4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - falcor84 7y ago
      > "how can you be against the death penalty, but pro-abortion" I personally don't see an inconsistency with this original belief either, when you include the belief that a soul/conciousness is only created later on, e.g. during birth.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - repolfx 7y ago
    Like I said, it can take some thought and analysis to discern the underlying logic. Still, I tend to think that even though of course not everything is 100% logical in politics, it's more logical than it may first appear. "how can you be against the death penalty, but pro-abortion" People who are pro-abortion don't consider it to be murder, but rather just a normal medical operation done for the benefit of the mother. Whereas the death penalty - or really any harsh punishments at all - is perceived as being "nasty", brutish, uncivilised etc. compare LGBT support on the left today, with their persecution under most communist governments in the past Putting my flame-retardant suit on for a moment, the reality is that if you scratch the surface, the left hasn't changed at all in this regard. A key tenant of leftist intuition is that the world can be perceived through the lens of identity group oppressions. It's always been this way since Marx: he was obsessed with the perceived bourgeoisie oppression of the proletariat (capitalists vs the working class). Hence communists being so frequently anti-semitic, as Marx perceived Jews as being intrinsically bourgeoisie. Now LGBT oppression wasn't a communist thing - all societies considered homosexuality to be taboo up until incredibly recently, it's been one of societies most stable taboos - most likely due to higher STD rates amongst homosexuals, and inability to create a family. That was a much bigger deal in times before state pensions, when children were the primary way to be supported in old age. The switch then is simple enough - the modern left is obsessed with the perceived oppression of LGBT by white middle aged men. The important thing is not exactly which group is being oppressed by which other group; the important thing is that oppression is happening and must be stopped. The fall of the USSR and rise of Chinese manufacturing did huge damage to the idea of capitalists vs the working class being the fundamental division in society. The disappearance of the taboo against homosexuality as STD rates fell and social security rose, caused the old division to be seamlessly replaced with "white men vs women and minorities". Same old, same old. 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 Interesting example. I've not thought of Jesus as a socialist before. If you mean "love thy neighbour", that's not socialism, that's old fashioned charity - and conservatives generally give more to charity, if I recall studies correctly. Or which things said by Jesus do you mean? Unions used to be (still are?) anti-immigration, and kind of a left-wing thing?, while the left is pro-immigration Unions represent the 'old left' and must do structurally, because their goal is to represent the financial interests of their members: blue collar labour, mostly. But this doesn't always hold true. Unions in the UK financially support Labour, which is stuffed with pro-EU MPs and which just came out in favour of a second referendum (i.e. trying to cancel Brexit). Given the choice, they preferred to support mass immigration of low wage workers, than be ideologically disloyal. The idea of immigration as inherently positive is a somewhat recent development. Marx had nothing to say on the topic and actual communist states only ever had problems stopping people leaving, not arriving. However we can see that it's plenty logical from a perspective of moral reasoning without regard to costs - poor people live in poor countries where wages are low. We don't know how to make wages rise in those countries but if they come here their wages/standard of living will go up a lot automatically. So it's immoral to stop people coming here and benefiting that way. Environmentalism and animal welfare were right-wing positions in Nazi Germany Left and right have got completely messed up in any discussion of the third Reich. We're told by academics that Nazi Germany was far right, but this doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Consider how many similarities there are between the regimes of Hitler and Stalin (who was uncontroversially ultra-hard left). Both hated jews. Both put people in concentration camps. Both explicitly expansionist. Both obsessed with identity politics (racial for Hitler, class based for Lenin). Both dictatorships with no love of democracy. Both with heavy state control of industry. Now compare that against the world's most right-wing country by general consensus, the USA. Everything I listed above is the exact opposite of modern American values: no concentration camps, democratic, "the American dream" of social mobility regardless of identity group or class, and so on. The Nazis being environmentalists fits perfectly well if you simply discard what you're told and evaluate the ideological position of that regime independently.

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.
  - falcor84 7y ago
    > "how can you be against the death penalty, but pro-abortion" I personally don't see an inconsistency with this original belief either, when you include the belief that a soul/conciousness is only created later on, e.g. during birth.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- repolfx 7y ago
  Like I said, it can take some thought and analysis to discern the underlying logic. Still, I tend to think that even though of course not everything is 100% logical in politics, it's more logical than it may first appear. "how can you be against the death penalty, but pro-abortion" People who are pro-abortion don't consider it to be murder, but rather just a normal medical operation done for the benefit of the mother. Whereas the death penalty - or really any harsh punishments at all - is perceived as being "nasty", brutish, uncivilised etc. compare LGBT support on the left today, with their persecution under most communist governments in the past Putting my flame-retardant suit on for a moment, the reality is that if you scratch the surface, the left hasn't changed at all in this regard. A key tenant of leftist intuition is that the world can be perceived through the lens of identity group oppressions. It's always been this way since Marx: he was obsessed with the perceived bourgeoisie oppression of the proletariat (capitalists vs the working class). Hence communists being so frequently anti-semitic, as Marx perceived Jews as being intrinsically bourgeoisie. Now LGBT oppression wasn't a communist thing - all societies considered homosexuality to be taboo up until incredibly recently, it's been one of societies most stable taboos - most likely due to higher STD rates amongst homosexuals, and inability to create a family. That was a much bigger deal in times before state pensions, when children were the primary way to be supported in old age. The switch then is simple enough - the modern left is obsessed with the perceived oppression of LGBT by white middle aged men. The important thing is not exactly which group is being oppressed by which other group; the important thing is that oppression is happening and must be stopped. The fall of the USSR and rise of Chinese manufacturing did huge damage to the idea of capitalists vs the working class being the fundamental division in society. The disappearance of the taboo against homosexuality as STD rates fell and social security rose, caused the old division to be seamlessly replaced with "white men vs women and minorities". Same old, same old. 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 Interesting example. I've not thought of Jesus as a socialist before. If you mean "love thy neighbour", that's not socialism, that's old fashioned charity - and conservatives generally give more to charity, if I recall studies correctly. Or which things said by Jesus do you mean? Unions used to be (still are?) anti-immigration, and kind of a left-wing thing?, while the left is pro-immigration Unions represent the 'old left' and must do structurally, because their goal is to represent the financial interests of their members: blue collar labour, mostly. But this doesn't always hold true. Unions in the UK financially support Labour, which is stuffed with pro-EU MPs and which just came out in favour of a second referendum (i.e. trying to cancel Brexit). Given the choice, they preferred to support mass immigration of low wage workers, than be ideologically disloyal. The idea of immigration as inherently positive is a somewhat recent development. Marx had nothing to say on the topic and actual communist states only ever had problems stopping people leaving, not arriving. However we can see that it's plenty logical from a perspective of moral reasoning without regard to costs - poor people live in poor countries where wages are low. We don't know how to make wages rise in those countries but if they come here their wages/standard of living will go up a lot automatically. So it's immoral to stop people coming here and benefiting that way. Environmentalism and animal welfare were right-wing positions in Nazi Germany Left and right have got completely messed up in any discussion of the third Reich. We're told by academics that Nazi Germany was far right, but this doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Consider how many similarities there are between the regimes of Hitler and Stalin (who was uncontroversially ultra-hard left). Both hated jews. Both put people in concentration camps. Both explicitly expansionist. Both obsessed with identity politics (racial for Hitler, class based for Lenin). Both dictatorships with no love of democracy. Both with heavy state control of industry. Now compare that against the world's most right-wing country by general consensus, the USA. Everything I listed above is the exact opposite of modern American values: no concentration camps, democratic, "the American dream" of social mobility regardless of identity group or class, and so on. The Nazis being environmentalists fits perfectly well if you simply discard what you're told and evaluate the ideological position of that regime independently.