You could also read this is as 7 ways to lose an election ;)
The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People
101–110 of 172 posts
Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People
#102How about "think for yourself"? I notice that when you discuss something with a lot of partisan people they come to a pretty balanced view if the party leadership hasn't already staked out a position. But they will make a 180 turn as soon as soon as the official position is out and be totally opposed to the view they have developed previously.
Arguably that's one of the underlying themes of the entire article. In particular point #5 seems to address this, and especially the article's quote of Daniel Bell:
Ideology makes it unnecessary for people to confront individual issues on their own merits.
One simply turns to the ideological vending machine, and out come the prepared formulae.
Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People
#103Politeness comes from social solidarity: it is a consequence of social harmony, not a precursor. What if the polarization represents actual, fundamental disagreements on politics and, at root, moral axioms? Being polite hasn't done much for the respectable right for the last fifty years. I would rather focus on solutions like secession or federalism that allow groups of people with different and irreconcilable moral…
Secession and federalism are fairly naive. We already tried those solutions. In the US context it led to slavery and ultimately to a massive armed conflict. And at what unit do we consider secession acceptable? The Confederacy believed states had the right to secede but not individuals of African descent. Indeed, it was the American South that originally wanted to interfere in the business of the North in order to cr…
In the US context it led to slavery and ultimately to a massive armed conflict.
Secession and federalism lead to neither. Slavery was a pre-existing institution. War is politics by other means and pre-existed both. It being associated with secessionism in one case is no more an argument against secessionism than war being associated with democratic revolutions is an argument against democracy.
Naive: showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment.
Heal thyself.
Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you think "race relations" were better during the Reconstruction period? I don't. The point here isn't that there aren't disagreements.
It's obvious he's comparing to 90s and early 2000s. Originally I assumed things are the same, but people are just louder because of Internet. Then birthers and Trump happened, so I think it's debatable.
I don't know that it's obvious, or even who you mean by "he." But anyway, the point I wanted to make is that the recent handwringing about "polarization" lacks any sort of historical perspective.
Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People
#105IMO, A large part of the problem is people of different political views don't talk, face to face, enough. Like in war, it's easier to kill a "gook" or "haji" than a person. The Internet makes it easy to dehumanize the other side; they're just avatars and words on your screen. It's a lot harder to hate an actual person, especially just for having a different opinion than you. [Edited]
Couldn't it be that it is much better that persons of very different political views don't talk so much, face to face? I can imagine quite well that this would easily in yelling at each other etc. Also at least me I even get more hate to views someone says if I talk to him/her personally than when I only have to see his/her arguments in the internet. In other words: That people of very different views don't talk much…
Looking at how quickly (in societal terms) the gay rights movement in the USA has progressed: the number one thing that changed people's minds was individuals coming out to their friends & family. It is easy to demonize people you've ever met as perverse deviants: very different to hold on to those demonizations when you learn that somebody you've been close to your whole life is a member of this group.
On the other hand, racial minorities can't really do this: prejudices that exist prior to getting to know somebody have a much easier time both preventing people from interacting as well as having a greater likelihood of persisting during interpersonal interactions.
This is a large portion why the gay rights movement has been progressing at a faster rate than either women's rights or civil rights have in this country.
Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those historical disagreements were about something. So much of the current sound and fury is just the marketing department of the status quo attempting to convince us that there's a debate going on at all. On a giant polo field of political possibility, the Bushes and Clintons fight furiously over a tiny postage stamp of "acceptable" policies. Anyone venturing outside that is just cra aaa azy! It sort of backfired o…
In a lot of ways I agree with what you're saying, but that makes the whole "polarization" thing even more preposterous to me. The political parties are broadly in agreement with each other about many of the big issues even when voters are not -- how can anyone look at this situation and say the problem is that more "civility" or "consensus" is what is needed?
Yes we are in broad agreement. The only consolation I see is that the media echo chamber that reinforces this distraction is slowly becoming less effective at that task.
Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldn't it be that it is much better that persons of very different political views don't talk so much, face to face? I can imagine quite well that this would easily in yelling at each other etc. Also at least me I even get more hate to views someone says if I talk to him/her personally than when I only have to see his/her arguments in the internet. In other words: That people of very different views don't talk much…
Speaking from personal experience only, I work with people who are on the other side of the fence from me politically. We manage to have conversations on political matters without it boiling over into contempt and dislike. Probably the fact that it is a workplace and we all want to keep our jobs serves to keep a lid on it. I find it far easier to depersonalize someone who I don't see in the flesh on a daily basis.
Are you sure about the contempt and dislike? When I hear somebody say something stupid at work I won't necessarily say anything, or say what I think, but I will change my like/dislike of that person.
Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People
#108IMO, A large part of the problem is people of different political views don't talk, face to face, enough. Like in war, it's easier to kill a "gook" or "haji" than a person. The Internet makes it easy to dehumanize the other side; they're just avatars and words on your screen. It's a lot harder to hate an actual person, especially just for having a different opinion than you. [Edited]
As crazy as it sounds (by definition), there's a hypothesis that we get infected with viruses of the mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viruses_of_the_Mind
There's also a video explaining it in terms of funny cat video production: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People
#109How about "think for yourself"? I notice that when you discuss something with a lot of partisan people they come to a pretty balanced view if the party leadership hasn't already staked out a position. But they will make a 180 turn as soon as soon as the official position is out and be totally opposed to the view they have developed previously.
Arguably that's one of the underlying themes of the entire article. In particular point #5 seems to address this, and especially the article's quote of Daniel Bell: Ideology makes it unnecessary for people to confront individual issues on their own merits. One simply turns to the ideological vending machine, and out come the prepared formulae. I particularly like the "ideological vending machine" metaphor, and I thin…
I like the metaphor too but I don't think it's direct enough. The original seven habits had very direct advice "Sharpen the saw", "Being with the end in mind" so I think "Think for yourself" fits with the style.
Re: The Seven Habits of Highly Depolarizing People
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Equating political party = belief is a big problem Why? I agree that it's wrong to assume that because person A supports party B, they agree with the party's position on Issue C. However, Surely the party you support is the one that best reflects your beliefs. If it isn't, then why are you supporting that party? > You're forced to pick a side. You're forced to pick a side, secretly, in a booth once every n years, f…
To your first point, I think that's correct when you reach a certain level of granularity, like specific issues. Very often what can happen when people lose the distinction between Party and Belief is that (as touched on in the article): 1. We can only think of two viewpoints 2. We unintentionally assume viewpoints at a level of less granularity; In explanation of (2), consider that the Iyengar's study finds implicit…
> The obvious answer is to say, "Don't associate yourself with the D/R Party unless you agree with all of their viewpoints," [...]
Well yeah. The point of a party is to obliterate the minor differences and bull forward efficiently. You're supporting all their platforms even if you only like a few.
> I believe we can end up with an even better answer that allows people to get organized
But can you think of one that doesn't involve signing up for someone else to represent you, lock-stock-and-barrel?
I think so, but I think we need to look beyond parties.