4 ms·

> The only lens that works when viewing politics (and altruism is a form of politics) is to assume people are miscommunicating their intended outcome. Could yo

> The only lens that works when viewing politics (and altruism is a form of politics) is to assume people are miscommunicating their intended outcome. Could you explain what you mean by this? I'm intrigued.

roenxi 4y ago
Tricky question to answer, particularly without picking specific examples and getting too political. I suppose what I'm trying to say is there is pretty overwhelming evidence that the voting public doesn't understand cause and effect of the policies they are calling for. Eg, spending 20 minutes debating politics with anyone makes it apparent that at least one and often all sides of a debate are people who don't really understand the particulars of the situation, in most cases haven't read the policies involved or done much research beyond listening to some with charisma and maybe some credentials. They don't change their minds. Then the actual politicians build up their rhetoric and positions, and they have to mirror what the voters are thinking to get votes. But the voters are often demanding incoherent or stupid policies that aren't at all aligned with expert advice. My personal favourite showcase is a combination like loose border control combined with a strong welfare state - no fair & feasible way to do both. The situation ends up with politicians who have to say things that clearly they don't believe in service of goals they cannot pursue, in order to hold office. If they were serious about what they are communicating, we'd expect them to check the evidence & maybe run a couple of trials to see how feasible the whole plan is. And if they did they would change their mind quite quickly, because there is actually quite a lot of evidence out there about what works. But they won't, because they aren't serious & that they are actually doing is mimicking the opinions of the large, oft-changing and schizophrenic opinion of a mass of voters. And the voters really don't care because big groups of people are not at all altruistic outside their in-group.
- bcbrown 4y ago
  Ok, sounds like we agree. I phrase it as, people have their inherent political positions, and then they rationalize them post-hoc.

roenxi 4y ago

Tricky question to answer, particularly without picking specific examples and getting too political. I suppose what I'm trying to say is there is pretty overwhelming evidence that the voting public doesn't understand cause and effect of the policies they are calling for. Eg, spending 20 minutes debating politics with anyone makes it apparent that at least one and often all sides of a debate are people who don't really understand the particulars of the situation, in most cases haven't read the policies involved or done much research beyond listening to some with charisma and maybe some credentials. They don't change their minds. Then the actual politicians build up their rhetoric and positions, and they have to mirror what the voters are thinking to get votes. But the voters are often demanding incoherent or stupid policies that aren't at all aligned with expert advice. My personal favourite showcase is a combination like loose border control combined with a strong welfare state - no fair & feasible way to do both. The situation ends up with politicians who have to say things that clearly they don't believe in service of goals they cannot pursue, in order to hold office. If they were serious about what they are communicating, we'd expect them to check the evidence & maybe run a couple of trials to see how feasible the whole plan is. And if they did they would change their mind quite quickly, because there is actually quite a lot of evidence out there about what works. But they won't, because they aren't serious & that they are actually doing is mimicking the opinions of the large, oft-changing and schizophrenic opinion of a mass of voters. And the voters really don't care because big groups of people are not at all altruistic outside their in-group.

bcbrown 4y ago
Ok, sounds like we agree. I phrase it as, people have their inherent political positions, and then they rationalize them post-hoc.