Thread: Physiological Basis for Politics

Politics are inherently dishonest. I read this blog when I'm feeling particularly proud of my own half-assed opinions: The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight « You Are Not So Smart

Originally Posted by ChesterCopperpot

Politics are inherently dishonest. I read this blog when I'm feeling particularly proud of my own half-assed opinions: The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight « You Are Not So Smart

I'm curious to know how the pshrinks who ran the experiment turned out....

Good stuff CC, very good stuff.

Originally Posted by ChesterCopperpot

Politics are inherently dishonest. I read this blog when I'm feeling particularly proud of my own half-assed opinions: The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight « You Are Not So Smart

I am the teacher in a Christian discussion group. I am going to excerpt the article linked by ChesterCopperpot for the group, and ask them whether any of part of the Rattlers or Eagles applies to them.

What an article!

Two excerpts...

The two tribes of children in Oklahoma formed because groups are how human beings escaped the Serengeti and built pyramids and invented Laffy Taffy. All primates depend on groups to survive and thrive, and human groups thrive most of all. It is in your nature to form them.

Sherif’s experiment with the boys at Robber’s Cave showed how quickly and easily you do so, how your innate drive to develop and observe norms and rituals will express itself even in a cultural vacuum...

I wonder what the author(s) meant by nature and innate drive?

I very much enjoyed that blog article. I would agree that, we as humans, need to belong to something, and will believe in and accept certain beliefs very much to remain in the group. That being said, I'd like to and will remain in the group that my family and heros belong to without hesitation or doubt.

And many people who lean a particular direction change their beliefs even later in life. They become disillusioned by the vast gulf that seems to exist between a party's stated goals, and their actual agenda. For example, I often say that George Bush created more liberals than all the Kennedys put together. But then, I'm sure some will counter that Obama created more conservatives than Reagan, or something similar.

For my part, I rarely discuss politics or religion, though I am interested in both. Both subjects seem to cause as much division as consensus.

Originally Posted by ScoutHikerDad

... For my part, I rarely discuss politics or religion, though I am interested in both. Both subjects seem to cause as much division as consensus.

Obviously, since I started this thread, I don't always avoid discussion of politics, religion or even genetics. Even though discussion doesn't usually change minds, I think occasional discussions like these are helpful.

One summer, I worked out of town during the week, and drove home for the weekends to spend time with my wife. It always seemed like our relationship improved as the weekend went on. I concluded that our "wheels" spun independently of each other all week, how we felt and what we were thinking, and when we got together there was a grinding of gears, and a noticeable period where our awareness of the other synchronized.

Even though this might not be a good example, I think it useful to periodically discuss politics with others of alternate viewpoints. Without these periodic times when we listen to someone else, it is like we are spinning off into other worlds. Then, just like the Rattlers and Eagles, when we become aware of others, we are more inclined to steal each others flags, then together help pull a truck out of mud.

(Forgive the awkward analogies, and thought progressions.)

Good point, Larry-It does seem that the really far-out wing-nuts out on the edges of the political spectrum (left OR right) are the ones who only listen to each other, to the media (books, magazines, blogs, talking heads) that agrees with their viewpoint, and don't stay grounded in conversations that might make them more pragmatist, and less partisan.

I have said for years (and have tried to do this when I can since college) that thinking people who would stay truly informed need to read, listen to, watch and judge viewpoints from all sides of the political spectrum. As a teacher of high school seniors for the last 15 years, I have met and talked to students and parents from ALL walks of life-the good, the bad, and the ugly. It definitely gives you a different perspective from someone who only socializes with people much like themselves (which, let's face it, many people do).

Having said that, I keep my politics and religion out of the classroom. What disgusts me are teachers who use their position as a bully pulpit to try to recruit converts to the cause. Sorry, this is OT from your original post (which is interesting, by the way-I have long suspected that we are far more prisoners of our genes than we would like to admit...). Take care-SHD

This whole thing really is related to a previous discussion here a while back where we discussed how people involved in certain academic disciplines tended to be conservative or liberal like people in the sciences tend to be conservative and engineers were very conservative and those in the social sciences were way more liberal. Did they get that way because of their education or was there something in their makeup which pushed them in certain directions?

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

... Did they get that way because of their education or was there something in their makeup which pushed them in certain directions?

I took a poll of all SRP members, and have a solemn promise from all not to flame ya. And, so, what is your best try answer?

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

... Did they get that way because of their education or was there something in their makeup which pushed them in certain directions?

My best guess is that it's related to the amount of money.