. But the voters mainly need to make the value judgement of whether to fix it even if it costs something.

excalibur 8y ago

> But I think it could go further and question why things get polarized into 2 sides. Our modern society is way more complicated and contains way more nuance than what a binary system can offer. It's not that great for the masses, but it's wonderful for the elite. If you can persuade the vast majority to pick a side, then you don't have to worry about engineering public opinion to your own benefit on each and every issue. All you need to do is control both the red and blue teams. Then you can regularly shit on the proles and retain their support, simply by blaming the "other side" for their misfortune.

rjf72 8y ago
I think this is probably the main point. By dividing people into two camps you help solidify your own grasp on power. Again the 2016 election is full of just so many interesting lessons. How many people voted for Clinton thinking 'Yes, this person genuinely stands for what I believe in and will make a great president!' How many people voted for her because the alternative was simply unacceptable meaning they feared 'wasting' their vote? And the exact same is true of people that voted for Trump. Think about how 'great' an achievement that is in terms of population control. You, as a player in the entrenched powers, have managed to get people to not only participate in 'your' democracy, but to actively vote for people they don't even want in office, and to actively attack people that vote for third parties. For instance already see the (rather orchestrated) massively negative reaction against Starbucks' Howard Schultz announcing his intentions of running for the presidency as an independent. How dare you run for president unless you declare yourself one of these two parties that fewer people than ever actually identify as, and that are ever more out of touch with the population! How dare you!