5 ms·

I really wish people would stop associating themselves with parties and instead care more about issues. I see it quite often that somebody thinks an issue is go

I really wish people would stop associating themselves with parties and instead care more about issues. I see it quite often that somebody thinks an issue is good but as soon as “their” party comes out against it they are suddenly fiercely against it too. Party allegiance pretty much stops people from thinking about issues. Instead of doing the right thing it becomes all about winning and defeating the “other”. I bet on a lot of issues it would be really easy to find large national agreements if the parties didn’t sabotage them for tactical reasons.

18pfsmt 7y ago
There are many people whose lives are such that they do not consider principles, only outcomes. This is "ends justify the means" thinking, and it is short-sighted and dangerous. There is a famous quotation from Gandhi to that effect, and he is probably the greatest human of the 20th century of notoriety.
_underfl0w_ 7y ago
> Party allegiance pretty much stops people from thinking about issues I think you hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, explicitly not thinking seems to be the end goal for a lot of people, based on my own (potentially circumstantial) experience. A large percentage of people don't seem to find joy in thinking or thinking about thinking. It seems to be viewed as work, which is to be avoided when possible. Optimizing for the lest amount of mental work, basically, which your amygdala will graciously step in to provide emotional reactions that "feel right". May at least explain why or how things seem to err in that direction.
- repolfx 7y ago
  Thinking is work, isn't it? The brain is an organ, it needs energy in order to work efficiently. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the brain had properties somewhat like a muscle, and deep reasoning for prolonged periods burned a lot of energy. I'm not sure if there's any biological evidence to support what I just said, but I do get the strong impression that critical thinking is like exercise: some people do it more, and it gets easier for them, so they do it more, and so on. But for most people it's just a drag and they don't like it, they'd rather do other things. WRT people changing their perspective because of party ... I suspect this is just a mental shortcut. The left and right exist because they summarise deeply held intuitions about human nature. The positions held by each side do follow logically from those intuitions, but sometimes it needs thought to see why, and it's of the rather subtle often semi-sub-conscious type of thinking that most would rather not do. So it may make perfect sense to change opinion if you learn your party has changed its opinion - if you think that your party of choice has got basically the right idea about the world in broad strokes, then it's a nice time-saving assumption that they thought more about any individual issue than you did, and you'd probably agree with them if you thought harder.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    > The left and right exist because they summarise deeply held intuitions about human nature. The positions held by each side do follow logically from those intuitions I really don't think so. For example (all of these apply to the supporters of the left/right, and not the people actually in power, because who know what they actually believe/support, vs. what is just political dealings), "how can you be against the death penalty, but pro-abortion" - but then, the opposite stance makes just as little sense. For another example, the US left used to be anti-globalization, but now they are banging the free-trade drum, while the US right is flirting with protectionism. Or compare LGBT support on the left today, with their persecution under most communist governments in the past. Then there is the Christian US right that mostly ignores Jesus' rather socialist teachings, while the mostly non-Christian left is in a hurry to bring them up. Unions used to be (still are?) anti-immigration, and kind of a left-wing thing?, while the left is pro-immigration. Environmentalism and animal welfare were right-wing positions in Nazi Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany), while now they're left-wing ones, and the right tends to ignore/oppose them. If I knew more about politics in Asia, Africa, or South America, I bet I could come up with lots of other examples where the positions of their local left/right differ from those in the US/Europe. Point is, the positions are driven group affiliation, not logic - historically, it was far more important to be in the right group, than to be correct.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      > "how can you be against the death penalty, but pro-abortion" - but then, the opposite stance makes just as little sense. Where's the inconsistency in the opposite stance, supporting death for murderers and opposing it for the innocent unborn? That's not my personal position but it seems perfectly reasonable to treat those two groups differently.
      - deogeo 7y ago
        It's not the best example, I agree. But it is a somewhat common argument, and enough to make some people re-examine their beliefs.
beatgammit 7y ago
I try hard to put partisan differences aside and vote for candidates that I feel will vote for solid principles and resist partisanship. As a result, my ballot is often a mix of Democrats, Republicans, and third parties. However, I feel like I'm in the minority. Apparently ~30% of people on each side stick with their party, and even more tend to prefer a specific party. I feel like a lot of people don't even really understand the key issues and vote more based on habit/loyalty than anything else. Aside from referring people to political quizzes like isidewith, I'm really not sure what I can do. I personally thought it was interesting that my results put candidates from 3 different parties in the top 5 matches, and none of them were either of the two major candidates in 2016.

18pfsmt 7y ago

There are many people whose lives are such that they do not consider principles, only outcomes. This is "ends justify the means" thinking, and it is short-sighted and dangerous. There is a famous quotation from Gandhi to that effect, and he is probably the greatest human of the 20th century of notoriety.

_underfl0w_ 7y ago

> Party allegiance pretty much stops people from thinking about issues I think you hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, explicitly not thinking seems to be the end goal for a lot of people, based on my own (potentially circumstantial) experience. A large percentage of people don't seem to find joy in thinking or thinking about thinking. It seems to be viewed as work, which is to be avoided when possible. Optimizing for the lest amount of mental work, basically, which your amygdala will graciously step in to provide emotional reactions that "feel right". May at least explain why or how things seem to err in that direction.

repolfx 7y ago
Thinking is work, isn't it? The brain is an organ, it needs energy in order to work efficiently. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the brain had properties somewhat like a muscle, and deep reasoning for prolonged periods burned a lot of energy. I'm not sure if there's any biological evidence to support what I just said, but I do get the strong impression that critical thinking is like exercise: some people do it more, and it gets easier for them, so they do it more, and so on. But for most people it's just a drag and they don't like it, they'd rather do other things. WRT people changing their perspective because of party ... I suspect this is just a mental shortcut. The left and right exist because they summarise deeply held intuitions about human nature. The positions held by each side do follow logically from those intuitions, but sometimes it needs thought to see why, and it's of the rather subtle often semi-sub-conscious type of thinking that most would rather not do. So it may make perfect sense to change opinion if you learn your party has changed its opinion - if you think that your party of choice has got basically the right idea about the world in broad strokes, then it's a nice time-saving assumption that they thought more about any individual issue than you did, and you'd probably agree with them if you thought harder.
- deogeo 7y ago
  > The left and right exist because they summarise deeply held intuitions about human nature. The positions held by each side do follow logically from those intuitions I really don't think so. For example (all of these apply to the supporters of the left/right, and not the people actually in power, because who know what they actually believe/support, vs. what is just political dealings), "how can you be against the death penalty, but pro-abortion" - but then, the opposite stance makes just as little sense. For another example, the US left used to be anti-globalization, but now they are banging the free-trade drum, while the US right is flirting with protectionism. Or compare LGBT support on the left today, with their persecution under most communist governments in the past. Then there is the Christian US right that mostly ignores Jesus' rather socialist teachings, while the mostly non-Christian left is in a hurry to bring them up. Unions used to be (still are?) anti-immigration, and kind of a left-wing thing?, while the left is pro-immigration. Environmentalism and animal welfare were right-wing positions in Nazi Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany), while now they're left-wing ones, and the right tends to ignore/oppose them. If I knew more about politics in Asia, Africa, or South America, I bet I could come up with lots of other examples where the positions of their local left/right differ from those in the US/Europe. Point is, the positions are driven group affiliation, not logic - historically, it was far more important to be in the right group, than to be correct.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    > "how can you be against the death penalty, but pro-abortion" - but then, the opposite stance makes just as little sense. Where's the inconsistency in the opposite stance, supporting death for murderers and opposing it for the innocent unborn? That's not my personal position but it seems perfectly reasonable to treat those two groups differently.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      It's not the best example, I agree. But it is a somewhat common argument, and enough to make some people re-examine their beliefs.

beatgammit 7y ago

I try hard to put partisan differences aside and vote for candidates that I feel will vote for solid principles and resist partisanship. As a result, my ballot is often a mix of Democrats, Republicans, and third parties. However, I feel like I'm in the minority. Apparently ~30% of people on each side stick with their party, and even more tend to prefer a specific party. I feel like a lot of people don't even really understand the key issues and vote more based on habit/loyalty than anything else. Aside from referring people to political quizzes like isidewith, I'm really not sure what I can do. I personally thought it was interesting that my results put candidates from 3 different parties in the top 5 matches, and none of them were either of the two major candidates in 2016.