CDZ How partisan politics narrows your thinking

[usmbguest5318]

Loyalty to a political party often trumps reason and logic in numerous ways:

• We recognize that stereotypes aren’t accurate within our own group, but we’re still inclined to generalize about our adversaries.
• To remain loyal to our party we overly simplify issues instead of giving ample consideration to points from both sides.
• We justify and rationalize when it’s our guy.
• We’re forced to lump together several unrelated issues.
• We may feel politically homeless, unable to embrace either party’s platform.
• We fail to recognize that the labels don’t really fit the political parties.
• We simply rely on our party’s reputation rather than impartially evaluating its actions.

It appears, Mac1958, the affliction, if it be that and not sloth, ignorance and/or insipidity, appears to extend to the level of simply not checking the most basic aspects of veracity in (or absent from) statements one is of a mind to make. To wit:

• CNN forced to dismiss its own poll after huge majority register positive reaction to sotu.
• How JPMorgan Will Spend a Big Chunk of Its Tax Windfall
• How to Negotiate with Tyrannical Regimes

For my part, I don't care how partisan one is of a mind to be, there is, IMO, simply no exculpating that sort of thing, mosty especially not at as basic a level as is illustrated in the post to which I linked.

As I've stated before on this line of discussion, it's clear you are of a mind to accord to partisanship to nature of vitiative absolution given to insanity, that is, to make it a form of insanity, or, in legal parlance, "a disease of the mind." [1] Well, I simply cannot cotton to that proposition because one's choice to be unrelentingly loyal to a political party, thus to exhibit servile partisanship, is a choice one makes. Nobody is born Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc. AFAIK, there is no as yet identified and established basis for thinking that one's choosing a party and hewing to it and its leaders happens due to the presence of an epigenetic or physiological "imbalance."

I can somewhat "get with" the notion of equating (psychologically) partisanship with an affliction such as alcoholism, but not with or as a form of insanity. Just as we hold alcoholics accountable for their deeds/words committed/spoken while under the influence of alcohol, so too are partisans rightly held responsible for their deeds/remarks while "under the influence" of their chosen political party.


Notes:

1. American Law Institute's test for insanity (see also: Insanity defense): A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.
   
2. An illustrative example of one dimension in which being afflicted by alcohol/alcoholism differs from having a "disease of the mind."
   • In Roberts v. State, the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated its position on chronic alcoholism as an independent affirmative defense to a murder charge. The defendant, Richard Roberts, had broken into a house and shot to death its inhabitant. During the 24 hours prior to the killing, Roberts had consumed five large glasses of beer, two to four bottles of beer, a pint of brandy and another 16 to 29 drinks containing brandy. To the charges of first degree murder and burglary, Roberts pleaded not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, and not guilty by reason of chronic alcoholism. The trial court found that Roberts was not intoxicated at the time of the shooting and adjudged him guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed and, in dicta, discussed the limited circumstances under which chronic alcoholism might be interposed as a defense to criminal liability.

I certainly wouldn't equate partisanship with insanity, but I have no doubt that it distorts perceptions and thought processes. And it has to be powerful to infect people who are clearly intelligent. We may have had this discussion before, but this started with some research I did into the subconscious, and how powerful it can be.

Via intellectual isolation (choosing to expose oneself to only certain inputs, such as external information, similar minds, kindred spirits and internal thoughts) and pure repetition, the mind can be conditioned over time to believe some pretty amazing things. That's the foundation of what I think is at work here.
.

I certainly wouldn't equate partisanship with insanity

Okay.

Are you of the mind that partisanship is operant behavior, resulting as such behavior must, from operant conditioning? If so, what do you propose be the negatively and positively operative stimuli?

this started with some research I did into the subconscious, and how powerful it can be.

How, per your research, is "intellectual isolation" distinct from social isolation and "the treacherous trio?"

• Psychology’s Treacherous Trio: Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, and Motivated Reasoning
  
• Research Guides: Today's News: Separating Fact from Fiction: Filter bubbles & confirmation bias

I remember way back when email was somewhat nascent some friends and I once commented sardonically that "email is the new generation's preferred form of human contact."

• Perceived Social Isolation and Cognition

this started with some research I did into the subconscious, and how powerful it can be.

Might that research have included Tooby and Cosmides?

"Those who jettison the epistemological standards of science are no longer in a position to use their intellectual product to make any claims about what is true of the world or to dispute the others’ claims about what is true."​

this started with some research I did into the subconscious

BTW, I presume by "research" you mean "critical literature review," not original research. (Just figured I should be clear about that inasmuch as I've cited several scholarly papers.)

How, per your research, is "intellectual isolation" distinct from social isolation and "the treacherous trio?"

• Psychology’s Treacherous Trio: Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, and Motivated Reasoning
• Research Guides: Today's News: Separating Fact from Fiction: Filter bubbles & confirmation bias

I remember way back when email was somewhat nascent some friends and I once commented sardonically that "email is the new generation's preferred form of human contact."

• Perceived Social Isolation and Cognition

 

[Mac1958]

Loyalty to a political party often trumps reason and logic in numerous ways:

• We recognize that stereotypes aren’t accurate within our own group, but we’re still inclined to generalize about our adversaries.
• To remain loyal to our party we overly simplify issues instead of giving ample consideration to points from both sides.
• We justify and rationalize when it’s our guy.
• We’re forced to lump together several unrelated issues.
• We may feel politically homeless, unable to embrace either party’s platform.
• We fail to recognize that the labels don’t really fit the political parties.
• We simply rely on our party’s reputation rather than impartially evaluating its actions.

It appears, Mac1958, the affliction, if it be that and not sloth, ignorance and/or insipidity, appears to extend to the level of simply not checking the most basic aspects of veracity in (or absent from) statements one is of a mind to make. To wit:

• CNN forced to dismiss its own poll after huge majority register positive reaction to sotu.
• How JPMorgan Will Spend a Big Chunk of Its Tax Windfall
• How to Negotiate with Tyrannical Regimes

For my part, I don't care how partisan one is of a mind to be, there is, IMO, simply no exculpating that sort of thing, mosty especially not at as basic a level as is illustrated in the post to which I linked.

As I've stated before on this line of discussion, it's clear you are of a mind to accord to partisanship to nature of vitiative absolution given to insanity, that is, to make it a form of insanity, or, in legal parlance, "a disease of the mind." [1] Well, I simply cannot cotton to that proposition because one's choice to be unrelentingly loyal to a political party, thus to exhibit servile partisanship, is a choice one makes. Nobody is born Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc. AFAIK, there is no as yet identified and established basis for thinking that one's choosing a party and hewing to it and its leaders happens due to the presence of an epigenetic or physiological "imbalance."

I can somewhat "get with" the notion of equating (psychologically) partisanship with an affliction such as alcoholism, but not with or as a form of insanity. Just as we hold alcoholics accountable for their deeds/words committed/spoken while under the influence of alcohol, so too are partisans rightly held responsible for their deeds/remarks while "under the influence" of their chosen political party.


Notes:

1. American Law Institute's test for insanity (see also: Insanity defense): A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.
   
2. An illustrative example of one dimension in which being afflicted by alcohol/alcoholism differs from having a "disease of the mind."
   • In Roberts v. State, the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated its position on chronic alcoholism as an independent affirmative defense to a murder charge. The defendant, Richard Roberts, had broken into a house and shot to death its inhabitant. During the 24 hours prior to the killing, Roberts had consumed five large glasses of beer, two to four bottles of beer, a pint of brandy and another 16 to 29 drinks containing brandy. To the charges of first degree murder and burglary, Roberts pleaded not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, and not guilty by reason of chronic alcoholism. The trial court found that Roberts was not intoxicated at the time of the shooting and adjudged him guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed and, in dicta, discussed the limited circumstances under which chronic alcoholism might be interposed as a defense to criminal liability.

I certainly wouldn't equate partisanship with insanity, but I have no doubt that it distorts perceptions and thought processes. And it has to be powerful to infect people who are clearly intelligent. We may have had this discussion before, but this started with some research I did into the subconscious, and how powerful it can be.

Via intellectual isolation (choosing to expose oneself to only certain inputs, such as external information, similar minds, kindred spirits and internal thoughts) and pure repetition, the mind can be conditioned over time to believe some pretty amazing things. That's the foundation of what I think is at work here.
.

I certainly wouldn't equate partisanship with insanity

Okay.

Are you of the mind that partisanship is operant behavior, resulting as such behavior must, from operant conditioning? If so, what do you propose be the negatively and positively operative stimuli?

this started with some research I did into the subconscious, and how powerful it can be.

How, per your research, is "intellectual isolation" distinct from social isolation and "the treacherous trio?"

• Psychology’s Treacherous Trio: Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, and Motivated Reasoning
  
• Research Guides: Today's News: Separating Fact from Fiction: Filter bubbles & confirmation bias

I remember way back when email was somewhat nascent some friends and I once commented sardonically that "email is the new generation's preferred form of human contact."

• Perceived Social Isolation and Cognition

this started with some research I did into the subconscious, and how powerful it can be.

Might that research have included Tooby and Cosmides?

"Those who jettison the epistemological standards of science are no longer in a position to use their intellectual product to make any claims about what is true of the world or to dispute the others’ claims about what is true."​

Maybe I'll come back to this post when I think I can understand it, and try to answer it. I'm just a dumb CFP.
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

CFP

???

Maybe I'll come back to this post when I think I can understand it,

There is no time constraint from my point of view.

 

[Mac1958]

CFP

???

Certified Financial Planner.
.

 

[JoeB131]

You say "we" quite a bit when you reference liberals. Why do you do that?

You are using the wrong term to describe your politics, of course, but your acknowledgement that you are part of a hive mind only confirms Mac's points for him.

I think you are a little confused. My opinions are my opinions, but I point out why it's kind of stupid for liberals to sign on to Islamophobia or other dumb right wing ideas. That usually leads to them being the cosigners on bad Right Wing/Zionist policies, and we end up with the check.

You know, like the Iraq War. Democrats should have said no to that all along, not wait until 2008 to find their backbone, by which time getting out was lot harder than getting in was.

 

[JoeB131]

He does this all the time. Pretty much every day. I make a point, he illustrates it.

Weird, but you get used to it.

That you are pompous and can't get away with it? Yes, I prove that every day.

What you don't do? Ever effectively refute a point a make, not one, not ever, not even by accident.

 

[JoeB131]

It's almost like you are Edger Bergan some times, isn't it?

Naw, man, I think Mac is more like the Charlie McCarthy... he just repeats what the Right Wing wants to hear.

"Boy, those liberals sure are dumb because they don't hate on the Muslims!" Or maybe this dummy....

 

[JoeB131]

Regressives are not liberal. They claim to be, and they share some qualities, but they are in fact illiberal leftist authoritarians.

Again, don't describe to your Islamophobia, so they must be regressives.

You know, instead of people who just wonder why we are sending working class young men and women off to be slaughtered for 25 years to keep oil money flowing to rich people.

 

[JoeB131]

They give us what we want?

Why then do they have to lie to us 24/7 with impunity?

That's an easy one, buddy. Because we don't want to be told the truth.

The last politician who told us the truth was Walter Mondale. He said, "If we want to keep spending the way we are, we are going to have to raise taxes".

And the poor guy lost 49 states. I think he got a sympathy vote from his home state.

And the guy who won, then proceeded to raise taxes under the guise of "Tax Reform".

And the guy after him raised taxes after saying 'Read my lips".

And the guy after him raised taxes after waffling on the issue.

You see how that works? We don't reward them for telling us the truth.


Now, if a politician came out and said, "We are 20 Trillion in debt, we are going to have to raise taxes and cut benefits and programs!" we wouldn't vote for him. So they all tell us what we want to hear. And we reward them for it. Then at some point they have a "come to Jesus" moment and they do exactly that.

 

[JoeB131]

This cartoon best illustrates how I perceive the democrook position, and what republicrat "moderates" look like.

The Zionists can always go back to Europe where they came from.

But, naw, they need to live next to people who want to kill them for stealing their land, and then ask 'Why do they want to kill us?"

Um. Because you stole their land, dummy.

 

[peach174]

It actually has more to do with the inability to focus on the issues themselves. Media is allowed to frame or reframe the issues and by doing so controls the solutions.

This is actually a good point. When you have 24 news channels who appeal to niche audiences and have to fill 24 hours a day with content, and who wants to spend money on correspondents and reporters, you do get lots of talking heads talking endlessly about that one kid in the dress who wants to use the girl's locker room like that is a critical issue.

Yes, it's the media that's dividing us and keeping the ideologies going against each other.
The vast majority of us agree on most major issues.

 

[peach174]

This cartoon best illustrates how I perceive the democrook position, and what republicrat "moderates" look like.

The Zionists can always go back to Europe where they came from.

But, naw, they need to live next to people who want to kill them for stealing their land, and then ask 'Why do they want to kill us?"

Um. Because you stole their land, dummy.

They are the ones who had to flee to Europe in the first place.
You all chased them from their homeland.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, it's the media that's dividing us and keeping the ideologies going against each other.
The vast majority of us agree on most major issues.

which ones?

 

[JoeB131]

They are the ones who had to flee to Europe in the first place.
You all chased them from their homeland.

So that makes it okay when they do the same thing to the Palestinians?

Do you excuse child beaters because their parents beat them?

 

[peach174]

They are the ones who had to flee to Europe in the first place.
You all chased them from their homeland.

So that makes it okay when they do the same thing to the Palestinians?

Do you excuse child beaters because their parents beat them?

It's their home now and they won the 6 day war.
The Quran says that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews.
They are defending not attacking.

 

[JoeB131]

It's their home now and they won the 6 day war.
The Quran says that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews.
They are defending not attacking.

Uh, the fact they are still on Arab Land means they are attacking.

Or do you think Hitler should have been allowed to keep France because "he won"?

Now, I'm all for letting them stay, in a country where there is equal rights and equal votes, but that means the Jews wouldn't always get their way on stuff, so they won't go for that.

 

[peach174]

They are the ones who had to flee to Europe in the first place.
You all chased them from their homeland.

So that makes it okay when they do the same thing to the Palestinians?

Do you excuse child beaters because their parents beat them?

Don't even dare to go there with me.
I worked for 8 years at our local child abuse prevention office.

 

[peach174]

Yes, it's the media that's dividing us and keeping the ideologies going against each other.
The vast majority of us agree on most major issues.

which ones?

All

 

[jillian]

This cartoon best illustrates how I perceive the democrook position, and what republicrat "moderates" look like.

The Zionists can always go back to Europe where they came from.

But, naw, they need to live next to people who want to kill them for stealing their land, and then ask 'Why do they want to kill us?"

Um. Because you stole their land, dummy.

by zionists, you mean Israelis. But it's always amusing when jew-haters try to avoid that fact.

perhaps your ire should be turned on the terrorists of hamas. but why would you do that?

tell ya what, tho9ugh, buckaroo, you let me know when my family will be given back all the property stolen from them in Belarus then we can maybe talk about your jew-hate and find a cure for it.

 

[JoeB131]

Don't even dare to go there with me.
I worked for 8 years at our local child abuse prevention office.

Just making the point. Some sad story doesn't excuse your behavior when you are an adult.

Some sad story about how your grandfather got turned into a lampshade doesn't excuse what the Zionists are doing to the Palestinians now.