4 ms·

> In fact, neuroscientists have recently discovered that the part of our brains we use when making decisions about politics is totally different from the part w

by maratd 15y ago

> In fact, neuroscientists have recently discovered that the part of our brains we use when making decisions about politics is totally different from the part we use when trying to solve reasoning problems. It's called caching. Just like it makes no sense for your server to constantly re-generate the same thing over and over again, it makes no sense for your brain to re-evaluate the same thing over and over again. That's what ideology is. The article gets to it, but only at the very end. > After all, the biggest problem with democracies tends to be the voters. No, the biggest problem with democracies tend to be a select number of people who think they know better than the voters and start making decisions for them. That's when democracies turn into bureaucracies.

nbashaw 15y ago
> It makes no sense for your brain to re-evaluate the same thing over and over again But we don't ever get the result of our query - we never know the true answer to the problems facing society. So I don't think caching is a good metaphor. It's more like we just give up thinking because it's uncomfortable and it's easier to be like everybody else and make up our minds.
- maratd 15y ago
  > But we don't ever get the result of our query - we never know the true answer to the problems facing society. Our brains aren't designed to solve societal problems. Why should they be? They are designed to solve our own problems. The answers our brains give us are meant to benefit us. They may benefit society at large tangentially, but that is not the intent, nor should it be.
  - nbashaw 15y ago
    I totally agree. That's why democracy is so hard. Also: For ~5 minutes the reply button wasn't showing up. I guess PG coded in a little feature to make people take some time to calm down before getting into arguments. Beautiful.
    - daeken 15y ago
      That's been in place for a few years now, IIRC. The delay gets longer as you get deeper into a thread, to deter flamewars.
  - jeisenberg 15y ago
    Can you please explain how you jump to an understanding of how our brains our wired for 'private' issues and not 'public' ones? I know plenty of individuals whose minds operate in the context of society. Language isn't private. It's shared.
    - maratd 15y ago
      > Can you please explain how you jump to an understanding Please read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. Unlike his recent work, that one is really good.
jbooth 15y ago
I'd submit that it's less like caching than it is rooting for your favorite sport team. In the current context, how else to explain liberals justifying Obama's policies WRT the financial sector, or Republicans vilifying his healthcare bill? Ask both groups of people about those policies 4 years ago, in the absence of names and faces, and you'd get very different answers. And don't even get me started on "I'm either ok with or stridently oppose deficit spending". That's the opposite of caching, it's tribe-based fist-pumping.
- espeed 15y ago
  That's why Tim Russert's Red States/Blue States map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states) is so significant -- it exacerbated the us vs. them mentality and created a deeper visual divide throughout the country. It is so effective because sports has already conditioned us to think this way. The us vs. them mentality enables parties to get away with bundling "good" policies with "bad" because Republican voters will go along with the Republican party line even though they may not agree with all of the positions, likewise with Democrats. The parties cycle every few years so the "good" stuff that doesn't pass and the "bad" stuff that gets pushed through is blamed on the other side. This wouldn't be so pervasive if we would focus on individual issues and not parties.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    We are already conditioned to think that way, tribal unity means you beat the other tribe. I'd say that the networks certainly exacerbate it by treating it as a sport, though. There's room for honest disagreement within a tribe, but we shouldn't be two tribes.
- TruthElixirX 15y ago
  >I'd submit that it's less like caching than it is rooting for your favorite sport team. Does anyone know how political views correlate with how much one likes sports?
- philwelch 15y ago
  In some cases, the link between politics and sports isn't just metaphorical. The rivalry between Barcelona and Real Madrid in Spanish soccer, for instance, pits Catalan nationalism, the Republican factions of the Spanish civil war, and anti-Franco sentiment against Spanish nationalism, the monarchist factions of the Spanish civil war, and pro-Franco sentiment. Likewise, in Scotland, the rivalry between Rangers and Celtic maps onto the conflict between Protestant, British unionism and Catholic separatism. This extends as far as Ireland. And, of course, countries that actually are angry at each other for political reasons develop passionate rivalries in the World Cup, like Argentina and England in the 1986 World Cup after the Falklands war.
barrkel 15y ago
Groups using simple majority vote cannot hold logically consistent positions, so it is an absolute necessity that those elected for office contradict a majority of the voters. Specifically, logical conjunction does not hold for voting groups. Imagine three people, X, Y and Z; and some proposition P which is true if A and B are true. Suppose X believes in A, Y believes in B, and Z believes in A and B. So vote on A: does a majority believe in A? Yes, both X and Z do. Does a majority believe in B: Yes, both Y and Z. But does a majority believe in P (which is necessarily true if both A and B are true)? No, only Z believes in P. So conjunction (i.e. the AND operator) does not hold for groups; and without conjunction, consistent logic is impossible.

by maratd 15y ago

nbashaw 15y ago

> It makes no sense for your brain to re-evaluate the same thing over and over again But we don't ever get the result of our query - we never know the true answer to the problems facing society. So I don't think caching is a good metaphor. It's more like we just give up thinking because it's uncomfortable and it's easier to be like everybody else and make up our minds.

maratd 15y ago
> But we don't ever get the result of our query - we never know the true answer to the problems facing society. Our brains aren't designed to solve societal problems. Why should they be? They are designed to solve our own problems. The answers our brains give us are meant to benefit us. They may benefit society at large tangentially, but that is not the intent, nor should it be.
- nbashaw 15y ago
  I totally agree. That's why democracy is so hard. Also: For ~5 minutes the reply button wasn't showing up. I guess PG coded in a little feature to make people take some time to calm down before getting into arguments. Beautiful.
  - daeken 15y ago
    That's been in place for a few years now, IIRC. The delay gets longer as you get deeper into a thread, to deter flamewars.
- jeisenberg 15y ago
  Can you please explain how you jump to an understanding of how our brains our wired for 'private' issues and not 'public' ones? I know plenty of individuals whose minds operate in the context of society. Language isn't private. It's shared.
  - maratd 15y ago
    > Can you please explain how you jump to an understanding Please read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. Unlike his recent work, that one is really good.

jbooth 15y ago

I'd submit that it's less like caching than it is rooting for your favorite sport team. In the current context, how else to explain liberals justifying Obama's policies WRT the financial sector, or Republicans vilifying his healthcare bill? Ask both groups of people about those policies 4 years ago, in the absence of names and faces, and you'd get very different answers. And don't even get me started on "I'm either ok with or stridently oppose deficit spending". That's the opposite of caching, it's tribe-based fist-pumping.

espeed 15y ago
That's why Tim Russert's Red States/Blue States map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states) is so significant -- it exacerbated the us vs. them mentality and created a deeper visual divide throughout the country. It is so effective because sports has already conditioned us to think this way. The us vs. them mentality enables parties to get away with bundling "good" policies with "bad" because Republican voters will go along with the Republican party line even though they may not agree with all of the positions, likewise with Democrats. The parties cycle every few years so the "good" stuff that doesn't pass and the "bad" stuff that gets pushed through is blamed on the other side. This wouldn't be so pervasive if we would focus on individual issues and not parties.
- jbooth 15y ago
  We are already conditioned to think that way, tribal unity means you beat the other tribe. I'd say that the networks certainly exacerbate it by treating it as a sport, though. There's room for honest disagreement within a tribe, but we shouldn't be two tribes.
TruthElixirX 15y ago
>I'd submit that it's less like caching than it is rooting for your favorite sport team. Does anyone know how political views correlate with how much one likes sports?
philwelch 15y ago
In some cases, the link between politics and sports isn't just metaphorical. The rivalry between Barcelona and Real Madrid in Spanish soccer, for instance, pits Catalan nationalism, the Republican factions of the Spanish civil war, and anti-Franco sentiment against Spanish nationalism, the monarchist factions of the Spanish civil war, and pro-Franco sentiment. Likewise, in Scotland, the rivalry between Rangers and Celtic maps onto the conflict between Protestant, British unionism and Catholic separatism. This extends as far as Ireland. And, of course, countries that actually are angry at each other for political reasons develop passionate rivalries in the World Cup, like Argentina and England in the 1986 World Cup after the Falklands war.

barrkel 15y ago

Groups using simple majority vote cannot hold logically consistent positions, so it is an absolute necessity that those elected for office contradict a majority of the voters. Specifically, logical conjunction does not hold for voting groups. Imagine three people, X, Y and Z; and some proposition P which is true if A and B are true. Suppose X believes in A, Y believes in B, and Z believes in A and B. So vote on A: does a majority believe in A? Yes, both X and Z do. Does a majority believe in B: Yes, both Y and Z. But does a majority believe in P (which is necessarily true if both A and B are true)? No, only Z believes in P. So conjunction (i.e. the AND operator) does not hold for groups; and without conjunction, consistent logic is impossible.