From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon May 26 2003 - 18:56:39 MDT
Harvey writes
> Dan (Technotranscendence) [quoted],
> > 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.
I agree.
> However, I disagree with [Michael Huemer's] "problem" of the
> clustering of political beliefs. He seems 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.
I also agree, but must apologize to John Clark for perhaps
understating the difficulty in explaining them.
> 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.
Yes, but Michael Huemer said that. Under section 5, he has a section
devoted to "Self-interested bias". I didn't have a problem with what
he wrote there.
> Another example cited, "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.
Yes.
> The 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.
Yes, but I have some criticism of Huemer's points, and my criticism
possibly applies to what you have written here. See further on.
> 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.
On the whole I agree, except for the last sentence. There really is a
truth to most political matters (this perhaps is or is not what you
meant), e.g., either the CIA and the United Fruit Company overthrew
democracy in Honduras or they didn't, and the North Vietnamese either
did or did not kill more civilians than did the Americans. Now, beyond
that---e.g., severe monetary inequality among citizens of a democracy
is harmful---well, science and logic aren't going to be enough for that.
I stubbornly hold out that the author is wrong in part, and that values
are crucial to much of political disagreement.
More in another post.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 26 2003 - 19:09:22 MDT