Republican Run-in

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

I think it's very interesting that Republicans are better informed. Because many Republican representatives are not very well informed about basic science, based on their comments, platforms and legislation. Such as anti abortion legislation proposing re implanting ectopic pregnancies. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/05/10/sponsor-an-ohio-abortion-bill-thinks-you-can-reimplant-ectopic-pregnancies-you-cant/

as well as misunderstandings about fossil fuels (the amount, the environmental impacts), renewable energy, the environment and in general about climate change. The POTUS (and defacto head of the Republican party regularly spouts and re-tweets non fact-based conspiracy theories.

Under the current Republican administration, science (that disagrees with their dogma) is under attack. The climate change portion of the White house page was removed. Various gag orders were given to NOAA and NASA scientists regarding climate change including ordered not to present or disseminate results. In general the view is they want to move funding from being "evidence-based" to being based on what is "popular". Medicine, and science is not a popularity contest.

What is also concerning, is that the Republican party both at the state and Federal levelwork to weaken and defund public education. We need better support for public education (yes, even at the college level), not less. As a population we track behind European countries in being educated and informed. A recent Pew center showed no significant differences between identified Republicans or Democrats in able to distinguish between fact and opinion. Both sides had bias, and in general Americans did not do well (averaged 3 out of 5 correct). People who were politically aware and trusted the news media were more accurate than those who were not.   https://www.journalism.org/2018/06/18/factual-opinion-appendix-a-measuring-capacity-to-classify-statements-as-factual-or-opinion/

https://thehill.com/news-by-subject/healthcare/365204-trump-admin-bans-cdc-from-using-evidence-based-and-science-based

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bowmanmarsico/2019/04/19/democrats-and-republicans-divided-on-climate-change/#314189f03198

Of course the punchline to the story is that even if Republicans are approximately as informed as Democrats, it's still the case that a median supporter of either tribe is not particularly well-informed (remind me which party is more likely to support rent control, even though the consensus among economists on that topic is as solid as the consensus among climate scientists on global warming?). Though this line of thinking gets to my point about facts not really mattering anyway: if someone is informed then the next layer of problems is that they are informed but biased (Brennan's "Hooligans").

Jason Brennan writes about this in Against Democracy, where he further points out that if you actually evaluate which tribe is better informed, Republicans hold a slight edge over Democrats (other findings: middle-aged people are better informed than older and younger people, men are better informed than women, whites are better informed than blacks, college educated better informed than HS educated, etc., etc., though note the co-linearity of some of the categories). Maybe these are the facts we should base our decision making off of? Of course, Brennan's overall point is that we should restrict suffrage to those who relatively well-informed, even though that still leaves the problem of political bias. Low-information voters effectively know less than nothing.

Interesting that there is another MMMer who read that book.  I disagree with his point of view, which to me is just an elitist argument for saying "these people like us" should be able to participate, but those other folks who aren't so wise and enlightened shouldn't. He doesn't seem to explore the idea that those who are operating on "low information"  may be making more optimal and efficient use of their time. That horror of horrors, they might be right.  It took me 30 plus years to come to the conclusion that the nonparticipants and those who spent minimal time on the process (i.e. those operating on "low information") were the ones who were actually optimizing.  Not precious and oh-so-brilliant me who thought that campaigning and advocating and casting my one vote out of 130,000,000 cast was accomplishing something worthwhile.

Brennan does actually mention it's pointless to put much thought into informed, rational voting since any single vote is virtually guaranteed to not be decisive in all but the tiniest of elections. The problem is that voters are doing this optimization and the result is analogous to an externality such as pollution of the commons ("Why does the public goods argument justify regulating air pollution, but doesn't justify regulating voting pollution?"). I basically agree with the argument for Epistocracy (call me an elitist if you want) but also know it's a stillborn idea since there is no clear way to get to there from here.

@neo von retorch that Wait But Why series is excellent, thanks for the link

[vern]

One of the guys in our chess group voted for Hillary but we never stopped talking to him.  We just avoid political discussions now.

Although there was the time he made my knight retreat from e5.  When I returned it to that square I said "I'm going to make that knight great again."

[Wrenchturner]

One of the guys in our chess group voted for Hillary but we never stopped talking to him.  We just avoid political discussions now.

Although there was the time he made my knight retreat from e5.  When I returned it to that square I said "I'm going to make that knight great again."

You're not sending your best.  To e5.

I work with an avowed Trump supporter.  No one really gives him much grief.  Could also be because he's a hothead and a felon. But that doesn't usually hold people back here.  I'm surprised he doesn't get in more arguments. 

My city has a weird blend of typically libertarian-conservative  rural roots types, as well as fairly progressive and socialist urban dwellers.  It shows at work too.  I'd say most employees are leaning socialist/progressive but there's a few small gov low tax conservative types around.  I think it's divided by temperament somewhat.  The cooperative, team oriented folk are typically more liberal and the competitive, no nonsense self interested ones tend to be more conservative.

[talltexan]

One of my co-workers is the BiL of the conservative governor of a major red state.

I asked him the other day if there was anyone who was so extreme right that it bothered him. He paused (for a long time) before finally saying "Ted Turner."

[Aelias]

I would classify myself and most of the people in my social circle as pretty darn liberal.  I don't know of anyone who has actually refused to talk to someone or cut a family member out of their lives based on their political affiliations or beliefs.  That's both impractical and immature.  And those people who wouldn't give their neighbor a ride home in the rain?  That's awful.  Do better.

But, I will say that I do have a harder time relating to the people in my life who support Trump.  Not so much because they support Trump per se, but because of the beliefs and values that lead them to support Trump.

For example, my in-laws are big Trump supporters and, for the most part, we just don't talk about politics anymore.  But that doesn't erase all the differences in values and worldview that lead us to our political beliefs.  For my husband's and my part, we're atheist/agnostic, concerned about environmental issues, are skeptical about corporate power, and like that we live in a place with lots of immigrants and people of different cultures.  My in-laws are deeply religious, concerned about government overreach, and think that immigrants should assimilate to their view of traditional American values and the country would be better of with fewer immigrants in general.  These are extremely different value systems and lead to different lifestyle choices on everything -- how to spend a vacation, what to eat for dinner, what kind of schools are best, how to celebrate holidays.   

I don't think they're bad people, although since Trump came onto the political scene in 2015, they have said some things about immigrants and people of other races that were alarmingly cruel. They have mostly been kind to my husband and me and they love our children. That's really the only common ground.  We stay in each others' lives because of our children.

When they are at our house, I make an effort to do the things that make them comfortable because they are guests and that's how I was raised to treat a guest.  We raise the thermostat, go to church, eat more meat, let the kids watch more TV, drive when we would usually walk.  When we're at their house, we do basically the same stuff, but I have noticed small accommodations they have made for us--like having fresh vegetables in the fridge.  They do actively thumb their noses at our values on some issues, such as by ignoring our request for fewer gifts and proselytizing to our kids, which I don't appreciate. My husband and I try to stay positive about it to allow the kids to have their own relationship with their grandparents, but it is hard.

So, no -- I wouldn't cut someone, particularly a family member, out of my life because they supported Trump.  But I do think political beliefs are a reflection of someone's values.  And someone who supports Trump probably has very different values than I do.  And, naturally, that makes it harder to have a close relationship.

[talltexan]

Trump creates new fractures on issues that didn't exist before.

Republicans favored free trade until Trump declared he was "tariff man". Suddenly they like taxing trade.

Republicans rallied behind Romney when he declared Russia to be our #1 geo-political rival. Now they think we have the chance to cooperate with them.

[Just Joe]

Firstly I live in a red state.

I hear tone-deaf comments frequently from Trump supporters.

Occasionally I'll hear something really alarming from a random person like Trump ought to use bombs or bullets to protect the borders or go after a national rival like Iran.

Its alarming b/c I work for an employer with coworkers from all over. All good people "despite" being from these countries that the GOP always seems to be in conflict with such as Iran.

The past decade plus has helped me see how some folks can seem fairly ordinary day to day and yet be influenced by extreme voices around them. If things got ugly politically, so would they.

I used to read history books and wonder how people could treat their neighbors so badly (Jews, African-Americans, immigrants) but I guess I was naive. I carry no such grudges. 

[StarBright]

I think it's very interesting that Republicans are better informed. Because many Republican representatives are not very well informed about basic science, based on their comments, platforms and legislation. Such as anti abortion legislation proposing re implanting ectopic pregnancies. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/05/10/sponsor-an-ohio-abortion-bill-thinks-you-can-reimplant-ectopic-pregnancies-you-cant/

So Pew puts out a public knowledge survey (and then breaks down by party) every now and then (annually?) and Republicans do outperform Dems by about 1 point. I assume this survey is what Brennan is referring to.  It is generally 10-11 questions on world events. And the survey often includes things that are about half directly related to politics (who is the head of the Fed) and half current events (where did the 2010 Ebola outbreak begin). Republicans tend to outperform on topics of interest to them (The current quiz includes  Q:"what is the group that most conservative republican house members belong to?" A: Freedom Caucus) and Democrats tend to do well on questions that are of interest to them. Nothing shocking there.

Pew also notes that they do not correct their total results for age or education and notes that age can definitely skew the numbers in favor of Republicans. One of the older surveys asked what party Ronald Reagn had belonged to, but the youngest respondents hadn't even been alive when he was in office, while the older had obviously been old enough to vote.

If I recall correctly the 50+ age bracket tends to do best on these quizzes and I do not find that shocking based on the news viewing habits of all of my retired family :)

I did look at the most recent quiz results and thought it was interesting that the younger age brackets outperformed the older when it came to global issues (Zika, Macron, and Brexit) and the older generations outperformed on domestic (Gorsuch, Pompeo)

I think it is entirely possible that Republicans (in general) can be better informed about the members of our governing bodies , while Democrats (in general) might be better informed on global, trending, or scientific issues.

[maizefolk]

The past decade plus has helped me see how some folks can seem fairly ordinary day to day and yet be influenced by extreme voices around them. If things got ugly politically, so would they.

I used to read history books and wonder how people could treat their neighbors so badly (Jews, African-Americans, immigrants) but I guess I was naive. I carry no such grudges.

At the risk of violating Godwin's Law, I found this article from Harpers in 1941 a truly fascinating read. Written by a woman who had lived in Germany and left as things were going really bad, then lived in France and escaped again, talking about people one might encounter at a party in the USA and speculating who would and would not be swayed to support the nazi ideology and become collaborators if Hilter were to occupy the USA (which I guess still felt like something that was well within the realm of possibility in that year).

Posted not to compare any group or political party to nazi's, but as a fascinating read about some of the psychology that can lead regular seeming people to throw their lot in with extremist organizations and ultimately become blind the the humanity of their neighbors and fellow human beings from a person who observed it happen multiple times.

[StarBright]

[ . . ., I found this article from Harpers in 1941 a truly fascinating read. Written by a woman who had lived in Germany and left as things were going really bad, then lived in France and escaped again, talking about people one might encounter at a party in the USA and speculating who would and would not be swayed to support the nazi ideology and become collaborators if Hilter were to occupy the USA (which I guess still felt like something that was well within the realm of possibility in that year).

Thank you so much for that link! It was a wonderful read. It managed to be both droll and dead serious at the same time. That was some solid writing and a great thought exercise.

[maizefolk]

You're welcome! The first time I read it I worried that I saw a little too much of how she describes "Mr. B" in myself, and have since tried to cultivate a bit more of a "Mr. H" worldview when it comes to politics, which has left be a happier person all around.

[Freedom2016]

I think it's very interesting that Republicans are better informed. Because many Republican representatives are not very well informed about basic science, based on their comments, platforms and legislation. Such as anti abortion legislation proposing re implanting ectopic pregnancies. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/05/10/sponsor-an-ohio-abortion-bill-thinks-you-can-reimplant-ectopic-pregnancies-you-cant/

So Pew puts out a public knowledge survey (and then breaks down by party) every now and then (annually?) and Republicans do outperform Dems by about 1 point. I assume this survey is what Brennan is referring to.  It is generally 10-11 questions on world events. And the survey often includes things that are about half directly related to politics (who is the head of the Fed) and half current events (where did the 2010 Ebola outbreak begin). Republicans tend to outperform on topics of interest to them (The current quiz includes  Q:"what is the group that most conservative republican house members belong to?" A: Freedom Caucus) and Democrats tend to do well on questions that are of interest to them. Nothing shocking there.

Pew also notes that they do not correct their total results for age or education and notes that age can definitely skew the numbers in favor of Republicans. One of the older surveys asked what party Ronald Reagn had belonged to, but the youngest respondents hadn't even been alive when he was in office, while the older had obviously been old enough to vote.

If I recall correctly the 50+ age bracket tends to do best on these quizzes and I do not find that shocking based on the news viewing habits of all of my retired family :)

I did look at the most recent quiz results and thought it was interesting that the younger age brackets outperformed the older when it came to global issues (Zika, Macron, and Brexit) and the older generations outperformed on domestic (Gorsuch, Pompeo)

I think it is entirely possible that Republicans (in general) can be better informed about the members of our governing bodies , while Democrats (in general) might be better informed on global, trending, or scientific issues.

Thank you for sharing this... I was baffled by the "Republicans are better informed" finding... because it simply does not track my interactions with Trump supporters. Truly. The Trump supporters I know exclusively listen to Fox News, which traffics in conspiracy theories more so than information sharing. In recent years, I have found it virtually impossible to have a nuanced policy conversation across the aisle.

The bolded makes sense to me and better tracks my experiences across the aisle.

[Chris Pascale]

One last story of running into a nut while getting signatures

I came face-to-face with about 2,000 people while getting nearly 550 signatures for Andrew Yang. Many were awesome. Obviously, the gentleman who sparked this post had a personal issue that led to him literally turning his back on me before we talked for 30 minutes. Personally, I'd enjoy speaking to him again.

Then, there was a disgruntled Democrat down the block from me who I describe on page 2 of this thread as Yang Hater.


STORY 3

I'm in a commercial parking lot asking people if they will sign for Andrew Yang to be on the primary ballot.

"No," this guy says, "he's a fucking retard."

Now, under the age-old wisdom of it takes one to know one, maybe he's right.

I tell him to have a nice day and ask another person - no - then another - no.

"No one's gonna sign it," the guy yells from farther away. "No one."

Like an idiot, I reply, "Five-hundred people before you would disagree."

"Yeah right! Yeah right! No one's gonna sign it."

Again, I invite him to have a nice day, and someone signs the petition.

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

I think it's very interesting that Republicans are better informed. Because many Republican representatives are not very well informed about basic science, based on their comments, platforms and legislation. Such as anti abortion legislation proposing re implanting ectopic pregnancies. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/05/10/sponsor-an-ohio-abortion-bill-thinks-you-can-reimplant-ectopic-pregnancies-you-cant/

So Pew puts out a public knowledge survey (and then breaks down by party) every now and then (annually?) and Republicans do outperform Dems by about 1 point. I assume this survey is what Brennan is referring to.  It is generally 10-11 questions on world events. And the survey often includes things that are about half directly related to politics (who is the head of the Fed) and half current events (where did the 2010 Ebola outbreak begin). Republicans tend to outperform on topics of interest to them (The current quiz includes  Q:"what is the group that most conservative republican house members belong to?" A: Freedom Caucus) and Democrats tend to do well on questions that are of interest to them. Nothing shocking there.

Pew also notes that they do not correct their total results for age or education and notes that age can definitely skew the numbers in favor of Republicans. One of the older surveys asked what party Ronald Reagn had belonged to, but the youngest respondents hadn't even been alive when he was in office, while the older had obviously been old enough to vote.

If I recall correctly the 50+ age bracket tends to do best on these quizzes and I do not find that shocking based on the news viewing habits of all of my retired family :)

I did look at the most recent quiz results and thought it was interesting that the younger age brackets outperformed the older when it came to global issues (Zika, Macron, and Brexit) and the older generations outperformed on domestic (Gorsuch, Pompeo)

I think it is entirely possible that Republicans (in general) can be better informed about the members of our governing bodies , while Democrats (in general) might be better informed on global, trending, or scientific issues.

Thank you for sharing this... I was baffled by the "Republicans are better informed" finding... because it simply does not track my interactions with Trump supporters. Truly. The Trump supporters I know exclusively listen to Fox News, which traffics in conspiracy theories more so than information sharing. In recent years, I have found it virtually impossible to have a nuanced policy conversation across the aisle.

The bolded makes sense to me and better tracks my experiences across the aisle.

Interestingly, with respect to having accurate beliefs about the beliefs of ideological rivals, conservatives fare the same as progressives/liberals, with distorted views about rivals increasing in proportion to one's polarization. Note that NY Times readers have the same magnitude of distorted perception as those who follow Fox News--and: "Only one media source is associated with better understanding other Americans’ views: the traditional television networks of ABC, NBC and CBS". Generally, consuming more news is associated with greater perception distortion (confirmation bias?). Interestingly, with increasing education, Republicans have roughly constant perception distortion, while for Democrats, perception distortion increases considerably with rising education.

The general takeaway is that most {Democrats, Republicans} are not as ideologically extreme as believed by most {Republicans, Democrats}, while its also still true that political polarization has increased considerably. The {Trump, Hillary, Bernie, Pete} supporters I know are mostly ordinary people who are only moderately politically engaged and (as the Pew research indicates) about as well-informed as one-another.

[talltexan]

I actually think most people have a very on at least one major issue that is completely crazy.

I've started asking the people around me to celebrate their crazy rather than try to play in a middle that isn't really their home.

My crazy belief: the mortgage-interest-tax-deduction is destroying America!

[Chris Pascale]

My crazy belief: the mortgage-interest-tax-deduction is destroying America!

You're a maniac.

[talltexan]

and I vote!

[Just Joe]

Explain the mortgage deduction problem to me like I'm 5.

I'm 6, but whatever... ;)

[talltexan]

I'll try it assuming a higher age to get the discussion going:
We want people to benefit from home ownership. But we tax that (via the property tax).

We subsidize debt against real estate. So the incentives are to take out more debt on the property than otherwise might be done.

debt = risk

so we're providing an incentive to people to owe more money than they otherwise would (perhaps buying a slightly larger house than is right for them).

**disclosure: I am an enthusiastic member of the Do NOT pay off your mortgage club in my private life; I want to draw a clear line between my private economic choices and the public policy question we're discussing here

[Just Joe]

Thank you...

[Chris Pascale]

Well said, @talltexan. I think paying off the mortgage is best as a means of not having the payment. Generally speaking, less payments are better, and dropping this weight from our packs can make for a nicer hike up the trail.

But, like you said, there is the wealth tax that all home owners pay.

[talltexan]

@Chris Pascale I still want to keep the distinction between our personal choices and the public effects of the policy. My own choices cause me to benefit from the mortgage interest deduction, while I believe our society is worse off for it.

[Buffaloski Boris]

At the risk of violating Godwin's Law, I found this article from Harpers in 1941 a truly fascinating read. Written by a woman who had lived in Germany and left as things were going really bad, then lived in France and escaped again, talking about people one might encounter at a party in the USA and speculating who would and would not be swayed to support the nazi ideology and become collaborators if Hilter were to occupy the USA (which I guess still felt like something that was well within the realm of possibility in that year).

Posted not to compare any group or political party to nazi's, but as a fascinating read about some of the psychology that can lead regular seeming people to throw their lot in with extremist organizations and ultimately become blind the the humanity of their neighbors and fellow human beings from a person who observed it happen multiple times.

Fascinating article and thanks for posting.  Reminds me of some reading I did a year or two ago on the Gestapo.  What I found surprising was how small the Gestapo was relatively speaking and how little they relied on the sort of "spies everywhere" theme that you see in the movies.  The German people of the time were all too happy to denounce their neighbors.  The Gestapo was more a bureaucracy, and was often overwhelmed by the amount of information that was willingly provided by the German people.

[Buffaloski Boris]

The general takeaway is that most {Democrats, Republicans} are not as ideologically extreme as believed by most {Republicans, Democrats}, while its also still true that political polarization has increased considerably. The {Trump, Hillary, Bernie, Pete} supporters I know are mostly ordinary people who are only moderately politically engaged and (as the Pew research indicates) about as well-informed as one-another.

Most people aren't too bad when you get to talking to them.  And they're usually a lot more thoughtful than the popular political caricatures indicate. And here's the head-scratcher for me: they're completely gobsmacked by "the others" who aren't part of their political/social tribe. As if those folks couldn't be as thoughtful and kind as they are. 

The political/cultural game of Divide and Conquer has worked quite well it seems.   
   

[Wrenchturner]

The general takeaway is that most {Democrats, Republicans} are not as ideologically extreme as believed by most {Republicans, Democrats}, while its also still true that political polarization has increased considerably. The {Trump, Hillary, Bernie, Pete} supporters I know are mostly ordinary people who are only moderately politically engaged and (as the Pew research indicates) about as well-informed as one-another.

Most people aren't too bad when you get to talking to them.  And they're usually a lot more thoughtful than the popular political caricatures indicate. And here's the head-scratcher for me: they're completely gobsmacked by "the others" who aren't part of their political/social tribe. As if those folks couldn't be as thoughtful and kind as they are. 

The political/cultural game of Divide and Conquer has worked quite well it seems.   
   

I think it's social media's fault since it separated discourse from the person.  It's easy to hate someone when you don't have to hunt with them later.

[js82]

The general takeaway is that most {Democrats, Republicans} are not as ideologically extreme as believed by most {Republicans, Democrats}, while its also still true that political polarization has increased considerably. The {Trump, Hillary, Bernie, Pete} supporters I know are mostly ordinary people who are only moderately politically engaged and (as the Pew research indicates) about as well-informed as one-another.

Most people aren't too bad when you get to talking to them.  And they're usually a lot more thoughtful than the popular political caricatures indicate. And here's the head-scratcher for me: they're completely gobsmacked by "the others" who aren't part of their political/social tribe. As if those folks couldn't be as thoughtful and kind as they are. 

The political/cultural game of Divide and Conquer has worked quite well it seems.   
   

I think it's social media's fault since it separated discourse from the person.  It's easy to hate someone when you don't have to hunt with them later.

While I think there's more to it than social media(in the US, political segregation by geography and socioeconomic situation is very real, which leads to people knowing fewer people with dissimilar political views than you might think), I agree with the sentiment behind the second part of your statement.  Spending time with others face-to-face humanizes them and makes them a lot more than a set of political positions, even if their values are dissimilar to your own.

[Buffaloski Boris]

The general takeaway is that most {Democrats, Republicans} are not as ideologically extreme as believed by most {Republicans, Democrats}, while its also still true that political polarization has increased considerably. The {Trump, Hillary, Bernie, Pete} supporters I know are mostly ordinary people who are only moderately politically engaged and (as the Pew research indicates) about as well-informed as one-another.

Most people aren't too bad when you get to talking to them.  And they're usually a lot more thoughtful than the popular political caricatures indicate. And here's the head-scratcher for me: they're completely gobsmacked by "the others" who aren't part of their political/social tribe. As if those folks couldn't be as thoughtful and kind as they are. 

The political/cultural game of Divide and Conquer has worked quite well it seems.   
   

I think it's social media's fault since it separated discourse from the person.  It's easy to hate someone when you don't have to hunt with them later.

While I think there's more to it than social media(in the US, political segregation by geography and socioeconomic situation is very real, which leads to people knowing fewer people with dissimilar political views than you might think), I agree with the sentiment behind the second part of your statement.  Spending time with others face-to-face humanizes them and makes them a lot more than a set of political positions, even if their values are dissimilar to your own.

^^^This^^^

I'm trying to spend more time "breaking bread" with folks who are very different from me.  Both online and offline. Makes for interesting conversation if nothing else.   

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

The general takeaway is that most {Democrats, Republicans} are not as ideologically extreme as believed by most {Republicans, Democrats}, while its also still true that political polarization has increased considerably. The {Trump, Hillary, Bernie, Pete} supporters I know are mostly ordinary people who are only moderately politically engaged and (as the Pew research indicates) about as well-informed as one-another.

Most people aren't too bad when you get to talking to them.  And they're usually a lot more thoughtful than the popular political caricatures indicate. And here's the head-scratcher for me: they're completely gobsmacked by "the others" who aren't part of their political/social tribe. As if those folks couldn't be as thoughtful and kind as they are. 

The political/cultural game of Divide and Conquer has worked quite well it seems.   
   

I think it's social media's fault since it separated discourse from the person.  It's easy to hate someone when you don't have to hunt with them later.

That is certainly part of it, though I think another important factor is that there is such a broad selection of media sources that people can indulge and amplify their biases to the point of satiation. I connect this idea with one of the better critiques of capitalism: capitalism works too well. Low barriers to entry and market dynamics allow people to consume whatever nonsense they wish on many dimensions other than news & opinion. For example, hyper-stimuli like video games, pornography, fast food, pop music "loudness-wars", etc. are all market outcomes that optimize with respect to their salience in the marketplace instead of their value to humanity in general.

Just like genes are selfish and don't care about their host organism except where it is relevant to their propagation, memes are ideas that don't care about their own truth-value and are similarly selected for their ability to propagate. This idea about memes can be further extended to products and services in a market economy. Products are nothing more than things that people can be made to desire; the implication of this is that many products can be harmful to their hosts (consumers) and market mechanisms will drive such pathological products in a Red Queen's race towards a point where they are optimally extreme.

One of the casualties of this process is the death of nuance. It is much harder to successfully signal-boost nuanced positions versus partisan red-meat talking points. Being a politically engaged moderate is not a stable equilibrium since such views are crowded out by highly evolved & weaponized memes/ideologies.

[Wrenchturner]

I agree with you guys, and this post especially.

The general takeaway is that most {Democrats, Republicans} are not as ideologically extreme as believed by most {Republicans, Democrats}, while its also still true that political polarization has increased considerably. The {Trump, Hillary, Bernie, Pete} supporters I know are mostly ordinary people who are only moderately politically engaged and (as the Pew research indicates) about as well-informed as one-another.

Most people aren't too bad when you get to talking to them.  And they're usually a lot more thoughtful than the popular political caricatures indicate. And here's the head-scratcher for me: they're completely gobsmacked by "the others" who aren't part of their political/social tribe. As if those folks couldn't be as thoughtful and kind as they are. 

The political/cultural game of Divide and Conquer has worked quite well it seems.   
   

I think it's social media's fault since it separated discourse from the person.  It's easy to hate someone when you don't have to hunt with them later.

That is certainly part of it, though I think another important factor is that there is such a broad selection of media sources that people can indulge and amplify their biases to the point of satiation. I connect this idea with one of the better critiques of capitalism: capitalism works too well. Low barriers to entry and market dynamics allow people to consume whatever nonsense they wish on many dimensions other than news & opinion. For example, hyper-stimuli like video games, pornography, fast food, pop music "loudness-wars", etc. are all market outcomes that optimize with respect to their salience in the marketplace instead of their value to humanity in general.

Just like genes are selfish and don't care about their host organism except where it is relevant to their propagation, memes are ideas that don't care about their own truth-value and are similarly selected for their ability to propagate. This idea about memes can be further extended to products and services in a market economy. Products are nothing more than things that people can be made to desire; the implication of this is that many products can be harmful to their hosts (consumers) and market mechanisms will drive such pathological products in a Red Queen's race towards a point where they are optimally extreme.

One of the casualties of this process is the death of nuance. It is much harder to successfully signal-boost nuanced positions versus partisan red-meat talking points. Being a politically engaged moderate is not a stable equilibrium since such views are crowded out by highly evolved & weaponized memes/ideologies.

[maizefolk]

One of the casualties of this process is the death of nuance. It is much harder to successfully signal-boost nuanced positions versus partisan red-meat talking points. Being a politically engaged moderate is not a stable equilibrium since such views are crowded out by highly evolved & weaponized memes/ideologies.

And one rapidly draws fire from people at both extremes of the spectrum about being just as bad as (or worse than) people on "the other side."

[Buffaloski Boris]

One of the casualties of this process is the death of nuance. It is much harder to successfully signal-boost nuanced positions versus partisan red-meat talking points. Being a politically engaged moderate is not a stable equilibrium since such views are crowded out by highly evolved & weaponized memes/ideologies.

And one rapidly draws fire from people at both extremes of the spectrum about being just as bad as (or worse than) people on "the other side."

And in a twisted sort of way, they’re right. The extremes on both sides of the political spectrum are more similar than dissimilar. The threat to both is the middle, those who reject the extremes.

[Chris Pascale]

@Chris Pascale I still want to keep the distinction between our personal choices and the public effects of the policy. My own choices cause me to benefit from the mortgage interest deduction, while I believe our society is worse off for it.

I can respect that.

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

One of the casualties of this process is the death of nuance. It is much harder to successfully signal-boost nuanced positions versus partisan red-meat talking points. Being a politically engaged moderate is not a stable equilibrium since such views are crowded out by highly evolved & weaponized memes/ideologies.

And one rapidly draws fire from people at both extremes of the spectrum about being just as bad as (or worse than) people on "the other side."

And in a twisted sort of way, they’re right. The extremes on both sides of the political spectrum are more similar than dissimilar. The threat to both is the middle, those who reject the extremes.

I remember a time when I was much less wiling to consider viewpoints outside a narrow spectrum, which--due to my upbringing and brain chemistry--I am more naturally inclined to believe. I wish there was a way to express to others how much more vibrant the world of ideas is once you step out of a narrow narrative and consider it from many different vantage points. The problem with most typical moderates, on the other hand, is that they are moderate because they are not engaged and are under-informed, while I am (if anything) a radical moderate.

BTW, you mentioned you were familiar with The Portal elsewhere; this episode with Anna Khachiyan is one of my favorite installments probably because of my Russian heritage which is parallel with some of Anna's experience. Just wondering if you watched that one given you are obviously a Russian troll!

[Buffaloski Boris]

I remember a time when I was much less wiling to consider viewpoints outside a narrow spectrum, which--due to my upbringing and brain chemistry--I am more naturally inclined to believe. I wish there was a way to express to others how much more vibrant the world of ideas is once you step out of a narrow narrative and consider it from many different vantage points. The problem with most typical moderates, on the other hand, is that they are moderate because they are not engaged and are under-informed, while I am (if anything) a radical moderate.

People are tribal.  And they're going to seek out and relate to what they're already comfortable with.  The internet allows us an easy way to self-segregate into our own little echo-chambers. I don't see a whole lot of ways to get people out of their ruts unless they're inclined to do so. Sometimes you can lead others to try new things, but by and large folks are going to stick with their comfort zone.  As I personally like to be exposed to different ideas, I tend to seek them out. Realizing that it comes at a price.  Since I'm usually the outsider and have a rotten habit of challenging people's views, the price I typically pay is being the lightning rod. In the end I think it's worth it as I learn a lot and get some new ideas that I'd never considered. I also think it necessary for some of us to be willing to take the hits. 

Moderation, at least in politics, seems to be being stamped out.  By way of full disclosure, I'm not really a moderate. I wear the "Apolitical" label instead. I'm willing to discuss politics at times, but generally avoid it and no longer vote. And I encourage others to do the same.

BTW, you mentioned you were familiar with The Portal elsewhere; this episode with Anna Khachiyan is one of my favorite installments probably because of my Russian heritage which is parallel with some of Anna's experience. Just wondering if you watched that one given you are obviously a Russian troll!

Yes, my Russian Bottishness is well known around here. Can't fool them MMMers! They keep me on my toes. I miss the older, simpler days when we bots were just fluoridating water supplies and chasing down capitalist Moose and Squirrel.   

I had listened to that episode a couple of months ago and am now a regular listener to "the Ladies" on the Red Scare podcast.  I really get a kick out of them.  Laugh out loud funny and completely outside my zone of reference.