The Problems with Partisanship (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

A timely essay here from Brink Lindsey.

Some excerpts:

First, partisanship undermines clear thinking. Second, it undermines moral integrity. In both cases, the root cause is the same: the conflation of friend and foe with right and wrong.

Consider this pair of poll results cited by Andrew Gelman in his wonderful book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State. According to a survey conducted in March 2006, nearly 30 percent of Republicans believed not only that Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction, but that the U.S. military had actually found them. Meanwhile, in a May 2007 poll, 35 percent of Democrats expressed the view that President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.

It’s not just that partisans are vulnerable to believing fatuous nonsense. It’s that their beliefs, whether sensible or otherwise, about a whole range of empirical questions are determined by their political identity. There’s no epistemologically sound reason why one’s opinion about, say, the effects of gun control should predict one’s opinion about whether humans have contributed to climate change or how well Mexican immigrants are assimilating — these things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Yet the fact is that views on these and a host of other matters are indeed highly correlated with each other. And the reason is that people start with political identities and then move to opinions about how the world works, not vice versa. ...

Consequently, I believe there is an inverse relationship today between one’s commitment to both the truth and the public interest and one’s commitment to partisanship, whether Republican or Democrat. To put it more bluntly, these days I don’t see how you can be both a good citizen and a zealous partisan. This isn’t to say you can’t lean one way or the other. Without a doubt, it’s possible to reach a fairly stable conclusion that one party ID or the other is a relatively better fit. But it should be an uncomfortable fit. If you can’t see that sometimes, even frequently, your party is dead wrong, and that sometimes the country would be better off if your party lost, then in my book you’ve got a problem. The fact that it’s an extremely common problem only makes it worse.

I think some of the same dynamics apply to sports fandom and religion.

 

[snitwitch]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

 

[The Future Champs]

A timely essay here from Brink Lindsey.

Some excerpts:

First, partisanship undermines clear thinking. Second, it undermines moral integrity. In both cases, the root cause is the same: the conflation of friend and foe with right and wrong.

Consider this pair of poll results cited by Andrew Gelman in his wonderful book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State. According to a survey conducted in March 2006, nearly 30 percent of Republicans believed not only that Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction, but that the U.S. military had actually found them. Meanwhile, in a May 2007 poll, 35 percent of Democrats expressed the view that President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.

It’s not just that partisans are vulnerable to believing fatuous nonsense. It’s that their beliefs, whether sensible or otherwise, about a whole range of empirical questions are determined by their political identity. There’s no epistemologically sound reason why one’s opinion about, say, the effects of gun control should predict one’s opinion about whether humans have contributed to climate change or how well Mexican immigrants are assimilating — these things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Yet the fact is that views on these and a host of other matters are indeed highly correlated with each other. And the reason is that people start with political identities and then move to opinions about how the world works, not vice versa. ...

Consequently, I believe there is an inverse relationship today between one’s commitment to both the truth and the public interest and one’s commitment to partisanship, whether Republican or Democrat. To put it more bluntly, these days I don’t see how you can be both a good citizen and a zealous partisan. This isn’t to say you can’t lean one way or the other. Without a doubt, it’s possible to reach a fairly stable conclusion that one party ID or the other is a relatively better fit. But it should be an uncomfortable fit. If you can’t see that sometimes, even frequently, your party is dead wrong, and that sometimes the country would be better off if your party lost, then in my book you’ve got a problem. The fact that it’s an extremely common problem only makes it worse.

I think some of the same dynamics apply to sports fandom and religion.

At least sports fandom is inconsequential. Otherwise this is pretty depressing. If you always vote a straight party line then you're probably an ###hole, and you definitely didn't learn some key lessons about representative democracy.

 

[ivnabru]

I think the worst thing is people will talk about how a certain issue is of huge importance to them. But when their party pisses all over it they don't do anything (usually they won't even complain but they'll certainly never vote their guy out). It seems like party identification has surpassed ideals in importance to most voters.

 

[Memphis Foundry]

A timely essay here from Brink Lindsey.

Some excerpts:

First, partisanship undermines clear thinking. Second, it undermines moral integrity. In both cases, the root cause is the same: the conflation of friend and foe with right and wrong.

Consider this pair of poll results cited by Andrew Gelman in his wonderful book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State. According to a survey conducted in March 2006, nearly 30 percent of Republicans believed not only that Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction, but that the U.S. military had actually found them. Meanwhile, in a May 2007 poll, 35 percent of Democrats expressed the view that President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.

It’s not just that partisans are vulnerable to believing fatuous nonsense. It’s that their beliefs, whether sensible or otherwise, about a whole range of empirical questions are determined by their political identity. There’s no epistemologically sound reason why one’s opinion about, say, the effects of gun control should predict one’s opinion about whether humans have contributed to climate change or how well Mexican immigrants are assimilating — these things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Yet the fact is that views on these and a host of other matters are indeed highly correlated with each other. And the reason is that people start with political identities and then move to opinions about how the world works, not vice versa. ...

Consequently, I believe there is an inverse relationship today between one’s commitment to both the truth and the public interest and one’s commitment to partisanship, whether Republican or Democrat. To put it more bluntly, these days I don’t see how you can be both a good citizen and a zealous partisan. This isn’t to say you can’t lean one way or the other. Without a doubt, it’s possible to reach a fairly stable conclusion that one party ID or the other is a relatively better fit. But it should be an uncomfortable fit. If you can’t see that sometimes, even frequently, your party is dead wrong, and that sometimes the country would be better off if your party lost, then in my book you’ve got a problem. The fact that it’s an extremely common problem only makes it worse.

I think some of the same dynamics apply to sports fandom and religion.

Preach, brother. Lots of similarities in the tech field as well with blind vendor allegiance.

 

[SacramentoBob]

A timely essay here from Brink Lindsey.

Some excerpts:

First, partisanship undermines clear thinking. Second, it undermines moral integrity. In both cases, the root cause is the same: the conflation of friend and foe with right and wrong.

Consider this pair of poll results cited by Andrew Gelman in his wonderful book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State. According to a survey conducted in March 2006, nearly 30 percent of Republicans believed not only that Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction, but that the U.S. military had actually found them. Meanwhile, in a May 2007 poll, 35 percent of Democrats expressed the view that President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.

It’s not just that partisans are vulnerable to believing fatuous nonsense. It’s that their beliefs, whether sensible or otherwise, about a whole range of empirical questions are determined by their political identity. There’s no epistemologically sound reason why one’s opinion about, say, the effects of gun control should predict one’s opinion about whether humans have contributed to climate change or how well Mexican immigrants are assimilating — these things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Yet the fact is that views on these and a host of other matters are indeed highly correlated with each other. And the reason is that people start with political identities and then move to opinions about how the world works, not vice versa. ...

Consequently, I believe there is an inverse relationship today between one’s commitment to both the truth and the public interest and one’s commitment to partisanship, whether Republican or Democrat. To put it more bluntly, these days I don’t see how you can be both a good citizen and a zealous partisan. This isn’t to say you can’t lean one way or the other. Without a doubt, it’s possible to reach a fairly stable conclusion that one party ID or the other is a relatively better fit. But it should be an uncomfortable fit. If you can’t see that sometimes, even frequently, your party is dead wrong, and that sometimes the country would be better off if your party lost, then in my book you’ve got a problem. The fact that it’s an extremely common problem only makes it worse.

I think some of the same dynamics apply to sports fandom and religion.

Preach, brother. Lots of similarities in the tech field as well with blind vendor allegiance.

Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

"Great article! I'm not like that, though..."

 

[oso diablo]

in a previous thread, i called this "gang sign politics".

 

[roadkill1292]

in a previous thread, i called this "gang sign politics".

Sorry I missed it because I like this characterization.This thread is gonna drive tommygunz wild.

 

[DevilsTrifecta]

in a previous thread, i called this "gang sign politics".

Sorry I missed it because I like this characterization.This thread is gonna drive tommygunz wild.

The partisans won't even show up. The article makes too much sense and they can't label the author a lefty or righty.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There’s no epistemologically sound reason why one’s opinion about, say, the effects of gun control should predict one’s opinion about whether humans have contributed to climate change or how well Mexican immigrants are assimilating — these things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Yet the fact is that views on these and a host of other matters are indeed highly correlated with each other. And the reason is that people start with political identities and then move to opinions about how the world works, not vice versa.

This is an interesting point, I think. I'm not sure I'm 100% on board with the last sentence. That may be part of the reason. But it also may be the case that there are certain fairly common ways of thinking that tend to cause people to arrive at similar opinions even on seemingly unrelated topics. For example, there seems to be a significant overlap between atheists, libertarians, and people who are into science-fiction. One subject doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the others, but there seems to be a clustering for whatever reason. E.g., a libertarian who is into sci-fi is much more likely than average to also be an atheist. I don't think it's because such people start with a group identity and then move from there to individual hobbies or beliefs. Maybe whatever causes that clustering also causes some clustering of beliefs about gun control, global warming, and immigrant assimilation.I'm not denying that the dynamic Lindsey points to plays a major role. But it may not just be that. The clustering may have some additional, more natural basis as well.

 

[Genedoc]

There’s no epistemologically sound reason why one’s opinion about, say, the effects of gun control should predict one’s opinion about whether humans have contributed to climate change or how well Mexican immigrants are assimilating — these things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Yet the fact is that views on these and a host of other matters are indeed highly correlated with each other. And the reason is that people start with political identities and then move to opinions about how the world works, not vice versa.

This is an interesting point, I think. I'm not sure I'm 100% on board with the last sentence. That may be part of the reason. But it also may be the case that there are certain fairly common ways of thinking that tend to cause people to arrive at similar opinions even on seemingly unrelated topics. For example, there seems to be a significant overlap between atheists, libertarians, and people who are into science-fiction. One subject doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the others, but there seems to be a clustering for whatever reason. E.g., a libertarian who is into sci-fi is much more likely than average to also be an atheist. I don't think it's because such people start with a group identity and then move from there to individual hobbies or beliefs. Maybe whatever causes that clustering also causes some clustering of beliefs about gun control, global warming, and immigrant assimilation.I'm not denying that the dynamic Lindsey points to plays a major role. But it may not just be that. The clustering may have some additional, more natural basis as well.

The most profound epiphany I've had in the last year or two was initiated by reading an article that suggested that as much as 80% of human decision making was driven not by logic, but by fear. That made a whole lot of things make sense to me. It's why I'm such a fan of the quote in my signature. I was frustrated for years when people would look at evidence of something, yet deny what the evidence clearly indicated. Then I realized that most people are not swayed by reason. On a related but different note, most people left wing and right wing alike are wedded to their ideas. They become personal. If you challenge their ideas, it's an insult to them personally and merely suggesting you disagree with them is tantamount to starting a fight.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

A timely essay here from Brink Lindsey.

Some excerpts:

First, partisanship undermines clear thinking. Second, it undermines moral integrity. In both cases, the root cause is the same: the conflation of friend and foe with right and wrong.

Consider this pair of poll results cited by Andrew Gelman in his wonderful book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State. According to a survey conducted in March 2006, nearly 30 percent of Republicans believed not only that Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction, but that the U.S. military had actually found them. Meanwhile, in a May 2007 poll, 35 percent of Democrats expressed the view that President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.

It’s not just that partisans are vulnerable to believing fatuous nonsense. It’s that their beliefs, whether sensible or otherwise, about a whole range of empirical questions are determined by their political identity. There’s no epistemologically sound reason why one’s opinion about, say, the effects of gun control should predict one’s opinion about whether humans have contributed to climate change or how well Mexican immigrants are assimilating — these things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Yet the fact is that views on these and a host of other matters are indeed highly correlated with each other. And the reason is that people start with political identities and then move to opinions about how the world works, not vice versa. ...

Consequently, I believe there is an inverse relationship today between one’s commitment to both the truth and the public interest and one’s commitment to partisanship, whether Republican or Democrat. To put it more bluntly, these days I don’t see how you can be both a good citizen and a zealous partisan. This isn’t to say you can’t lean one way or the other. Without a doubt, it’s possible to reach a fairly stable conclusion that one party ID or the other is a relatively better fit. But it should be an uncomfortable fit. If you can’t see that sometimes, even frequently, your party is dead wrong, and that sometimes the country would be better off if your party lost, then in my book you’ve got a problem. The fact that it’s an extremely common problem only makes it worse.

I think some of the same dynamics apply to sports fandom and religion.

There is intelligent life out there.

 

[Saints-Man]

A timely essay here from Brink Lindsey.

Some excerpts:

First, partisanship undermines clear thinking. Second, it undermines moral integrity. In both cases, the root cause is the same: the conflation of friend and foe with right and wrong.

Consider this pair of poll results cited by Andrew Gelman in his wonderful book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State. According to a survey conducted in March 2006, nearly 30 percent of Republicans believed not only that Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction, but that the U.S. military had actually found them. Meanwhile, in a May 2007 poll, 35 percent of Democrats expressed the view that President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.

It’s not just that partisans are vulnerable to believing fatuous nonsense. It’s that their beliefs, whether sensible or otherwise, about a whole range of empirical questions are determined by their political identity. There’s no epistemologically sound reason why one’s opinion about, say, the effects of gun control should predict one’s opinion about whether humans have contributed to climate change or how well Mexican immigrants are assimilating — these things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Yet the fact is that views on these and a host of other matters are indeed highly correlated with each other. And the reason is that people start with political identities and then move to opinions about how the world works, not vice versa. ...

Consequently, I believe there is an inverse relationship today between one’s commitment to both the truth and the public interest and one’s commitment to partisanship, whether Republican or Democrat. To put it more bluntly, these days I don’t see how you can be both a good citizen and a zealous partisan. This isn’t to say you can’t lean one way or the other. Without a doubt, it’s possible to reach a fairly stable conclusion that one party ID or the other is a relatively better fit. But it should be an uncomfortable fit. If you can’t see that sometimes, even frequently, your party is dead wrong, and that sometimes the country would be better off if your party lost, then in my book you’ve got a problem. The fact that it’s an extremely common problem only makes it worse.

I think some of the same dynamics apply to sports fandom and religion.

 

[clampino]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

 

[Gr00vus]

The partisans won't even show up. The article makes too much sense and they can't label the author a lefty or righty.

Then he must be ambidextrous - I HATE those guys!!! Pick a hand and go with it - otherwise you're just a wishy washy guy who'll never make it in the bigs.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

When I encounter an issue that I haven't really thought about before or don't have the expertise to understand, I tend to favor the position of people that I've agreed with in the past about other stuff. I don't think that's a bad shortcut to take when forming an opinion. I think it makes a lot of sense. It's impossible to be thoughtful and expert on every subject right from the start. Sometimes you have to begin by just believing people you find trustworthy.

 

[Hooper31]

Without a doubt, it’s possible to reach a fairly stable conclusion that one party ID or the other is a relatively better fit. But it should be an uncomfortable fit.

 

[Harry Manback]

Thank goodness I never took the time to understand the parties and formed thoughts first.

 

[Saints-Man]

When I encounter an issue that I haven't really thought about before or don't have the expertise to understand, I tend to favor the position of people that I've agreed with in the past about other stuff. I don't think that's a bad shortcut to take when forming an opinion. I think it makes a lot of sense. It's impossible to be thoughtful and expert on every subject right from the start. Sometimes you have to begin by just believing people you find trustworthy.

I think it is. No one group or ideaology is right on every issue. To assume that they are right because you think they have been right in the past leads to groupthink. And that is exactly what the article addresses.

 

[Da Guru]

What would it be like to not have any parties of affilations? Men and women running on thier own beliefs and values for public office? Why have parties dictate?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

When I encounter an issue that I haven't really thought about before or don't have the expertise to understand, I tend to favor the position of people that I've agreed with in the past about other stuff. I don't think that's a bad shortcut to take when forming an opinion. I think it makes a lot of sense. It's impossible to be thoughtful and expert on every subject right from the start. Sometimes you have to begin by just believing people you find trustworthy.

Why? There's no rule that says you have to have an opinion on a topic before you've thought it through. Just don't take a position until you've had a chance to investigate it further.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

When I encounter an issue that I haven't really thought about before or don't have the expertise to understand, I tend to favor the position of people that I've agreed with in the past about other stuff. I don't think that's a bad shortcut to take when forming an opinion. I think it makes a lot of sense. It's impossible to be thoughtful and expert on every subject right from the start. Sometimes you have to begin by just believing people you find trustworthy.

I think it is. No one group or ideaology is right on every issue. To assume that they are right because you think they have been right in the past leads to groupthink. And that is exactly what the article addresses.

It's a rebuttable presumption. If I hear compelling evidence that the person I trust is wrong, I'll change my view. But I don't see the value in pretending that, say, Jim11 is just as likely to be right about something as scoobygang.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Just don't take a position until you've had a chance to investigate it further.

Part of the process of investigation is assessing the credibility of various arguments. I don't see why I should act as though the source of an argument doesn't matter. It does.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Just don't take a position until you've had a chance to investigate it further.

Part of the process of investigation is assessing the credibility of various arguments. I don't see why I should act as though the source of an argument doesn't matter. It does.

Sure, but that's very different than favoring the position of people you've agreed with in the past about other stuff. Whether or not someone agrees with me on abortion rights has no bearing on whether or not they're a credible source of information on gun control, for example. This is exactly what the article is talking about. Issues like these are completely distinct, but for some reason people who share the same opinion on issue A also share the same opinion on issue B. If you're trying to form an opinion on issue B, I'm not sure why you would default to the position shared by people who agree with you on issue A until you are convinced otherwise.

 

[honky kong]

To put it more bluntly, these days I don’t see how you can be both a good citizen and a zealous partisan.

What's interesting to me about this idea is that the zealous partisans seem to be convinced that you can't be a good citizen if you're not.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Whether or not someone agrees with me on abortion rights has no bearing on whether or not they're a credible source of information on gun control, for example.

You might be right if all I know is "this guy is pro-choice." But if I've been able to observe the assumptions he makes and thought processes he uses when reaching the pro-choice conclusion, then I think that goes towards his credibility on completely unrelated issues.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

There is no epistemological reason why someone should like beer if they also like boobies; however ...

 

[Saints-Man]

When I encounter an issue that I haven't really thought about before or don't have the expertise to understand, I tend to favor the position of people that I've agreed with in the past about other stuff. I don't think that's a bad shortcut to take when forming an opinion. I think it makes a lot of sense. It's impossible to be thoughtful and expert on every subject right from the start. Sometimes you have to begin by just believing people you find trustworthy.

I think it is. No one group or ideaology is right on every issue. To assume that they are right because you think they have been right in the past leads to groupthink. And that is exactly what the article addresses.

It's a rebuttable presumption. If I hear compelling evidence that the person I trust is wrong, I'll change my view. But I don't see the value in pretending that, say, Jim11 is just as likely to be right about something as scoobygang.

Your presumption is that these are the only two having these opinions. You cited someone(scoobygang) who is thoughtful and expressive, and compared him to someone that is decidedly not.Why have a default opinion anyway? What is so wrong about saying...I don't know about that issue?

 

[Saints-Man]

Just don't take a position until you've had a chance to investigate it further.

Part of the process of investigation is assessing the credibility of various arguments. I don't see why I should act as though the source of an argument doesn't matter. It does.

What if it is Yankee23fan and cr8f that has a difference of opinion? Which side will you take then?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

When I encounter an issue that I haven't really thought about before or don't have the expertise to understand, I tend to favor the position of people that I've agreed with in the past about other stuff.

Are you talking about specific people, or are you talking about mouthpieces for political parties?If the former, I don't think it explains the phenomenon described in the original post. Let's say that you're impressed with scoobygang's analysis of the effects of gun control, and you therefore give some initial credibility to his thoughts about anthropogenic global warming. That makes sense if scoobygang has a good overall track record, as far as you can tell, for getting stuff right. It explains why, given that you agree with scoobygang about gun control, you're likely to also agree with him about AGW. But I don't think it explains why you'd also tend to agree with most other people (who in most cases have never even heard of scoobygang) on either both issues or neither, rather than on just one of the two. It's not all that odd that you and scoobygang are aligned on a huge majority of controversial issues. But it's still rather odd that a large plurality of the population are aligned on a huge majority of controversial issues, while another huge plurality of the population -- aligned with each other -- take the view contrary to yours on a huge majority of controversial issues. There are lots of scoobygangs out there, people others look to for guidance, but why should they tend to fall neatly into one of two camps, roughly speaking? For a set of ten controversial issues, if each has two sides, there are over 1,000 possible combinations of positions a person can take. Of those 1,000+ possible combinations of positions, why should just two of them dominate in frequency over all the rest?

Your position on gun control might be a good predictor of your position on AGW because you follow scoobygang's approach to both; but why is scoobygang's position on gun control a good predictor of his position on AGW?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Why have a default opinion anyway? What is so wrong about saying...I don't know about that issue?

The process of forming opinions doesn't work like that. I can't just spend loads of time absorbing information without leaning in any direction, and then suddenly reach a fully-formed conclusion at a particular moment in time when the weight of evidence reaches a certain point. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "I don't know." But I also don't think there's anything wrong with forming opinions by relying on people you trust.

 

[Bonzai]

Just don't take a position until you've had a chance to investigate it further.

Part of the process of investigation is assessing the credibility of various arguments. I don't see why I should act as though the source of an argument doesn't matter. It does.

What if it is Yankee23fan and cr8f that has a difference of opinion? Which side will you take then?

I agree with your point, but I don't think you picked the best example here...

 

[Saints-Man]

Why have a default opinion anyway? What is so wrong about saying...I don't know about that issue?

The process of forming opinions doesn't work like that. I can't just spend loads of time absorbing information without leaning in any direction, and then suddenly reach a fully-formed conclusion at a particular moment in time when the weight of evidence reaches a certain point. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "I don't know." But I also don't think there's anything wrong with forming opinions by relying on people you trust.

First bolded...what do you mean "doesn't work like that"? Isn't that how it should work?As far as the 2nd bolded, I would never surrender my intellectual independence to anyone, even someone I trusted.

Have you ever met someone, no matter how smart or ethical they were, that you agreed with them on every issue? I certainly have not, and I have met people that I have respected deeply.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

What if it is Yankee23fan and cr8f that has a difference of opinion? Which side will you take then?

There are some individuals that I think are very smart but who I've read enough of to know that they operate from assumptions about how the world works that I completely disagree with. So even if the person presents arguments clearly and thoughtfully, those arguments may not be persuasive to me.There are some people that I tend to agree with on a lot of issues but have seen enough of their thought process to know that they probably aren't a reliable source. So I don't find those people terribly persuasive either.In the situation you describe, I would probably try to seek out more views.

 

[Guest]

There’s no epistemologically sound reason why one’s opinion about, say, the effects of gun control should predict one’s opinion about whether humans have contributed to climate change or how well Mexican immigrants are assimilating — these things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Yet the fact is that views on these and a host of other matters are indeed highly correlated with each other. And the reason is that people start with political identities and then move to opinions about how the world works, not vice versa.

This is an interesting point, I think. I'm not sure I'm 100% on board with the last sentence. That may be part of the reason. But it also may be the case that there are certain fairly common ways of thinking that tend to cause people to arrive at similar opinions even on seemingly unrelated topics. For example, there seems to be a significant overlap between atheists, libertarians, and people who are into science-fiction. One subject doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the others, but there seems to be a clustering for whatever reason. E.g., a libertarian who is into sci-fi is much more likely than average to also be an atheist. I don't think it's because such people start with a group identity and then move from there to individual hobbies or beliefs. Maybe whatever causes that clustering also causes some clustering of beliefs about gun control, global warming, and immigrant assimilation.I'm not denying that the dynamic Lindsey points to plays a major role. But it may not just be that. The clustering may have some additional, more natural basis as well.

This was my first thought as well.My other thought on this is that there might be some issues which I'm either undefined or against the beliefs of the people whose viewpoint I normally share. But that doesn't mean that I adopt their beliefs; I simply don't really get involved with the discussion. And then people may, erroneously, assume that I subscribe to that viewpoint. And it's not that I'm afraid of going againt my peeps; it's simply that those issues are not the most important to me. Because if they were, I'd be on the other side.

And a third explanation is that in today's culture, partisans are the victims. People are so inundated with over the top rhetoric demonizing the other side that they naturally distrust something that the other side supports. If the Biblical devil was to tell you that he's in favor of gun control, you might think that it might be a good thing to be against. And although no current politician is thought of quite as lowly as the devil, I'm not so sure that it's really far off.

 

[Saints-Man]

What if it is Yankee23fan and cr8f that has a difference of opinion? Which side will you take then?

There are some individuals that I think are very smart but who I've read enough of to know that they operate from assumptions about how the world works that I completely disagree with. So even if the person presents arguments clearly and thoughtfully, those arguments may not be persuasive to me.There are some people that I tend to agree with on a lot of issues but have seen enough of their thought process to know that they probably aren't a reliable source. So I don't find those people terribly persuasive either.

In the situation you describe, I would probably try to seek out more views.

Respectfully, that is not a mindset that is open to seeing the world in new ways and therefore growing.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

When I encounter an issue that I haven't really thought about before or don't have the expertise to understand, I tend to favor the position of people that I've agreed with in the past about other stuff.

Are you talking about specific people, or are you talking about mouthpieces for political parties?

Specific people or groups. I'd have to know exactly what you're referring to with the "mouthpiece" thing before I can answer your question for certain.

Your position on gun control might be a good predictor of your position on AGW because you follow scoobygang's approach to both; but why is scoobygang's position on gun control a good predictor of his position on AGW?

Because I don't think the dynamic works in only one direction and involves only one connection. I'm not only relying on scoobygang, I'm also relying on other people I think highly of. And part of scoobygang's decisionmaking process involved him relying on people he trusted. Maybe we share similar views on climate change because we both are trusting shining path. And maybe shining path's view on gun control was informed by how much he trusted us.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

There are some individuals that I think are very smart but who I've read enough of to know that they operate from assumptions about how the world works that I completely disagree with. So even if the person presents arguments clearly and thoughtfully, those arguments may not be persuasive to me.

Respectfully, that is not a mindset that is open to seeing the world in new ways and therefore growing.

I might not be explaining myself well. For example, I think very highly of Maurile's point of view on certain subjects. If he posts an opinion on some scientific issue, for example, it will certainly inform my thinking and I'll probably end up agreeing.But Maurile and I see the role of government very differently. And so when he posts thoughtfully about a political issue, I automatically consider whether his conception of what government should do is influencing his opinion in this area. And it usually does. So even though I enjoy reading his posts and discussing this stuff with him, I'm frequently able to recognize that his position is heavily influenced by a view of the world that I don't share. So it would only make sense for me to be influenced by his viewpoint if somehow I became convinced that the foundation he was operating under was correct.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

When I encounter an issue that I haven't really thought about before or don't have the expertise to understand, I tend to favor the position of people that I've agreed with in the past about other stuff.

Are you talking about specific people, or are you talking about mouthpieces for political parties?

Specific people or groups. I'd have to know exactly what you're referring to with the "mouthpiece" thing before I can answer your question for certain.

I just meant individual people as opposed to Republicans or Democrats, as parties. There are only two major parties. So if a lot of people follow a party's position, that explains why so many people fall neatly into one of two groups.But there are a great many individual people who may be influential on certain issues. So if a lot of people follow individuals they respect, I don't think that would explain why so many people fall neatly into one of two groups.Essentially, I was taking your comment about provisionally agreeing on new issues with people you've previously agreed with on other issues, and asking: if everyone did that, would it explain why so many people tend to fall into one of just two categories?If many people are following one of two parties, the obvious answer is yes. But if you're talking about individuals not necessarily affiliated with a political party, and everyone adopted your habit, I don't think it would explain why so many people tend to fall into one of just two categories.

Your position on gun control might be a good predictor of your position on AGW because you follow scoobygang's approach to both; but why is scoobygang's position on gun control a good predictor of his position on AGW?

Because I don't think the dynamic works in only one direction and involves only one connection. I'm not only relying on scoobygang, I'm also relying on other people I think highly of. And part of scoobygang's decisionmaking process involved him relying on people he trusted. Maybe we share similar views on climate change because we both are trusting shining path. And maybe shining path's view on gun control was informed by how much he trusted us.

Yeah. I think that kind of dynamic could have a strong effect in a population the size of the FFA's. But I doubt it explains why a population the size of America's tends to be split into just two major camps on so many diverse issues. I'm not going to try to build a model or anything, though; it's just a gut instinct.

 

[Saints-Man]

There are some individuals that I think are very smart but who I've read enough of to know that they operate from assumptions about how the world works that I completely disagree with. So even if the person presents arguments clearly and thoughtfully, those arguments may not be persuasive to me.

Respectfully, that is not a mindset that is open to seeing the world in new ways and therefore growing.

I might not be explaining myself well. For example, I think very highly of Maurile's point of view on certain subjects. If he posts an opinion on some scientific issue, for example, it will certainly inform my thinking and I'll probably end up agreeing.But Maurile and I see the role of government very differently. And so when he posts thoughtfully about a political issue, I automatically consider whether his conception of what government should do is influencing his opinion in this area. And it usually does. So even though I enjoy reading his posts and discussing this stuff with him, I'm frequently able to recognize that his position is heavily influenced by a view of the world that I don't share. So it would only make sense for me to be influenced by his viewpoint if somehow I became convinced that the foundation he was operating under was correct.

Most issues, however, are not that profound. Things like health care reform may be put into that light, but certainly not all issues and I would suggest not most. So, his original world view makes not a wit of difference to me.How are you describing this, fatguy, is that you could not agree with someone who doesn't share your "world view". I could not disagree with that more. By automatically defaulting to a certain world view and dismissing others(in this case, MT's), you are not relying on the nature of the data, but the philosophy of which the data is framed. That way, you will never modify your world view.

I can respect the different world views of the scoobygang's, bigbottom's, MT's, and Yankee23fan's(and others) and consider the ideas they put forth to challenge my own world view. I will admit that through the clarity of their correspondence, I have changed my own world view on things. I don't know how old you are, but to me, a person is NEVER to old to modify their world view.

From what you have written, you only allow yourself to be influenced by people who share your world view. Again, respectfully, that is not a mindset that is open to seeing the world in new ways and therefore growing.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

This is the first FFA political thread I can remember that doesn't suck.

 

[Saints-Man]

When I encounter an issue that I haven't really thought about before or don't have the expertise to understand, I tend to favor the position of people that I've agreed with in the past about other stuff.

Are you talking about specific people, or are you talking about mouthpieces for political parties?

Specific people or groups. I'd have to know exactly what you're referring to with the "mouthpiece" thing before I can answer your question for certain.

I just meant individual people as opposed to Republicans or Democrats, as parties. There are only two major parties. So if a lot of people follow a party's position, that explains why so many people fall neatly into one of two groups.But there are a great many individual people who may be influential on certain issues. So if a lot of people follow individuals they respect, I don't think that would explain why so many people fall neatly into one of two groups.Essentially, I was taking your comment about provisionally agreeing on new issues with people you've previously agreed with on other issues, and asking: if everyone did that, would it explain why so many people tend to fall into one of just two categories?If many people are following one of two parties, the obvious answer is yes. But if you're talking about individuals not necessarily affiliated with a political party, and everyone adopted your habit, I don't think it would explain why so many people tend to fall into one of just two categories....

Yes, but if the only people he trusts are on one side of the political spectrum, is not this effectively the same thing as following a political party?I might not read the DailyKos, but if I take my default positions from cr8f and TommyGunz and by default agree with them because we have a similar world view, then how will I be anything be a Democrat partisan? (This paragraph was solely a hypothetical).

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Your position on gun control might be a good predictor of your position on AGW because you follow scoobygang's approach to both; but why is scoobygang's position on gun control a good predictor of his position on AGW?

Because I don't think the dynamic works in only one direction and involves only one connection. I'm not only relying on scoobygang, I'm also relying on other people I think highly of. And part of scoobygang's decisionmaking process involved him relying on people he trusted. Maybe we share similar views on climate change because we both are trusting shining path. And maybe shining path's view on gun control was informed by how much he trusted us.

Yeah. I think that kind of dynamic could have a strong effect in a population the size of the FFA's. But I doubt it explains why a population the size of America's tends to be split into just two major camps on so many diverse issues. I'm not going to try to build a model or anything, though; it's just a gut instinct.

The FFA is a pretty good microcosm of America.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'm frequently able to recognize that his position is heavily influenced by a view of the world that I don't share.

Most issues, however, are not that profound. Things like health care reform may be put into that light, but certainly not all issues and I would suggest not most. So, his original world view makes not a wit of difference to me.How are you describing this, fatguy, is that you could not agree with someone who doesn't share your "world view". I could not disagree with that more. By automatically defaulting to a certain world view and dismissing others(in this case, MT's), you are not relying on the nature of the data, but the philosophy of which the data is framed. That way, you will never modify your world view.

I can respect the different world views of the scoobygang's, bigbottom's, MT's, and Yankee23fan's(and others) and consider the ideas they put forth to challenge my own world view. I will admit that through the clarity of their correspondence, I have changed my own world view on things. I don't know how old you are, but to me, a person is NEVER to old to modify their world view.

From what you have written, you only allow yourself to be influenced by people who share your world view. Again, respectfully, that is not a mindset that is open to seeing the world in new ways and therefore growing.

I can agree with people that don't share my world view. My world view can even change. But arguments are made out of building blocks. And if someone is creating an argument with a foundation of building blocks I believe are faulty, I'm just not going to give it the same credence as someone that makes an argument based on solid blocks.

 

[Voltaire]

I wish NCC was still around to tell me whether I should be agreeing with Maurile or not.

 

[Saints-Man]

....I can agree with people that don't share my world view. My world view can even change. But arguments are made out of building blocks. And if someone is creating an argument with a foundation of building blocks I believe are faulty, I'm just not going to give it the same credence as someone that makes an argument based on solid blocks.

Respectfully, how does your world view change if you consistently give credence to people who share your current world view and tend to dismiss those that do not share your world view? Does your world view change only if those who share your world view changes?As for the first sentence, how do you agree with people that don't share your world view? Unless I am misunderstanding something, you wrote that you tend to dismiss even cogent, thoughtful arguments from people who have a "view of the world that I don't share"? You wrote that about a political issue, which is what the OP references.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

....I can agree with people that don't share my world view. My world view can even change. But arguments are made out of building blocks. And if someone is creating an argument with a foundation of building blocks I believe are faulty, I'm just not going to give it the same credence as someone that makes an argument based on solid blocks.

Respectfully, how does your world view change if you consistently give credence to people who share your current world view and tend to dismiss those that do not share your world view? Does your world view change only if those who share your world view changes?As for the first sentence, how do you agree with people that don't share your world view? Unless I am misunderstanding something, you wrote that you tend to dismiss even cogent, thoughtful arguments from people who have a "view of the world that I don't share"? You wrote that about a political issue, which is what the OP references.

Let me try to give some more concrete examples. I've been using "world view" to mean something like "first principles." One thing I believe is that life isn't fair and that an important role of government, possibly the most important role of government, is to make it more fair. Now, I know that a lot of very smart people disagree with that position and I'm perfectly happy to engage in a discussion about it. And if someone says something I find persuasive when we're having that discussion, then it's certainly possible I could change my position.But now let's say were having a more specific political disagreement, about, say, estate taxes. And someone posts a very detailed and thoughtful argument about why we shouldn't have estate taxes. But I know from previous discussions that this guy completely disagrees that government should be trying to make the world more fair. It makes no sense for me to ignore that when considering his position. Because maybe he would have the complete opposite view if his "first principles" were more like mine.

 

[Saints-Man]

...

Let me try to give some more concrete examples. I've been using "world view" to mean something like "first principles." One thing I believe is that life isn't fair and that an important role of government, possibly the most important role of government, is to make it more fair. Now, I know that a lot of very smart people disagree with that position and I'm perfectly happy to engage in a discussion about it. And if someone says something I find persuasive when we're having that discussion, then it's certainly possible I could change my position.

But now let's say were having a more specific political disagreement, about, say, estate taxes. And someone posts a very detailed and thoughtful argument about why we shouldn't have estate taxes. But I know from previous discussions that this guy completely disagrees that government should be trying to make the world more fair. It makes no sense for me to ignore that when considering his position. Because maybe he would have the complete opposite view if his "first principles" were more like mine.

Respectfully, isn't that what partisanship is? People who share these "first principles"? If this someone posts an argument, why does it matter what his "first principles" are? How can any reasonable middle ground be gained if "first principles" are primarily considered?You either agree or disagree with his argument. If you have to go deeper than what is presented(I am not referring to fact checking...I am referring to your "first principles" argument), then that is taking a partisan viewpoint, because you are defaulting your opinion to your "side", that is, the people who share your "first principles".

I think the defining mechanism b/w the two political parties in America now is their "first principles" as you described them. In years gone by, the parties were more diverse, but now at their core they define themselves as what the role of government should be. Since you are using that as your barometer, I would suggest that you are participating in this partisan divide, maybe without realizing it and possibly using a different vernacular. But from what you have written, it certainly sounds the same.

 

[Hooper31]

The FFA is a pretty good microcosm of America.

I strongly disagree. The FFA is a good microcosm of middle aged white American males. I feel confident in those labels. I wouldn't feel as strongly about adding married and with children to that list, but my hunches tell me that the FFA has a larger share with those two characteristics than America in general.