CDZ How partisan politics narrows your thinking

[kaz]

Is Mac still whining that other liberals don't see scary Muslims in their closet?

A Pew Report found that combined, “consistent liberals” and “consistent conservatives” make up only 20% of Americans. Yet, unsurprisingly, these are the people most likely to run for office and initiate political discussion. This exaggerates political polarization and limits opportunities for open-minded dialogue between the rest of us. We’ve allowed the fervent minority to drive us into one of two ideological camps, or to become disenchanted and disengaged from politics altogether.

Or they are the only ones who think about the issues to any degree to make the arguments to start with.

But the reality is, 45% always votes Republican and 48% always votes Democrat and at very worst, it's 7% of the electorate that is in flux.

And by "in flux", I mean, "The bad muslims scared me so I'm going to vote for Bush even though I think he's an idiot" to "I know Trump is a buffoon, but I'm going to vote to Gary Johnson because emails or something.'

Oh, yeah this is the 7% you totally want to pander to.

Hey Joe...the OP is NOT about Muslims.

There's a Muslim hiding in every OP ...

 

[kaz]

You must find this place as fascinating as I do, then..

Over the years, I've been on many different forums. As far as hyper partisanship is concerned, they are mostly all the same. What I like seeing is informative, if not argumentative, dialogue. But in most public forums, seeing academic and/or civil discussion is rare. There are some individuals who attract my attention. I may not agree with their opinions or conclusions and usually don't reply to them but I do like to read what they say. I can appreciate the time and effort put into logical thought. Fascinating? Yeah. Dogmatists and zealots however are a dime a dozen, so to speak.

What concerns me the most - aside from the fact that these people are proudly making things worse - is that this behavior is no longer confined to internet message boards.

I'm running into many people in real life who are more than willing to launch into a talking point- and shallow platitude-filled tirade at the drop of a hat. It's like this is a virus that continues to spread.
.

I've heard that dating between conservatives and leftists has also measurably dropped. It's pathetic how for so many people their political views is becoming their identity

 

[kaz]

It's the Arabs religious fantasies that the American Men and Women are dying for.

Not at all.

If it weren't for the Zionists and the Oil Companies, we'd have no interaction with them at all. That's the point.

But since they have more influence on our government than, you kn ow, actual voters, who are just paying their taxes, we have young men and women being sent over there to die for really no good reason.

For as long as I've been alive, and I'm kind of old.

It didn't make sense to me when I was a young Sergeant in the Army back in 1990, it makes less sense to me now.

I see, that's why the Muslim terrorists are only attacking us.

You need to learn more about the world, Joe. The worldwide Muslim war is across the globe. Americans are a tiny percent of the people they are killing

 

[usmbguest5318]

OP-er, did we somewhere in this thread address the matter of whether it's partisan politics that narrows one's thinking or whether it's narrow thinking that leads to partisan politics?

 

[Mac1958]

OP-er, did we somewhere in this thread address the matter of whether it's partisan politics that narrows one's thinking or whether it's narrow thinking that leads to partisan politics?

Well, now that you mention that, here's my little theory:

First, reading I've done on the subconscious indicate that we essentially condition ourselves into our thought processes. We may begin with a general bias (which, obviously, we all have), but then we allow ourselves to enter a downward spiral by (a) tuning out more and more contrary information and focusing more and more on that with which agree and (b) pure repetition. At some point we pass some kind of subconscious intellectual Rubicon and are simply no longer able to see clearly outside our little bubble. Literally.

Second, are some people more likely than others to become afflicted? Could be. Are some people more likely to become addicted to cigarettes or booze, or more likely to catch certain diseases? One thing I'm sure of is that this is not about intelligence; I know many intelligent people who have become infected by this. If you tell these people, "well, there are two sides to every story", they'll become unglued. Even something that basic and obvious sets them off, and they argue with you about it, and be completely sincere.

So, to answer your question, maybe it's a bit of both.
.

 

[JoeB131]

There will always be psychos, and there's plenty of ways to hurt people without combat rifles. The logic of disarming millions upon millions of responsible, moral citizens just to deprive a minuscule number of psychos one of a plethora of weapons used to hurt people strikes me as reactionary at best, and downright conspiratorial at worst.

Okay, we banned lawn darts because a couple of kids were killed.

We changed the ways all medicines were packaged and produced because one psycho poisoned some Tylenol once.

We all have to take off our shoes at the airports because one clown tried to light his shoes on fire on an airplane.

But we don't do anything about guns with 33,000 gun deaths a year.

Amazing.

And yes, the government has tanks and such, but there is much more to consider before proposing that 100 million armed Americans have absolutely no chance against a combined police and military of about 3 million; especially considering that many would likely balk at the idea of attacking the citizenry and defect. In any case, it would be silly of us to speculate endlessly along these lines, as the fundamental principle of people having the right to defend themselves is pretty hard to argue. And what good is the right if you don't have the means?

Again, a gun in the home is more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy...

And, no 100 million Americans wouldn't stand much of a chance. They'll be hiding in their houses saying, 'Hope it doesn't happen to me". Here's a major thing. Germans prior to WWII had lots and lots of private guns. They didn't show up to stop the Nazis. They just watched as their Jewish Neighors were taken off to the camps. And nobody "Defected"

The men who wrote the Constitution, having deeply pondered the laws that would found a nation, seemed to think that an armed citizenry was "...necessary to the security of a free state..."

In the context of a well-regulated Militia. The last thing these guys wanted was the slaves on their plantations getting a hold of some guns. Otherwise Sally Hemings might have a little surprise for Thomas Jefferson.

Nevermind the fact that, despite the odds, any self-respecting person would at least want to try to resist tyranny for the sake of themselves, their family, their neighbors, and the future of humanity. Your reasoning suggests that it's an utterly hopeless prospect, so why bother at all; which seems a desperate state, does it not?

No, guy, the thing is, I don't want THIS guy shooting a hard working policeman or government employee because he's feeling oppressed.

This is why the 'Well-Regulated Militia" part is there.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Okay, we banned lawn darts because a couple of kids were killed.

We changed the ways all medicines were packaged and produced because one psycho poisoned some Tylenol once.

We all have to take off our shoes at the airports because one clown tried to light his shoes on fire on an airplane.

But we don't do anything about guns with 33,000 gun deaths a year...


Germans prior to WWII had lots and lots of private guns. They didn't show up to stop the Nazis. They just watched as their Jewish Neighors were taken off to the camps. And nobody "Defected"...

In the context of a well-regulated Militia. The last thing these guys wanted was the slaves on their plantations getting a hold of some guns. Otherwise Sally Hemings might have a little surprise for Thomas Jefferson...


This is why the 'Well-Regulated Militia" part is there.

Banning lawn darts is immoral because it violates the rights of both the manufacturer and consumer.
Changing medicine packaging may be moral if it's the manufacturer's choice.
Requiring removal of shoes may be moral if it's the airline's choice.
Banning guns is immoral because it violates the rights of both the manufacturer and consumer.

Individual questions are very simple to answer if you have principles. Without principles, every issue becomes a circus with people ready to kill each other over whose opinion will garner the king's ear. This is what we have now. What many people want is a super-human entity to solve the world's problems and make everything safe. Life isn't safe. You can try to make it safer, but not at the expense of self-evident human rights because the short term safety leads to long term disaster.

The majority of German people were not being taken off to camps, so the scenario is not quite the same as a full-on revolution. And no, Jefferson wouldn't want his slaves to have guns for the same reason the government doesn't want us to have guns -- because you can't enslave them if they do! I've got a knife block sitting on my counter and raised two kids with it sitting right there since the day they were born -- they never stabbed anyone. Advocate for responsibility instead of trying to create a fantasy environment where bad things don't exist. Guns exist. Don't be scared of them; get educated and comfortable with them.

But I'll give you the well-regulated militia thing; education and training is huge. Why not put as much energy into promoting gun education as you would speaking out for gun laws? Adults are not children, and you are not their parent, nor is the government by extension. You don't get to just grab something away from them and say "No! You can't have it!" You have to deal with the reality that people can hurt other people, and focus on appropriate solutions like moral and practical education (which would also have positive reverberations that far exceed the topic of gun safety).

Think about it, you're the one actually condoning violent aggression against innocent people by proxy, while claiming you're anti-violence. Your solution to gun violence is to have men with guns show up at your neighbor's house and violently coerce him to give up his personal property. And if he won't comply, you advocate using any amount of physical force -- up to an including murder -- to get the job done. What the hell? He did nothing to you or anybody else. Can't you see how insane that is?!

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Banning lawn darts is immoral because it violates the rights of both the manufacturer and consumer.
Changing medicine packaging may be moral if it's the manufacturer's choice.
Requiring removal of shoes may be moral if it's the airline's choice.
Banning guns is immoral because it violates the rights of both the manufacturer and consumer.

Okay, guy, your Libertarian Pixie dust is not practical, but frankly, I want government to protect me from the greed of corporations.

It should not have taken 9/11 to get the airlines to take security seriously, it should not have taken a kid impaled through the head to ban lawn darts.

We have a gun crisis because the gun industry realized that after shooting small animals for fun fell out of favor, they needed to find a new market,and the new market was crazy people.

Individual questions are very simple to answer if you have principles. Without principles, every issue becomes a circus with people ready to kill each other over whose opinion will garner the king's ear. This is what we have now. What many people want is a super-human entity to solve the world's problems and make everything safe. Life isn't safe. You can try to make it safer, but not at the expense of self-evident human rights because the short term safety leads to long term disaster.

Um, no, buddy. My "right" to send my kids to school without having to worry a maniac is going to shoot it up with a machine gun outweighs your right to be paranoid about the government.

The majority of German people were not being taken off to camps, so the scenario is not quite the same as a full-on revolution. And no, Jefferson wouldn't want his slaves to have guns for the same reason the government doesn't want us to have guns -- because you can't enslave them if they do!

Guy, if you think the government wants to "enslave" you, you really fall more into the Libertarian nutty factor.

Do you know what a Libertarian is? He's a child who wants all the benefits of civilization without having to do any of the hard work.

I've got a knife block sitting on my counter and raised two kids with it sitting right there since the day they were born -- they never stabbed anyone. Advocate for responsibility instead of trying to create a fantasy environment where bad things don't exist. Guns exist. Don't be scared of them; get educated and comfortable with them.

Guy, I was in the Army for 11 years, and my MOS included weapons maintenance as a primary function. I'm not afraid of guns. I'm afraid of maniacs with guns who have no business having them to start with. You see, the Army didn't let me have the gun until they spent WEEKS training me on how to safely handle and operate them, after putting me through a battery of background checks and aptitude tests. You could even say it was "Well-Regulated".

You don't get to just grab something away from them and say "No! You can't have it!"

Sure we do. We do that all the time. Drugs, weapons more dangerous than guns, wild animals as pets, lawn darts... all sorts of things that we tell people they can't have. Guns should fall in that category, or at the very least certain categories of guns.

Think about it, you're the one actually condoning violent aggression against innocent people by proxy, while claiming you're anti-violence. Your solution to gun violence is to have men with guns show up at your neighbor's house and violently coerce him to give up his personal property. And if he won't comply, you advocate using any amount of physical force -- up to an including murder -- to get the job done. What the hell? He did nothing to you or anybody else. Can't you see how insane that is?!

Uh, guy, my next door neighbor had a gun. And one night, he shot out his patio door window, then lied to the police. (He told them someone had shot in at him.) The cops DIDN'T take his gun. A few weeks later he shot himself. Which made me sad because he still owed me $5. but never mind.

I'm sorry that it is probably going to take some violence to get the nutters to give up their guns, but better to have that happen at their house than the local school.

Ah, ok. I can see you've not considered my argument seriously because your responses are not targeted to specifically address the points at the core of my statements. Considering the fact that you willingly subjected yourself to mind-devouring state indoctrination for 11 years, agreed to sacrifice your own free will and conscience in favor of following arbitrary orders, and have indicated that you still condone violent coercion as a "solution" to societal issues, I think I would be wasting both our time in continuing to elucidate the meaning of the word "freedom" via this discourse. Enjoy the day.

 

[sartre play]

The generations who respected guns is dying off, the hunter/ sportsman, the new generation of gun owners has little respect for guns, they wave them about on the streets, at public events, eating places, Walmart, no place that you would have ever seen hunters/ sport persons with a gun. most older folks have respect for guns.

 

[usmbguest5318]

OP-er, did we somewhere in this thread address the matter of whether it's partisan politics that narrows one's thinking or whether it's narrow thinking that leads to partisan politics?

Well, now that you mention that, here's my little theory:

First, reading I've done on the subconscious indicate that we essentially condition ourselves into our thought processes. We may begin with a general bias (which, obviously, we all have), but then we allow ourselves to enter a downward spiral by (a) tuning out more and more contrary information and focusing more and more on that with which agree and (b) pure repetition. At some point we pass some kind of subconscious intellectual Rubicon and are simply no longer able to see clearly outside our little bubble. Literally.

Second, are some people more likely than others to become afflicted? Could be. Are some people more likely to become addicted to cigarettes or booze, or more likely to catch certain diseases? One thing I'm sure of is that this is not about intelligence; I know many intelligent people who have become infected by this. If you tell these people, "well, there are two sides to every story", they'll become unglued. Even something that basic and obvious sets them off, and they argue with you about it, and be completely sincere.

So, to answer your question, maybe it's a bit of both.
.

So, to answer your question, maybe it's a bit of both.

What? I understand what you wrote and agree the above is an apt summation of it, but an accurate answer it cannot be. My question asks about a causal progression, that is, it's a "which comes causally first" question.

• Partisan politics may cause narrow thinking.
• Narrow thinking may cause partisan politics.
• It may instead be that neither causes the other.
  
  I'll grant that I didn't offer or allude to this option in my question, but reason tells one it too must be considered as an option. Nonetheless, this is a reasonable answer, but in offering it, one must identify what is the cause. I suppose too one could attest to not knowing what is the cause of both behaviors, though that is rather an unsatisfying answer, no doubt for both of us for it catalyzes no further circumspection that could lead to finding an apt answer.
  
  Mind you, I'm not desirous of an answer I like, but rather one that holds copious sums of water, as it were, upon considering its merits. If it duly holds water, I'll accept it, regardless of whether I like its intrinsic substance and implications.
• Partisan politics cannot cause partisan politics.
• Narrow thinking cannot cause narrow thinking.

Neither "both," nor even "a bit of both," rationally and accurately answer the implicit yet patently obvious question underpinning the literal question I asked (we both agree, I think, you answered the substantive, implicit question not the literal one), unless, of course, one is of a cosmological mind similar to Augustine whereby, like God, a thing can at once exist and be the source of its own existence. I think it safe to say that either phenomenon's perpetuation may derive from its existence, but neither's existence results from its perpetuation; thus something has to cause one or the other:

• Something causes narrow thinking, and caused, narrow thinking may beget more of the same and that narrow thinking may beget partisan politics.
• Something causes partisan politics, and caused, partisan politics may beget more of the same and partisan politics may beget narrow thinking.

Looking at the two postulates just above, I'm of the mind that narrow thinking -- "narrow" not being my preferred adjective for it, but I've used it because in your thread title you have -- causes partisan politics. I do because it's hard to imagine that partisanship can happen absent or in advance of thinking, even "narrow" thinking. After all, even the youngest partisan processes some thoughts in order to arrive at his/her partisanship.

 

[JoeB131]

Ah, ok. I can see you've not considered my argument seriously because your responses are not targeted to specifically address the points at the core of my statements. Considering the fact that you willingly subjected yourself to mind-devouring state indoctrination for 11 years, agreed to sacrifice your own free will and conscience in favor of following arbitrary orders, and have indicated that you still condone violent coercion as a "solution" to societal issues, I think I would be wasting both our time in continuing to elucidate the meaning of the word "freedom" via this discourse. Enjoy the day.

Usually, when one of your sort blurts out the word "Freedom", it means the ability of those with money to abuse those of us with less money.

So, no, I usually don't take Libertarians welping about "Freedom" very seriously.

Yup, clearly I didn't learn a darn thing about "Freedom" spending 11 years defending your ability to have it.

 

[Mac1958]

OP-er, did we somewhere in this thread address the matter of whether it's partisan politics that narrows one's thinking or whether it's narrow thinking that leads to partisan politics?

Well, now that you mention that, here's my little theory:

First, reading I've done on the subconscious indicate that we essentially condition ourselves into our thought processes. We may begin with a general bias (which, obviously, we all have), but then we allow ourselves to enter a downward spiral by (a) tuning out more and more contrary information and focusing more and more on that with which agree and (b) pure repetition. At some point we pass some kind of subconscious intellectual Rubicon and are simply no longer able to see clearly outside our little bubble. Literally.

Second, are some people more likely than others to become afflicted? Could be. Are some people more likely to become addicted to cigarettes or booze, or more likely to catch certain diseases? One thing I'm sure of is that this is not about intelligence; I know many intelligent people who have become infected by this. If you tell these people, "well, there are two sides to every story", they'll become unglued. Even something that basic and obvious sets them off, and they argue with you about it, and be completely sincere.

So, to answer your question, maybe it's a bit of both.
.

So, to answer your question, maybe it's a bit of both.

What? I understand what you wrote and agree the above is an apt summation of it, but an accurate answer it cannot be. My question asks about a causal progression, that is, it's a "which comes causally first" question.

• Partisan politics may cause narrow thinking.
• Narrow thinking may cause partisan politics.
• It may instead be that neither causes the other.
  
  I'll grant that I didn't offer or allude to this option in my question, but reason tells one it too must be considered as an option. Nonetheless, this is a reasonable answer, but in offering it, one must identify what is the cause. I suppose too one could attest to not knowing what is the cause of both behaviors, though that is rather an unsatisfying answer, no doubt for both of us for it catalyzes no further circumspection that could lead to finding an apt answer.
  
  Mind you, I'm not desirous of an answer I like, but rather one that holds copious sums of water, as it were, upon considering its merits. If it duly holds water, I'll accept it, regardless of whether I like its intrinsic substance and implications.
• Partisan politics cannot cause partisan politics.
• Narrow thinking cannot cause narrow thinking.

Neither "both," nor even "a bit of both," rationally and accurately answer the implicit yet patently obvious question underpinning the literal question I asked (we both agree, I think, you answered the substantive, implicit question not the literal one), unless, of course, one is of a cosmological mind similar to Augustine whereby, like God, a thing can at once exist and be the source of its own existence. I think it safe to say that either phenomenon's perpetuation may derive from its existence, but neither's existence results from its perpetuation; thus something has to cause one or the other:

• Something causes narrow thinking, and caused, narrow thinking may beget more of the same and that narrow thinking may beget partisan politics.
• Something causes partisan politics, and caused, partisan politics may beget more of the same and partisan politics may beget narrow thinking.

Looking at the two postulates just above, I'm of the mind that narrow thinking -- "narrow" not being my preferred adjective for it, but I've used it because in your thread title you have -- causes partisan politics. I do because it's hard to imagine that partisanship can happen absent or in advance of thinking, even "narrow" thinking. After all, even the youngest partisan processes some thoughts in order to arrive at his/her partisanship.

Well, I'll put it differently: I don't know. As I mentioned, it may be that some people are predisposed to being infected by it, like people with addictive personalities are more likely to smoke or drink. It may be that it's the result of the personal world in which they live and have grown up, and the various forces and influences within it. It may be that something negative has happened in their own life that pushed them in that direction. It may be a general lack of self esteem that gives them a need to blindly and obediently belong to a tribe. It may be some combination therein.

And now, it's all exacerbated on an hourly basis by the internet, alternate universes and social media. Not to mention the shallow, narcissistic "I'm offended" neuroses with which so many are now walking around.

I find this all fascinating, but I feel like I'm just getting started with it.
.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Yup, clearly I didn't learn a darn thing about "Freedom" spending 11 years defending your ability to have it.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t address this, since you, as the victim of an elaborate con (along with the rest of us), deserve to hear some balancing truth amidst the cacophony of voices thanking you “for your service”.

I don’t know what you were doing for those 11 years, but unless you were undermining the most pressing threat to your fellow Americans - the gang of thugs calling themselves the United States government - you were NOT defending our ability to have freedom; you were actively working against it.

Have you ever asked yourself: how can the fight for freedom require that I completely sacrifice freedom by subverting my will and dismissing my conscience in favor of following orders? You cannot create freedom by way of dominance any more than you can start a fire with water - the two are in direct opposition.

What you were actually doing, despite your undoubtedly good intentions, was acting as a hired mercenary for the most vile group of criminals in the world. This is a tough pill to swallow, but you must seriously consider what’s being said here if morality and the future of humanity really matters to you.

 

[usmbguest5318]

OP-er, did we somewhere in this thread address the matter of whether it's partisan politics that narrows one's thinking or whether it's narrow thinking that leads to partisan politics?

Well, now that you mention that, here's my little theory:

First, reading I've done on the subconscious indicate that we essentially condition ourselves into our thought processes. We may begin with a general bias (which, obviously, we all have), but then we allow ourselves to enter a downward spiral by (a) tuning out more and more contrary information and focusing more and more on that with which agree and (b) pure repetition. At some point we pass some kind of subconscious intellectual Rubicon and are simply no longer able to see clearly outside our little bubble. Literally.

Second, are some people more likely than others to become afflicted? Could be. Are some people more likely to become addicted to cigarettes or booze, or more likely to catch certain diseases? One thing I'm sure of is that this is not about intelligence; I know many intelligent people who have become infected by this. If you tell these people, "well, there are two sides to every story", they'll become unglued. Even something that basic and obvious sets them off, and they argue with you about it, and be completely sincere.

So, to answer your question, maybe it's a bit of both.
.

So, to answer your question, maybe it's a bit of both.

What? I understand what you wrote and agree the above is an apt summation of it, but an accurate answer it cannot be. My question asks about a causal progression, that is, it's a "which comes causally first" question.

• Partisan politics may cause narrow thinking.
• Narrow thinking may cause partisan politics.
• It may instead be that neither causes the other.
  
  I'll grant that I didn't offer or allude to this option in my question, but reason tells one it too must be considered as an option. Nonetheless, this is a reasonable answer, but in offering it, one must identify what is the cause. I suppose too one could attest to not knowing what is the cause of both behaviors, though that is rather an unsatisfying answer, no doubt for both of us for it catalyzes no further circumspection that could lead to finding an apt answer.
  
  Mind you, I'm not desirous of an answer I like, but rather one that holds copious sums of water, as it were, upon considering its merits. If it duly holds water, I'll accept it, regardless of whether I like its intrinsic substance and implications.
• Partisan politics cannot cause partisan politics.
• Narrow thinking cannot cause narrow thinking.

Neither "both," nor even "a bit of both," rationally and accurately answer the implicit yet patently obvious question underpinning the literal question I asked (we both agree, I think, you answered the substantive, implicit question not the literal one), unless, of course, one is of a cosmological mind similar to Augustine whereby, like God, a thing can at once exist and be the source of its own existence. I think it safe to say that either phenomenon's perpetuation may derive from its existence, but neither's existence results from its perpetuation; thus something has to cause one or the other:

• Something causes narrow thinking, and caused, narrow thinking may beget more of the same and that narrow thinking may beget partisan politics.
• Something causes partisan politics, and caused, partisan politics may beget more of the same and partisan politics may beget narrow thinking.

Looking at the two postulates just above, I'm of the mind that narrow thinking -- "narrow" not being my preferred adjective for it, but I've used it because in your thread title you have -- causes partisan politics. I do because it's hard to imagine that partisanship can happen absent or in advance of thinking, even "narrow" thinking. After all, even the youngest partisan processes some thoughts in order to arrive at his/her partisanship.

Well, I'll put it differently: I don't know. As I mentioned, it may be that some people are predisposed to being infected by it, like people with addictive personalities are more likely to smoke or drink. It may be that it's the result of the personal world in which they live and have grown up, and the various forces and influences within it. It may be that something negative has happened in their own life that pushed them in that direction. It may be a general lack of self esteem that gives them a need to blindly and obediently belong to a tribe. It may be some combination therein.

And now, it's all exacerbated on an hourly basis by the internet, alternate universes and social media. Not to mention the shallow, narcissistic "I'm offended" neuroses with which so many are now walking around.

I find this all fascinating, but I feel like I'm just getting started with it.
.

Well, I'll put it differently: I don't know....I find this all fascinating, but I feel like I'm just getting started with it.

Now that strikes me as a very prudent frame of mind to have at the outset of a journey of discovery. Finally, I see you've put the cart is behind the horse.

It seems that the specific questions that capture your interest are ones for which there aren't copious amounts of research. That presents for you and opportunity -- that of being a groundbreaking researcher in the field -- that you can approach in a variety of ways.

For example, as a single-discipline by single-discipline narrow approach that as you address each piece eventually results in a "capstone" publication. Alternatively, you may choose to approach comprehensively -- hitting the psychology, sociology, communications, cultural anthropology, political philosophy/science, and historical dimensions at once as one might do for a dissertation or seminal volume -- and quite literally "write the book" on the topic. That's the cool thing about the humanities and social sciences: for any given topic, there's something from each discipline that informs "what's up."

FWIW, I think the topic quite interesting too, though I'm perhaps not as intrigued as you seem. That said, below is some content you may find useful to developing a strong understanding of the nature and extent of the currently available thought on the matter, which is what one needs to do at the outset of any rigorous quest for answers, regardless of the path you opt to take in obtaining answers. (Note: The studies below used a variety of research methods -- some experimentally (testing a theory's application to a given set of parameters) driven, some qualitative/observational, some survey, some hybrid, etc.. Most are papers, so their scope is very focused. One is a book, so it has a broader scope.)

• Political psychology -- This is just a disciplinary overview
  
• Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use
  
• Personality Traits, Partisan Attitudes, and Voting Behavior. Evidence from Germany
  
• Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U. S. Senate
  
• God and Country: The Partisan Psychology of the Presidency, Religion, and Nation
  
• Public attitudes toward biofuels Effects of knowledge, political partisanship, and media use
  
• Australian politicians’ beliefs about climate change: political partisanship and political ideology
  
• Seeing the Other Side: Reducing Political Partisanship via Self-Affirmation in the 2008 Presidential Election
  
• Role of Political Partisanship During Economic Crisis
• What's Wrong with Empowerment
• The science of fake news

Be sure to check the references found in the texts noted above. They'll be useful for your literature review, which, in turn, will allow you to determine whether your questions have been answered already, as well as to figure out whether you think the existing research and findings have overlooked something material.


Aside:

As a practical matter, you may want to chat with a couple professors at a local community or four-year college about how to get your project off the ground; perhaps one will partner with you. I'd suggest reaching out to Dr. Brendan Nyhan at Dartmouth -- the topic interests him, but it's not precisely his topic, so there's a "dovetail" synergy potential -- though any professor who's by their own research shown a strong interest in the topic will be just fine as well. The trick is to keep reaching out to various ones until you find who is receptive to working with you, if you are of a mind to conduct formal research.

FWIW, though not wanting to give you too much optimism, you may be able even to turn the project into a path to getting a PhD and getting paid to do so. After all, what you're doing is what prospective and current PhDs do -- on topics that interest them, ask questions for which the answers haven't been found and then go find the answers. And how terrible a thing is it to get paid to seek answers to questions for which one wants the answers? If that's what is of a mind to do, one may as well get formal and informal credit for doing it.​

It may be that it's the result of the personal world in which they live and have grown up, and the various forces and influences within it. It may be that something negative has happened in their own life that pushed them in that direction. It may be a general lack of self esteem that gives them a need to blindly and obediently belong to a tribe.

Those things sound quite plausible as the "somethings" that cause either behavior. I suspect they aren't the only etiologies, but determining what else may be and determining the nature and extent of impact each has are among the things you'll have to figure out.

(Hello, differential equations. Yuck!...LOL...If you're not strong with them, you've got a good reason to eventually partner with a math professor or grad student who can help with the mathematical heavy lifting of figuring out the equations that empirically describe the nature of the qualitative drivers you identify. That's a cool aspect of writing a book: the author doesn't have to know everything and how to do everything; s/he just has to know people who can do the bit s/he cannot and/or give sage and actionable guidance so s/he can then do it.)​

 

[Mac1958]

OP-er, did we somewhere in this thread address the matter of whether it's partisan politics that narrows one's thinking or whether it's narrow thinking that leads to partisan politics?

Well, now that you mention that, here's my little theory:

First, reading I've done on the subconscious indicate that we essentially condition ourselves into our thought processes. We may begin with a general bias (which, obviously, we all have), but then we allow ourselves to enter a downward spiral by (a) tuning out more and more contrary information and focusing more and more on that with which agree and (b) pure repetition. At some point we pass some kind of subconscious intellectual Rubicon and are simply no longer able to see clearly outside our little bubble. Literally.

Second, are some people more likely than others to become afflicted? Could be. Are some people more likely to become addicted to cigarettes or booze, or more likely to catch certain diseases? One thing I'm sure of is that this is not about intelligence; I know many intelligent people who have become infected by this. If you tell these people, "well, there are two sides to every story", they'll become unglued. Even something that basic and obvious sets them off, and they argue with you about it, and be completely sincere.

So, to answer your question, maybe it's a bit of both.
.

So, to answer your question, maybe it's a bit of both.

What? I understand what you wrote and agree the above is an apt summation of it, but an accurate answer it cannot be. My question asks about a causal progression, that is, it's a "which comes causally first" question.

• Partisan politics may cause narrow thinking.
• Narrow thinking may cause partisan politics.
• It may instead be that neither causes the other.
  
  I'll grant that I didn't offer or allude to this option in my question, but reason tells one it too must be considered as an option. Nonetheless, this is a reasonable answer, but in offering it, one must identify what is the cause. I suppose too one could attest to not knowing what is the cause of both behaviors, though that is rather an unsatisfying answer, no doubt for both of us for it catalyzes no further circumspection that could lead to finding an apt answer.
  
  Mind you, I'm not desirous of an answer I like, but rather one that holds copious sums of water, as it were, upon considering its merits. If it duly holds water, I'll accept it, regardless of whether I like its intrinsic substance and implications.
• Partisan politics cannot cause partisan politics.
• Narrow thinking cannot cause narrow thinking.

Neither "both," nor even "a bit of both," rationally and accurately answer the implicit yet patently obvious question underpinning the literal question I asked (we both agree, I think, you answered the substantive, implicit question not the literal one), unless, of course, one is of a cosmological mind similar to Augustine whereby, like God, a thing can at once exist and be the source of its own existence. I think it safe to say that either phenomenon's perpetuation may derive from its existence, but neither's existence results from its perpetuation; thus something has to cause one or the other:

• Something causes narrow thinking, and caused, narrow thinking may beget more of the same and that narrow thinking may beget partisan politics.
• Something causes partisan politics, and caused, partisan politics may beget more of the same and partisan politics may beget narrow thinking.

Looking at the two postulates just above, I'm of the mind that narrow thinking -- "narrow" not being my preferred adjective for it, but I've used it because in your thread title you have -- causes partisan politics. I do because it's hard to imagine that partisanship can happen absent or in advance of thinking, even "narrow" thinking. After all, even the youngest partisan processes some thoughts in order to arrive at his/her partisanship.

Well, I'll put it differently: I don't know. As I mentioned, it may be that some people are predisposed to being infected by it, like people with addictive personalities are more likely to smoke or drink. It may be that it's the result of the personal world in which they live and have grown up, and the various forces and influences within it. It may be that something negative has happened in their own life that pushed them in that direction. It may be a general lack of self esteem that gives them a need to blindly and obediently belong to a tribe. It may be some combination therein.

And now, it's all exacerbated on an hourly basis by the internet, alternate universes and social media. Not to mention the shallow, narcissistic "I'm offended" neuroses with which so many are now walking around.

I find this all fascinating, but I feel like I'm just getting started with it.
.

Well, I'll put it differently: I don't know....I find this all fascinating, but I feel like I'm just getting started with it.

Now that strikes me as a very prudent frame of mind to have at the outset of a journey of discovery. Finally, I see you've put the cart is behind the horse.

It seems that the specific questions that capture your interest are ones for which there aren't copious amounts of research. That presents for you and opportunity -- that of being a groundbreaking researcher in the field -- that you can approach in a variety of ways.

For example, as a single-discipline by single-discipline narrow approach that as you address each piece eventually results in a "capstone" publication. Alternatively, you may choose to approach comprehensively -- hitting the psychology, sociology, communications, cultural anthropology, political philosophy/science, and historical dimensions at once as one might do for a dissertation or seminal volume -- and quite literally "write the book" on the topic. That's the cool thing about the humanities and social sciences: for any given topic, there's something from each discipline that informs "what's up."

FWIW, I think the topic quite interesting too, though I'm perhaps not as intrigued as you seem. That said, below is some content you may find useful to developing a strong understanding of the nature and extent of the currently available thought on the matter, which is what one needs to do at the outset of any rigorous quest for answers, regardless of the path you opt to take in obtaining answers. (Note: The studies below used a variety of research methods -- some experimentally driven, some qualitative, some survey, some hybrid, etc.. Most are papers, so their scope is very focused. One is a book, so it has a broader scope.)

• Political psychology -- This is just a disciplinary overview
  
• Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use
  
• Personality Traits, Partisan Attitudes, and Voting Behavior. Evidence from Germany
  
• Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U. S. Senate
  
• God and Country: The Partisan Psychology of the Presidency, Religion, and Nation
  
• Public attitudes toward biofuels Effects of knowledge, political partisanship, and media use
  
• Australian politicians’ beliefs about climate change: political partisanship and political ideology
  
• Seeing the Other Side: Reducing Political Partisanship via Self-Affirmation in the 2008 Presidential Election
  
• Role of Political Partisanship During Economic Crisis
• What's Wrong with Empowerment
• The science of fake news

Be sure to check the references found in the texts noted above. They'll be useful for your literature review, which, in turn, will allow you to determine whether your questions have been answered already, as well as to figure out whether you think the existing research and findings have overlooked something material.


Aside:

As a practical matter, you may want to chat with a couple professors at a local community or four-year college about how to get your project off the ground; perhaps one will partner with you. I'd suggest reaching out to Dr. Brendan Nyhan at Dartmouth -- the topic interests him, but it's not precisely his topic, so there's a "dovetail" synergy potential -- though any professor who's by their own research shown a strong interest in the topic will be just fine as well. The trick is to keep reaching out to various ones until you find who is receptive to working with you, if you are of a mind to conduct formal research.

FWIW, though not wanting to give you too much optimism, you may be able even to turn the project into a path to getting a PhD and getting paid to do so. After all, what you're doing is what prospective and current PhDs do -- on topics that interest them, ask questions for which the answers haven't been found and then go find the answers. And how terrible a thing is it to get paid to seek answers to questions for which one wants the answers? If that's what is of a mind to do, one may as well get formal and informal credit for doing it.​

It may be that it's the result of the personal world in which they live and have grown up, and the various forces and influences within it. It may be that something negative has happened in their own life that pushed them in that direction. It may be a general lack of self esteem that gives them a need to blindly and obediently belong to a tribe.

Those things sound quite plausible as the "somethings" that cause either behavior. I suspect they aren't the only etiologies, but determining what else may be and determining the nature and extent of impact each has are among the things you'll have to figure out.

(Hello, differential equations. Yuck!...LOL...If you're not strong with them, you've got a good reason to eventually partner with a math professor or grad student who can help with the mathematical heavy lifting of figuring out the equations that empirically describe the nature of the qualitative drivers you identify. That's a cool aspect of writing a book: the author doesn't have to know everything and how to do everything; s/he just has to know people who can do the bit s/he cannot and/or give sage and actionable guidance so s/he can then do it.)​

Interestingly, I always refer to my little quest as a "fascinating amateur psychological / sociological / anthropological study", because elements of each exist within it. I've always been fascinated by the motivations behind behaviors (for example, when I'm insulted here, which is daily, my interest is not in the insult but the reason a person felt the need to do it), and the topic of political partisan ideology is a real mother lode of material.

Thanks, I'll start looking at those resources.
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Thanks

You're welcome.

I've always been fascinated by the motivations behind behaviors

I fully understand and share your fascination. It's why I studied economics. The human condition and everything about it and how it works is incredibly compelling.


Aside (you can totally skip this...it's way off-topic...just sharing a bit of myself):

Little did I know all those many years ago when sitting in a dorm room mulling over what to declare and choosing economics that it'd have so many connections with so many other disciplines. I remember sitting in the dorm with my roommate who, like me, had waited to nearly the last minute to declare a major and going over the options. To this day I can remember my thinking from back then:

• Natural sciences, math and engineering: They all had one big problem that I didn't see a way round --> What the hell does one do with one of these degree once one figures out one hates the field that uses that degree?
  • Physics, astronomy, and chemistry -- I don't hate math, but I don't like it enough to do any of those things for a living.
  • Math -- Same thing.
  • Biology -- In the classroom it's fine. In the real world, it can get gross.
  • Geology -- Dad would love me to go to work in the oil industry. I don't know if I want to do that. Isn't this going to eventually lead to engineering and the math-overload problem?
• The human condition interests me, so it'll be either social sciences or humanities.
• I don't mind writing papers, but I don't want to write 'em non-stop, so English, history and philosophy are out even though I really like all three.
• Well, there's:
  • Anthropology -- cool as hell, lots of travel, but does it pay well?
  • Sociology -- cool as hell, but I know this doesn't pay well, plus it's government work or, to make enough money to live in the way I'm used to, I'd eventually have to go into law or politics.
  • Psychology -- I don't have the right temperament for this. I can see myself eventually getting fed up with one those wackos and telling them that they probably should just jump off a cliff...probably not a good thing for my career, so psychology is out.
  • Political science -- Cool as this would be, I don't have the temperament for this either; I can't see myself saying and/or doing things for the sake of political expediency. It'd be cool to study, but I'd be forced to go to law school to have a job and I don't want to be a lawyer.
• I really enjoyed my econ survey classes. I'm strong with applied math so that won't be a problem. I like money, I like empiricism, I like nuance, and I can see where an economics degree leads career wise. Okay, economics it is.

I was kind of sad that I wasn't going to pursue history, philosophy or psychology. Fortunately, there's plenty of all three that intersected with economics, so, in the end, I made the right choice, especially considering that when I got my MBA, I picked up all the psychology I might have earlier wanted to learn about but missed by majoring in econ. The one thing that caught me by surprise was how many papers I had to write as an econ major. (It didn't surprise me in grad school, but it's grad school, so one pretty much expects to write a lot.) Today, I could not be more pleased with the choices I made, even though it's very clear to me now that some of how I perceived the disciplines I didn't choose was errant. I still made the right decision, even though I arrived at it in a somewhat slapdash way.

With my first career nearing its end, I'm thinking I'm going to go back to college and pick up a masters or PhD in one of the disciplines I didn't earlier study, probably anthro or geology, maybe history -- whichever offers the most appealing travel opportunities to see and study places I haven't visited. The objections I had years ago won't matter now because I'll just be doing it for the sake of the learning; I won't be doing it to prepare for a career. If something strikes me, I'll write a book or a few papers about whatever I'm studying.​

when I'm insulted here, which is daily, my interest is not in the insult but the reason a person felt the need to do it

Amen!

 

[JoeB131]

I don’t know what you were doing for those 11 years, but unless you were undermining the most pressing threat to your fellow Americans - the gang of thugs calling themselves the United States government - you were NOT defending our ability to have freedom; you were actively working against it.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX mod edit: no put downs or flaming in CDZ

Have you ever asked yourself: how can the fight for freedom require that I completely sacrifice freedom by subverting my will and dismissing my conscience in favor of following orders? You cannot create freedom by way of dominance any more than you can start a fire with water - the two are in direct opposition.

Obviously, you've never served, or you wouldn't ask such a silly question. Here's the thing, a unit is a force for good because it acts as one. From the platoon all the way up to the division... And yes, it was a meritocracy, if you got to the higher levels, it was usually because you earned it.

What you were actually doing, despite your undoubtedly good intentions, was acting as a hired mercenary for the most vile group of criminals in the world. This is a tough pill to swallow, but you must seriously consider what’s being said here if morality and the future of humanity really matters to you.

Here's the problem with you anti-government types.


The government, is us. It reflects who we are. If we were a society of saints, we would have saintly government. The biggest problem with government is that it mostly gives us exactly what we want. We want it to do all this stuff, and we don't want to pay for it.

The people we send to government, are us. Obama was one of us. Trump is one of us. I'm sorry you don't get that.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I don’t know what you were doing for those 11 years, but unless you were undermining the most pressing threat to your fellow Americans - the gang of thugs calling themselves the United States government - you were NOT defending our ability to have freedom; you were actively working against it.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX mod edit: no put downs or flaming in CDZ

Have you ever asked yourself: how can the fight for freedom require that I completely sacrifice freedom by subverting my will and dismissing my conscience in favor of following orders? You cannot create freedom by way of dominance any more than you can start a fire with water - the two are in direct opposition.

Obviously, you've never served, or you wouldn't ask such a silly question. Here's the thing, a unit is a force for good because it acts as one. From the platoon all the way up to the division... And yes, it was a meritocracy, if you got to the higher levels, it was usually because you earned it.

What you were actually doing, despite your undoubtedly good intentions, was acting as a hired mercenary for the most vile group of criminals in the world. This is a tough pill to swallow, but you must seriously consider what’s being said here if morality and the future of humanity really matters to you.

Here's the problem with you anti-government types.


The government, is us. It reflects who we are. If we were a society of saints, we would have saintly government. The biggest problem with government is that it mostly gives us exactly what we want. We want it to do all this stuff, and we don't want to pay for it.

The people we send to government, are us. Obama was one of us. Trump is one of us. I'm sorry you don't get that.

I want you to know that I’m not challenging your good intentions, courage, intellectual capacity or any other inherent character trait. I am, however, challenging the depth of investigation and contemplation you’ve given to the topic of freedom.

You have said that “a unit is a force for good because it acts as one”, but morality and cohesion are two different things. One could not claim that the mafia is good merely because it acts as one. The same could be said of merit. You may earn your promotion in the mafia because you have merit, but merit is relative to the standards of the organization, such that deplorable behavior could be deemed merit in a deplorable organization, could it not?

I agree completely with your latter statements, which is precisely why I am here debating these topics. I see a need for a significant rise in the cultural consciousness, as reflected by the disgraceful system of government we exist under.

Could you please explain to me how government obtained its right to rule the people, when none of the individuals who vote it into power have that right? No indivdual claims the right to rule their neighbor, taxing his salary and laying down laws which he must obey, and yet somehow we are made to believe that a grouping of people with no such right may delegate this right to others. How can it be that my “representative” has rights that I don’t? If he is representing me, then how do his powers exceed my own?

 

[JoeB131]

You have said that “a unit is a force for good because it acts as one”, but morality and cohesion are two different things. One could not claim that the mafia is good merely because it acts as one. The same could be said of merit. You may earn your promotion in the mafia because you have merit, but merit is relative to the standards of the organization, such that deplorable behavior could be deemed merit in a deplorable organization, could it not?

You know, guy, I guess I have more faith in people. People I served with I would trust with my life today. That's cohesion. That's a bond of a band of brothers... I'm sorry you can't understand this.

I agree completely with your latter statements, which is precisely why I am here debating these topics. I see a need for a significant rise in the cultural consciousness, as reflected by the disgraceful system of government we exist under.

Sorry, don't buy that. Our government is mostly full of decent people. Frankly, most of the truly awful behavior I've seen in my 55 years has been in private firms where a little man can get a lot of power to make life miserable. And as long as he was making money for the other small people... that was fine.

Could you please explain to me how government obtained its right to rule the people, when none of the individuals who vote it into power have that right?

Sure. I'd be happy to.

You see, at some point, we all realized we couldn't have modern civilization without larger government. I mean, small government was probably fine in 1776, if you were happy pooping in a chamber pot, using leeches to treat strep throat, and dying at age 50 from something dumb like cholera or the pox and watching half your kids die before they hit puberty.

So we all looked at one problem after another and said, "Um, yeah, we can't take care of this problem ourselves, but we can direct government to do it and they will."

If there is a problem with government, it's a problem of "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it!"

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You have said that “a unit is a force for good because it acts as one”, but morality and cohesion are two different things. One could not claim that the mafia is good merely because it acts as one. The same could be said of merit. You may earn your promotion in the mafia because you have merit, but merit is relative to the standards of the organization, such that deplorable behavior could be deemed merit in a deplorable organization, could it not?

You know, guy, I guess I have more faith in people. People I served with I would trust with my life today. That's cohesion. That's a bond of a band of brothers... I'm sorry you can't understand this.

I agree completely with your latter statements, which is precisely why I am here debating these topics. I see a need for a significant rise in the cultural consciousness, as reflected by the disgraceful system of government we exist under.

Sorry, don't buy that. Our government is mostly full of decent people. Frankly, most of the truly awful behavior I've seen in my 55 years has been in private firms where a little man can get a lot of power to make life miserable. And as long as he was making money for the other small people... that was fine.

Could you please explain to me how government obtained its right to rule the people, when none of the individuals who vote it into power have that right?

Sure. I'd be happy to.

You see, at some point, we all realized we couldn't have modern civilization without larger government. I mean, small government was probably fine in 1776, if you were happy pooping in a chamber pot, using leeches to treat strep throat, and dying at age 50 from something dumb like cholera or the pox and watching half your kids die before they hit puberty.

So we all looked at one problem after another and said, "Um, yeah, we can't take care of this problem ourselves, but we can direct government to do it and they will."

If there is a problem with government, it's a problem of "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it!"

Well, that recalls the events that led to our current state, and explains WHY they did it, but I’m talking about the actual legitimacy of creating governmental authority. When you vote, you believe you are delegating rights to that individual to make laws which my children must obey or be punished by violence. But you do not claim such rights yourself, so how can you rightfully delegate them to another? How are they acting as your representative, when you can’t do such things as tax me and tell me what substances I can use, etc.? That’s like me delegating the right to paint your house to my cousin — I don’t have that right myself, so how can I delegate it to him?