6 ms·

I am not sure the conclusions are particularly revelatory. The political system in the US appears to rely on using tribal association - Democrat/Republican, Con

I am not sure the conclusions are particularly revelatory. The political system in the US appears to rely on using tribal association - Democrat/Republican, Conservative/Liberal - to get people to group themselves (by branding each tribe) then the political class just inserts whatever policies suit their goals and the masses fill in the blanks of justification. From the last decade alone there are countless examples of Bush policies opposed by D voters and supported by R voters yet when the same policies are enacted by the Obama administration people take the opposite positions. We all know it happens and see it every day.

srean 14y ago
Given that the study was funded by the Swedish research council and by a Swedish professor from Lund, and that the participants were recruited randomly from people in a park (assuming one in Sweden) I would guess they were Swedish. I share your disappointment about the current cliquish political environment in US, but that may not be a good explanation of the results. It might well be that such behavior is universal, but that will need more substantiation/exploration.
- repsilat 14y ago
  I think the GP was just giving a local example (for them, at least) to support an argument for a universal phenomenon. They probably didn't mean to imply that anyone associated with the study was American or particularly influenced by American thought (or, for that matter, that tribalism itself is a uniquely American quality).
  - richardjordan 14y ago
    Right. That's exactly what I was saying. I think this is a universal phenomenon, for which we have clear evidence in front of our eyes played out on the most public of stages. It was not meant to link the US and the study, nor was it to indict/laud the US system. Merely a neutral commentary that popped into my mind reading this study. You said it more concisely than me - thanks :-)
hindsightbias 14y ago
> countless examples name one. > We all know I think you see what you want to see, and not any reality.
- ImprovedSilence 14y ago
  Several of Obama's policies (not including the health care bill) have been exceedingly pro-capatilism, and Obama is making huge huge pushes to bring manufacturing back to the states and create American jobs. Both of which you would think would cater to the Republican philosophies, but no, he's just seen as even more "socialist" with them. And to try to lend a little credit to my statement, I'm independent, and tend to vote conservative/libertarian.
  - hindsightbias 14y ago
    > bring manufacturing back Well, I'd say Republicans mouth those ideals and then vote for nafta/wto/etc. And so did many Democrats. So did Clinton. But I don't see bringing jobs back as anti-Democrat, I'd see it as more of a progressive/workers thing. The only people screaming about Nafta were unions, socialists and paleocons. edit: I'd add that as for economic philosophies, Reagan Democrats are still Reagan Democrats. > credit I'm sure that in your mind, democrats flip-flop all the time. I just don't see any evidence of that regardless of your personal enlightenments.
    - ImprovedSilence 14y ago
      >> "I'm sure that in your mind, democrats flip-flop all the time. I just don't see any evidence of that regardless of your personal enlightenments." I'm not entirely sure how I implied dems flip-flop, or do so more than repubs? I was more making the case that people will stick to their "tribe/pack mentality" even when the other side is doing something congruent with their "beliefs". I also wasn't attacking Obama above, but supporting some of his actions. But now that you mention it... Obama pledged to bring change and transparency to the presidency, but he's been the harshest president on whistle blowers, and actually operates more behind closed doors than any before him. He also flipped on the gitmo/prisoner thing. They all flip-flop (politicians, red or blue), this is politics, say whatever it takes to get yourself in office, then say whatever it takes to keep yourself there. The American public is buyin.
ImprovedSilence 14y ago
That's the best description I've ever seen of the two party system. People will defend their fox news or cnn to the DEATH, no matter how much it goes against their actual self interest. Politics/tribes do crazy things to people...
- JasonFruit 14y ago
  You're assuming that one's political views should reflect one's self-interest. I think it's morally consistent to hold to principles even when they don't benefit you; it's not necessarily evidence of political trickery at work.
  - ImprovedSilence 14y ago
    I think too many people think the is a difference between self-interest and morality. They are one in the same. For example, you could say helping spread wealth to the poor is not in your self-interest, but it is morally appealing to you. But that is wrong, if it appeals to your morals for whatever reason (you like helping people, you think it will create a better world, you think everyone deserves more opportunity) then it is clearly also in your self interest. (although not immediately apparent, as it means less wealth for you). The issue here is that the political parties seem to have a "tribal" divide, where parties on both ends refuse to acknowledge that the other side may be doing things according to their ideology, simply because it is the other side...
grey-area 14y ago
It's not just the political system in the US - this has been going on since the patricians and the plebs, and is unlikely to change. I'm not sure that it is some form of elitist conspiracy though - people form tribal associations all the time even without the encouragement of leaders online or offline.

srean 14y ago

Given that the study was funded by the Swedish research council and by a Swedish professor from Lund, and that the participants were recruited randomly from people in a park (assuming one in Sweden) I would guess they were Swedish. I share your disappointment about the current cliquish political environment in US, but that may not be a good explanation of the results. It might well be that such behavior is universal, but that will need more substantiation/exploration.

repsilat 14y ago
I think the GP was just giving a local example (for them, at least) to support an argument for a universal phenomenon. They probably didn't mean to imply that anyone associated with the study was American or particularly influenced by American thought (or, for that matter, that tribalism itself is a uniquely American quality).
- richardjordan 14y ago
  Right. That's exactly what I was saying. I think this is a universal phenomenon, for which we have clear evidence in front of our eyes played out on the most public of stages. It was not meant to link the US and the study, nor was it to indict/laud the US system. Merely a neutral commentary that popped into my mind reading this study. You said it more concisely than me - thanks :-)

hindsightbias 14y ago

> countless examples name one. > We all know I think you see what you want to see, and not any reality.

ImprovedSilence 14y ago
Several of Obama's policies (not including the health care bill) have been exceedingly pro-capatilism, and Obama is making huge huge pushes to bring manufacturing back to the states and create American jobs. Both of which you would think would cater to the Republican philosophies, but no, he's just seen as even more "socialist" with them. And to try to lend a little credit to my statement, I'm independent, and tend to vote conservative/libertarian.
- hindsightbias 14y ago
  > bring manufacturing back Well, I'd say Republicans mouth those ideals and then vote for nafta/wto/etc. And so did many Democrats. So did Clinton. But I don't see bringing jobs back as anti-Democrat, I'd see it as more of a progressive/workers thing. The only people screaming about Nafta were unions, socialists and paleocons. edit: I'd add that as for economic philosophies, Reagan Democrats are still Reagan Democrats. > credit I'm sure that in your mind, democrats flip-flop all the time. I just don't see any evidence of that regardless of your personal enlightenments.
  - ImprovedSilence 14y ago
    >> "I'm sure that in your mind, democrats flip-flop all the time. I just don't see any evidence of that regardless of your personal enlightenments." I'm not entirely sure how I implied dems flip-flop, or do so more than repubs? I was more making the case that people will stick to their "tribe/pack mentality" even when the other side is doing something congruent with their "beliefs". I also wasn't attacking Obama above, but supporting some of his actions. But now that you mention it... Obama pledged to bring change and transparency to the presidency, but he's been the harshest president on whistle blowers, and actually operates more behind closed doors than any before him. He also flipped on the gitmo/prisoner thing. They all flip-flop (politicians, red or blue), this is politics, say whatever it takes to get yourself in office, then say whatever it takes to keep yourself there. The American public is buyin.

ImprovedSilence 14y ago

That's the best description I've ever seen of the two party system. People will defend their fox news or cnn to the DEATH, no matter how much it goes against their actual self interest. Politics/tribes do crazy things to people...

JasonFruit 14y ago
You're assuming that one's political views should reflect one's self-interest. I think it's morally consistent to hold to principles even when they don't benefit you; it's not necessarily evidence of political trickery at work.
- ImprovedSilence 14y ago
  I think too many people think the is a difference between self-interest and morality. They are one in the same. For example, you could say helping spread wealth to the poor is not in your self-interest, but it is morally appealing to you. But that is wrong, if it appeals to your morals for whatever reason (you like helping people, you think it will create a better world, you think everyone deserves more opportunity) then it is clearly also in your self interest. (although not immediately apparent, as it means less wealth for you). The issue here is that the political parties seem to have a "tribal" divide, where parties on both ends refuse to acknowledge that the other side may be doing things according to their ideology, simply because it is the other side...

grey-area 14y ago

It's not just the political system in the US - this has been going on since the patricians and the plebs, and is unlikely to change. I'm not sure that it is some form of elitist conspiracy though - people form tribal associations all the time even without the encouragement of leaders online or offline.