From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Fri May 23 2003 - 11:43:48 MDT
Dan (Technotranscendence) wrote,
> Abstract: I look for explanations for the phenomenon of widespread,
> strong, and persistent disagreements about political issues. The best
> explanation is provided by the hypothesis that most people are
> irrational about politics and not, for example, that political issues
> are particularly difficult or that we lack sufficient evidence for
> resolving them. I discuss how this irrationality works and why people
> are especially irrational about politics.
>
> For the full essay, see http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/irrationality.htm
Very interesting and well thought-out article. However, I disagree with
your "problem" of the clustering of political beliefs. You seem to explain
that unrelated beliefs are group together in an irrational way, but this is
hard to prove. I submit that there is a rational (although not necessarily
accurate) reason for these groupings.
For example, under "correlations of political beliefs with non-cognitive
traits", you state that "Members of minorities are much more likely to
support affirmative action than white men are. The poor are much more likely
than the rich to believe in wealth-redistribution (welfare, etc.) Members of
the entertainment industry are much more likely to be liberal than
conservative. None of these trends would be expected if political beliefs
had a solely, or even primarily, cognitive origin."
I submit that these are all rational, selfish, self-preservation traits.
All of these groups are selfishly arguing for political views that will
benefit their own particular group. This seems perfectly rational and
consistent to me.
Another example you cite, under "the clustering of political beliefs", you
state that logically unrelated beliefs are correlated. "For example, people
who support gun control are much more likely to support welfare programs and
abortion rights." This is a consistent group of beliefs for social workers
who work with people below the poverty line. Such people believe these
people's access to guns should be limited, while their access to welfare and
abortions should be increased. This seems perfectly rational and consistent
to me within this small subset of people.
Another example you cite, "one would naively expect that those who support
animal rights would be far more likely to oppose abortion than those who
reject the notion of animal rights." This is only true for super-rational
atheists. For God-fearing Christians who take the Bible literally, they
both are explained by the religious belief in a soul. Animals don't have
souls, so they don't get any rights. A fetus gets a soul at conception and
therefore has rights. This seems perfectly rational and consistent to me
within the religious belief system of Christianity.
Another example was affirmative action and abortion. I would say both are
tools useful to minorities. It is consistent that they would desire both of
these things.
You also list "affirmative action is just, abortion is permissible, welfare
programs are good, capital punishment is bad, human beings are seriously
damaging the environment, " as being a set of liberal beliefs, but you
question why there would be a set of people holding the opposite views.
This seems to be obviously divided by socio-economic class. People above a
certain line aren't threatened by any of these issues even if they occur.
People below a certain line are disproportionately threatened by all these
items and cannot afford relief. This is an obvious dividing line: those
who won't be harmed by these problems don't want to expend resources to fix
them, those who will be harmed by these problems do want to expend resources
to fix them. Again, it seems totally consistent with rational self-interest
in all cases. I see no inconsistency or irrationality on any sides.
Your discussion on "Rational Ignorance" seems to hit the nail on the head
for me. People don't bother investigating possibilities that might work
against them. They support causes that will benefit their group. They
oppose causes that will not benefit their group. They work hard finding
information to support their positions. They do not work hard finding
information that refutes their position. This seems to be the root cause of
all politics. People selfishly choose what they want to believe, and then
only pay attention to data that supports their goals.
All of your reasons stated under "Sources of Belief Preferences" seem
correct to me. I just don't see what any of that has to do with being
irrational. People are selfish and choose ideas for their own purposes
rather than what is actually true. This seems to me to be a consistent and
rational strategy. But it is a political strategy for gaining more
resources, not for discerning truth.
In summary, I don't disagree with your paper. However, I think it more
directly boils down to people's motives. If they want to be selfish,
compete and get more for themselves, the common political bickering seems to
be the way to do it. If they want to be scientific, logical, and seek out
truth, then this seems incompatible with politics.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 23 2003 - 11:56:21 MDT