Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why People Are Irrational about Politics

spot.colorado.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: Why People Are Irrational about Politics

#51

Post by JoshTriplett »

bovermyer wrote: post #38
Liver wrote: post #15

Let's face it, political parties are designed to divide the people. Why that ? Because political power like every power seeks its own limits. It looks to increase its own power. In a (so-called) democracy, government negociates the boundaries of its own power with the people. One way to get more power for the governement is to weaken the people by dividing them. Now you see the people divided in many different ways w…

This implies that government, in and of itself, is a conspiracy to perpetuate consolidation of power. That's enough of a broad generalization that I can't take it seriously - while it may be true for some forms of organization, I don't think we have enough data (or the right KIND of data) to actually make a call like that, let alone claim that political parties in particular are defined by power orchestration by a ce…

It's entirely possible for this kind of thing to fall out as a natural consequence of a set of constraints and institutions, without any central planning or conspiracy.

For instance, look at Duverger's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law), which says that the standard "one person one vote" voting system we use naturally tends to produce a two-party system. Beyond that, there are institutional tendencies towards compromise and centrism that will tend to make key parts of both parties similar to each other and drift towards each other, while roughly matching overall society sentiments, and emphasizing a handful of ideological differences that match/create those in society (with a feedback cycle). Put that together with standard political tactics like proposing an extreme position and "compromising" with what you wanted in the first place, and with the tendency of any system made up of people to perpetuate itself and give itself more power.

So it's entirely plausible that we'd naturally tend towards something like we have: a two-party system, with differences on some high-profile items that, common agreement between those parties on other issues (most notably on the self-perpetuation and growth of government and bureaucracy, even if in disagreement with substantial fractions of the public), near-impossibility of electing a third-party candidate, etc.

Re: Why People Are Irrational about Politics

#52

Post by _bfhp »

Liver wrote: post #15

Let's face it, political parties are designed to divide the people. Why that ? Because political power like every power seeks its own limits. It looks to increase its own power. In a (so-called) democracy, government negociates the boundaries of its own power with the people. One way to get more power for the governement is to weaken the people by dividing them. Now you see the people divided in many different ways w…

>Everybody want essentially the same things, to have their essential needs fulfilled : food, home, health, family, freedom

No, everyone does not want "family", which I assume means a spouse and children. Family is not essential to life. So already we see a problem with any one person assuming any sort of unanimous positionality among every human. We don't even have to talk about how "freedom" is relative -- the factually false claim that "family [is an essential need]" is an easier point.

Social struggles are indeed engineered: by the rich, by men, by the more powerful nations, by white people. Slavery and white law in the U.S. existed (I'd like to add "exists" but that fact is less obvious to more people) and was an act of "engineering" -- I am personally not forgetting that and the fact of its effects continuing today, despite how OP seems to advocate that I do so. I will not forget that whiteness exists, as does gender, the monetary system, and the self-interests of nations like the U.S., Israel, the UK, etc, and neither should anybody. The purpose of division is security and extraction of resources -- from women, non-whites, and the poor and indigenous.

Re: Why People Are Irrational about Politics

#53

Post by aidos »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #44
sjtrny wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "correct" position. But there are positions that are objectively better if you measure outcomes like health, education, safety, prosperity etc etc.

They are not, in fact 'objectively' better, because the degree to which you prioritize each of those things differs based on each person's values. Take welfare, for instance. Social welfare programs help the vulnerable, and undoubtedly some non-zero percentage of people are taking advantage of said programs wrongly. In the US, people who are liberal are more interested in the former, and people who are conservative a…

I'd hope that most conservatives don't attach that justification to welfare cuts. You effectively said that they would be happy to punish the vulnerable to ensure that those taking advantage of the system would also be punished. I Am Not A Conservative, but I'm fairly sure most of them would be horrified with that categorisation.

I didn't downvote you, I do agree that you can't just say one or other thing is objectivley better. I think your example missed the mark though.

Re: Why People Are Irrational about Politics

#54

Post by sjtrny »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #44
sjtrny wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "correct" position. But there are positions that are objectively better if you measure outcomes like health, education, safety, prosperity etc etc.

They are not, in fact 'objectively' better, because the degree to which you prioritize each of those things differs based on each person's values. Take welfare, for instance. Social welfare programs help the vulnerable, and undoubtedly some non-zero percentage of people are taking advantage of said programs wrongly. In the US, people who are liberal are more interested in the former, and people who are conservative a…

Increasing welfare will likely improve the lives of those who are using it, including those who are taking advantage of it. You did not disprove my point at all.

Re: Why People Are Irrational about Politics

#55

Post by coldtea »

sjtrny wrote: post #39
dreamdu5t wrote: post #4

It's not that people are irrational. People have different prefences . There are winners and losers in politics, and peoples' preferences are often mutually exclusive. The idea that there is some kind of "correct" political position is absurd and grossly ignorant of what politics IS. Example: Some people think there shouldn't be an income tax. Someone else thinks there should be. There is no such thing as a "correct"…

There is no "correct" position. But there are positions that are objectively better if you measure outcomes like health, education, safety, prosperity etc etc.

They are objectively better only if you agree 1) on the relative importance of those aspects, and 2) on how to measure success.

E.g. regarding to health. One approach (e.g. state funded, guaranteed health coverage for all) might give better overall health statistics for the whole population, even eradicating certain classes of diceases, etc.

But some people could still think of it as bad, because they don't just want "better health" for everybody, but better health for those that can afford it, and consider the others lazy and cheaters that deserve to not have health coverage.

Now, I'm on the first camp, but this is an illustrative example of how measuring results is not some kind of solution that ends the political debate.

Re: Why People Are Irrational about Politics

#56

Post by aidos »

bobcostas55 wrote: post #31
michaelkeenan wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the correct URL should be http://www.owl232.net/objectiv.htm

The crux of the argument is in 3.3...he's basically parroting the worst parts of Kant. The argument was destroyed by Hume before it was even put forth, ridiculed by Nietzsche (BGE 11, a very entertaining passage), and then had all its foundations removed by Quine in Two Dogmas. This is not philosophy, it's badly-cloaked theology. Like cavemen attributing the thunder to a god, except even worse because now we have the…

This is well outside my sphere of knowledge. Are you able to lay out the basic arguments that you're referring too? (I appreciate that might be to onerous a task, given the amount of material you've cited)

Re: Why People Are Irrational about Politics

#57

Post by lexcorvus »

golemotron wrote: post #18

The best thing I've read about political differences is the book Predisposed http://www.amazon.com/Predisposed-Liberals-Conservatives-Pol... It makes the argument (supported by copious research) that there are biological correlations of conservatism and liberalism with disgust reflex, taste in food and art, perceptual cues and threat response. I'm not convinced that they have the direction of causation settled but it…

This sort of research only makes sense if you use an expansive definition of "liberal" and "conservative". From a historical perspective, it makes hardly any sense at all. For example, Englishmen in 1590 presumably split into "liberal" and "conservative" camps as defined by such research, and yet essentially everyone was ridiculously reactionary by modern standards, in that most people were monarchists who supported the personal rule of a queen. This suggests that the liberal/conservative divide, while real, need not necessarily bleed into politics. It's democracy, of course, that changed the game.

Re: Why People Are Irrational about Politics

#58

Post by sjtrny »

coldtea wrote: post #55
sjtrny wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "correct" position. But there are positions that are objectively better if you measure outcomes like health, education, safety, prosperity etc etc.

They are objectively better only if you agree 1) on the relative importance of those aspects, and 2) on how to measure success. E.g. regarding to health. One approach (e.g. state funded, guaranteed health coverage for all) might give better overall health statistics for the whole population, even eradicating certain classes of diceases, etc. But some people could still think of it as bad, because they don't just want…

> But some people could still think of it as bad

That's great. They can continue to think that. But overall improved health stats is an objectively better position. I am aware that it doesn't end the debate, for precisely the reason discussed in the linked article: people are irrational.

Re: Why People Are Irrational about Politics

#59

Post by EGreg »

WalterBright wrote: post #36
EGreg wrote: post #34

Because people selectively cherry-pick facts to support the narratives they are invested in, and in doing so become more invested. Both narratives can be supported using data, provided one interprets the data in a certain way. Same with religions. Very rarely does a slam dunk case appear totally disproving one particular explanatory narrative. Karl Popper's "Science as Falsification" essay is very useful here. And fu…

Doesn't this imply that all political opinions and regimes are essentially equivalent?

No

Re: Why People Are Irrational about Politics

#60

Post by nikdaheratik »

I'll give the OP points for ambition, but I believe the article leans too much on Psychology for explanations rather than Political Science. This makes sense, if you are looking for the conclusion that people are irrational, but I don't find this satisfactory.

My personal view, from reading Jonathan Bernstein's blog and his take from a Political Science view, is that people hold strong and weak political beliefs/preferences and people are rational about both, but apply different standards depending upon whether they are a strong or weak belief.

For example, a person may have a strong preference that abortion should be illegal. They would have thought about this issue a great deal and have rational reasons why they feel this way. However, the political party that is in favor of passing laws to restrict abortion is made up of constituents that are also in favor of less regulation of firearms and also capital punishment so the person who really cares about the abortion issue (their strong beliefs) may also take cues from the party elites about gun control and capital punishment (as weak political beliefs).

It may seem irrational/inconsistent for someone who argues about the sanctity of life when talking about abortion to also be in favor of capital punishment (which involves taking of lives) or gun control (which also can result in a number of deaths by firearms). However, if the person really cares about changing the laws on abortion and may not care as much about the other policy areas they are perfectly willing to go along with the position of the elites in the party/coalition and make these less rational arguments without too much dissonance since they don't actually care that much about the weaker beliefs.

So political change is both possible and rational. It can be effected either be getting a large number of people to care about this single issue (making it their strong belief) or getting party elites/actors convinced your position is the correct one and knowing that the other people in the coalition will take your side as long as you also go along with the beliefs that they value most.

Post reply on HN