6 ms·

I'm right with you on your slactivism. I like the idea of being very involved in politics, but I just cannot stand (a) listening to politicians, or (b) talking

I'm right with you on your slactivism. I like the idea of being very involved in politics, but I just cannot stand (a) listening to politicians, or (b) talking about politics. I just don't have the heart for the current discourse in the country. Every once in awhile, I'll try to go the good citizen route, look into the current issues, and then draw my own conclusion.. but what was all that effort for? I've tried my best to present logical rebuttals to people's points. I try to source only relevant, publicly available government data when possible, but it means nothing. The response I usually get? "Yeah, but.. still.." and then they go back to making their talking point. "But still.." is not a rebuttal, people. I spent several hours investigating the energy policy of the candidates. I pulled a bunch of charts from the EPA, compiled them all into an email, and then gave my armchair analysis of the policy given the available data. I was told that "I'm missing the important issue." So... fuck it. I'll just go back to studying.

jessedhillon 14y ago
IME the role of logic in decision-making has been greatly overemphasized. People need to first be convinced in an emotional/intuitive way, then given logical arguments to support what they are experiencing. The idea that a person -- anyone, not just "dumb people" -- think first about a matter rationally and then act in a matter consistent with logic, is failing to address a huge component of human behavior: people only behave in their rational best interests if/when they are not emotionally invested in the outcome.
- gmaslov 14y ago
  Well, an obvious way to address this would be to become emotionally invested in acting rationally. It's a pity that so many people aren't.
  - jessedhillon 14y ago
    I'd be writing from the Moon right now if obvious-to-state were the same thing as obvious-to-achieve. Even if we accept your unwarranted assumption that strict rationality is unilaterally superior to experiential and intuitive modes of being, which is not at all a given: how do you propose we induce a widespread emotional investment in living life like a Vulcan, something that runs counter to the instincts of many/most people? Edit: sorry that came out quite jerk-like. Point is, why is rational always better than intuitive, and how could anyone hope to create such a massive emotional investment in an intellectual concept.
mikeash 14y ago
The current US government is mostly atrocious, but I'm convinced that the American people have the government they, or we, collectively deserve. Congress hasn't become horribly dysfunctional and stupid because they've somehow become disconnected from the people. Rather, the electorate has become horribly dysfunctional and stupid, and Congress simply follows along. I think the main problem is that our system is set up so that fringe elements have much more power. Voting happens in the middle of the week and is not an official holiday. Who turns out to vote, then? The people who care most passionately will inevitably show up in much greater numbers than people who are less enthusiastic. Passion is great, all else being equal, but I believe that passion correlates strongly with craziness in the political arena. Primary elections are even worse in this respect, since most people don't care about them, and the result is that you end up with two major ballot choices, both of whom are nuts, because the primaries got decided by the fringes. A lack of term limits means that members of Congress get deeply entrenched, with a result that turnover is not all that high. Why bother voting when the winner is a given anyway? Why bother voting even when the winner isn't a given if it's pretty much a given that the overall structure of power at the national level won't change? And even if that might happen, why bother voting when the other party will just filibuster the shit out of everything anyway? Finally, the Electoral College means that the decision for the top man in government gets decided by, what, maybe 10% of the total population of the country? Presidential candidates concentrate on swing states because they're the only ones that actually count, and that makes the whole business even more fringe. In short, it seems like the whole system is rigged to discourage moderate, sane people from wanting to participate in any meaningful way. I know it works on me. I vote in Presidential elections and midterms, but not enthusiastically. I would never dream of joining a political party, let alone volunteering for one. I hang up on surveys, ignore campaign flyers, and never, ever donate. I haven't even written a letter to my representative in years, after realizing that all it does is generate a mail-merged form response.
- scarmig 14y ago
  I'm sympathetic to much of your comment. But I'm pretty skeptical that the solution to problems in American federal government is to make our federal government more similar to California's state government by adding term limits. That simply shifts power from individual legislators to unelected party apparatchiks.

jessedhillon 14y ago

IME the role of logic in decision-making has been greatly overemphasized. People need to first be convinced in an emotional/intuitive way, then given logical arguments to support what they are experiencing. The idea that a person -- anyone, not just "dumb people" -- think first about a matter rationally and then act in a matter consistent with logic, is failing to address a huge component of human behavior: people only behave in their rational best interests if/when they are not emotionally invested in the outcome.

gmaslov 14y ago
Well, an obvious way to address this would be to become emotionally invested in acting rationally. It's a pity that so many people aren't.
- jessedhillon 14y ago
  I'd be writing from the Moon right now if obvious-to-state were the same thing as obvious-to-achieve. Even if we accept your unwarranted assumption that strict rationality is unilaterally superior to experiential and intuitive modes of being, which is not at all a given: how do you propose we induce a widespread emotional investment in living life like a Vulcan, something that runs counter to the instincts of many/most people? Edit: sorry that came out quite jerk-like. Point is, why is rational always better than intuitive, and how could anyone hope to create such a massive emotional investment in an intellectual concept.

mikeash 14y ago

The current US government is mostly atrocious, but I'm convinced that the American people have the government they, or we, collectively deserve. Congress hasn't become horribly dysfunctional and stupid because they've somehow become disconnected from the people. Rather, the electorate has become horribly dysfunctional and stupid, and Congress simply follows along. I think the main problem is that our system is set up so that fringe elements have much more power. Voting happens in the middle of the week and is not an official holiday. Who turns out to vote, then? The people who care most passionately will inevitably show up in much greater numbers than people who are less enthusiastic. Passion is great, all else being equal, but I believe that passion correlates strongly with craziness in the political arena. Primary elections are even worse in this respect, since most people don't care about them, and the result is that you end up with two major ballot choices, both of whom are nuts, because the primaries got decided by the fringes. A lack of term limits means that members of Congress get deeply entrenched, with a result that turnover is not all that high. Why bother voting when the winner is a given anyway? Why bother voting even when the winner isn't a given if it's pretty much a given that the overall structure of power at the national level won't change? And even if that might happen, why bother voting when the other party will just filibuster the shit out of everything anyway? Finally, the Electoral College means that the decision for the top man in government gets decided by, what, maybe 10% of the total population of the country? Presidential candidates concentrate on swing states because they're the only ones that actually count, and that makes the whole business even more fringe. In short, it seems like the whole system is rigged to discourage moderate, sane people from wanting to participate in any meaningful way. I know it works on me. I vote in Presidential elections and midterms, but not enthusiastically. I would never dream of joining a political party, let alone volunteering for one. I hang up on surveys, ignore campaign flyers, and never, ever donate. I haven't even written a letter to my representative in years, after realizing that all it does is generate a mail-merged form response.

scarmig 14y ago
I'm sympathetic to much of your comment. But I'm pretty skeptical that the solution to problems in American federal government is to make our federal government more similar to California's state government by adding term limits. That simply shifts power from individual legislators to unelected party apparatchiks.