Your politics is your psychology
 

People's politics are totally informed from their psychology.

I know mine was. As an only child without a father, and with a kinda hippie mom -- I wound up fiercely independent, a contrarian, hating the authority of my parent, and demanding to forge my own road in every way possible.

This is a libertarian. But what if dad had survived his lung cancer and mom had popped out a baby sister? My psychology would be much different. Maybe I'd be more nurturing. Or maybe my sibling would be much younger, and I would wind up partly raising her, and thus wind up more authoritarian. This would probably make my politics different.

But how I personally wound up, does not necessarily make for the right formula for an entire nation. Actually, it seems unfair that my fucked-up childhood makes me want other people to be governed differently.

Well, my politics is determined by what I know to be objectively true. ;)

This is most disconcerting, I mean finding out like this that some of the posters in the Politics thread were probably abused as children. UT has robbed me of my bliss.

Well, I'm going to say that my politics is at least partly ruled by my wallet.

As an example, Dazza is in what's considered to be a high income group, but he's the only income earner in our house, so he taxed to the shithouse, and we get no benefits, and even the extra things like private health rebates and baby bonuses barely apply to us, even though our income as a family is less than a family with two average incomes and who receive a lot more benefits.

I'm becoming very unhappy with our labour government at the moment. They keep making these sneaky changes and they're not even making the papers, let alone other news media.

For example, the lease on our vehicle, should we choose to renew it in a couple more years, will go up by over 50% which makes it barely worth having.

When you talk about wealth redistribution, you probably need to have a look at Australia for a great example of it.

So yeah, anyway, I wont be voting my usual way next time I get a chance to use my voice.

damn right it is: tedtalk: the real difference between liberals and conservatives.

The childhood sets the stage, but I think the life experience effect is ongoing. My politics changed considerably after I came into contact with groups of people I never expected to be a part of.

That was great, Trac, thanks.

Excellent presentation.

I figure my libertarianism is partly push back against the church I grew up in, but I'm interested in others' ideas and attempt to adjust my thinking when good arguments are made. At my core, I'm really afraid of group psychology. People in groups scare the hell out of me because I fear they are signing their moral decision making over to others.

long white gowns and pointy hoods? got to me too.
word of advice: don't tell them if your jewish.

YOU'RE

or a (grammar) nazi

trace, we have other threads on Haidt here and here, and I forgot about them but they are interesting to go back to. I guess they make this thread a little redundant!

Clod, do you feel, as I do, that having changed politics makes you a little more humble about politics? Sometimes when I see people banging on, insisting they're right and that it's urgent, I feel like Yoda: "So certain are you..."

Based on the above, it seems to me that the logical extension is that every other person (including yourself) is no more qualified to dictate how others should be governed. A fair solution to mitigate the effects of this would be to have less government intervention--of any kind--in peoples' lives. By this method, your potentially wrong ideas are not imposed upon others, and their potentially wrong ideas are not imposed upon you. This is the basis of what people mean when you hear them say "small government." Also known as "liberty."

So certain are you.

Yeah, although more the "urgent" part than the "right" part. People who stubbornly but quietly believe they're right don't make me raise one eyebrow nearly as much as people who are like, "OMG society is falling apart because of X!!" I'm not sure if I'm really humble about it though, I just don't have the energy to listen to people ranting.

Some politically active people are motivated by an issue that does really affect them.

Some, by the need for some kind of mission or crusade to give their life meaning and purpose.

Others, by desire for power and egotrips.

The first might (but might not) have a good case, but the latter two may well choose any cause regardless of its merit. We are well advised to be distrustful of all of them, but we can't afford to ignore them all.

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I agree, on social issues. I disagree on economic issues, as I am a "Sandersite socialist" (Sanders as in Bernie of course) and believe that it is part of the social contract that the wealthy, who came to their wealth in the framework of government support, should then be expected to pay higher taxes that then go to ensuring a basic minimum standard of living for all Americans that's somewhere above poverty. I find the logical argument that you have no more right to tell me how to live than i do to tell you how to live to be persuasive; i don't find the argument that it logically follows that therefore the poor should be left to suffer without a strong, modern, more-than-the-poverty-level safety net to be persuasive.

I'm sure my socially-libertarian streak comes both from my rebellious and anti-authority childhood, and from my sexuality and gender variance, and surely my view that it's a moral imperative to make sure people don't starve, or die from curable disease, or live in squalor, also comes from some deeper childhood moral teachings, unless I really have utterly rejected the way i was raised in favor of coming to my own conclusions about the world like all young'uns want to believe they have. But why does that make my beliefs about the role of government more or less valid?

We're all valid and invalid at the same time, I think --

Consider your last paragraph a different way, it goes like this:

Your upbringing, intelligence, curiosity along with your uncommon gender condition, give you special perspective that others don't share, from which you can easily see injustices occurring, and to know what is best for society.

Other people's upbringing, intelligence, curiosity along with their uncommon X condition, give them a special perspective from which they can easily see injustices occurring, and to know what is best for society.

As we know, sometimes the perspectives are in direct conflict.

But why do your beliefs make the OTHER person's beliefs less valid?

Because, I believe that my beliefs are always valid while you believe that your beliefs are valid and invalid at the same time. The logical conclusion is that everyone's beliefs are valid; but, some are more validated than others.

I see politics in a similar way to music. Everyone has a different upbringing and personality, leading them to generally like certain types of music. Some people have special connections with songs and bands which are completely personal. This leads people to feel music in a completely personal way which other people may share or understand, but never feel in the exact same way.

For example, no one at the Cellar can exactly understand the feeling I get when I listen to my favorite song, just as I cannot exactly understand the feeling you get with yours. Yet, on the other hand, there is some rough standard for good music and bad music. Very few people will disagree that music theorist can produce better music than a small child randomly banging on objects.

Politics is very similar in my opinion. We all see the world in a completely unique way so therefore no one can exactly share our views, assuming you can form your own opinion. Yet, on the other hand, we do have a rough standard of what is good and bad.


Now imagine if society had to share a favorite song or band. That is politics.

The Cellar: Politics is music to our ears.

you're awesome, man.

***

http://www.cracked.com/article_19402...n-america.html

just what the link says. About as coherent as the TED talk, but with half the pretension.

In the OP, UT took a very personal view of the way psychology influences a person's politics.
For some, maybe they can identify the personal influences
(or lack thereof) that lead to their current politics.

But I can't. I had a very calm, nondescript childhood.
There were no family catastrophes, no extreme poverty or wealth,
just run-of-the-mill working parents.
So, why am I a flaming, bleeding-heart, liberal ?

I think it's because of phenomena described in a book titled "Generations"
by W.Strauss and N.Howe, published back in 1991.
It's subtitle is "The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069"

In it, a generation is about 22 years, and the authors identify and name 20 periods
of American history, starting with the "Puritan " generation born between 1584-1614.
The authors describe four life periods as Childhood, Rising, Midlife, and Elder
for ages up to 21, 43, 61 and 87, respectively.
When the generations are plotted graphed against time as they move
through the four life periods, the authors refer to it as "generational diagonals".

So far, nothing unusual...
We frequently use "Babyboomer", "Gen X" and "Millennial" to describe our present generations,
and easily recognize natural periods of youth, adult, midlife, and elderly.

What makes Generations unique are three new concepts of what
might be called a cohort psychology.
First, the authors classified all 20 generations into one of 4 types,
named "Idealist", "Reactive", "Civic", and "Adaptive".
Second, and what is remarkable, is these 4 types fall into a chronological cycle,
that has been repeated 5 times through American history.
Third, and most important, the authors describe the interactions between
the living generations as they move through their generational diagonal.

My age group was named the "Silent" generation.
I followed the "G.I." generation and lead the "Boomers" through all phases of my life.
The factors that influenced this SILENT cohort are quite accurately described (p 279-294).
- the vigor and civic activities of the WWII vets (FHA, GI bill, labor unions, etc.)
- the improvements of incomes as farm families become suburban homeowners
- the advancements of science, such as from life-threatening asthma to healthy adulthood
- the "pill" and the subsequent sexual revolution, and decline in the control by religions
- the politics, faith, and desires to improve society through better government
- the civil rights movement and the rejection of the biases of our parents

I do think these are what contributed to me becoming a proud and flaming liberal.

This issue seems basic, but I cannot help but think the individual is born with a way of thinking that will overcome the childhood imprints of the parent.

Up to my late teens, I tended to blindly parrot my father's views, because I considered him quite brilliant. (Mom is alive and everything but she is not too much into politics or sports, so my identification with her is more of the nurturer only). But things changed for no clear reason (other than maturity) and I would attribute that to my personal way of thinking, which is a lot more anxious and a need for clarity at all times, whereas he is VERY quiet, and would find the "thinking stuff" to be a waste of time which would detract from his reading. He reads constantly, and is not a very social person at all (he is a retired mechanical engineer).

Thus I know I tend to "think" more than my father. I have diverged from him on politics and other issues. We are not opposites, but I know he is sort of stuck in a traditional north Texas democrat/Ann Richards/Molly Ivins type of role, and I keep changing my views as I become more open-minded to things that I was taught were "nutty" - for example "Goldwater was a nut" was what I was brought up to believe. Now I find him to be over-principled, but not nutty at all. He fits a logic that is understandable.

At this stage I like to bandy things about in my head and see if there is a logic that is understandable. Even something like abortion I can easily see both sides. I tend to view a lot of things in shades of gray so I tend to not really engage in many discussions. I recently found myself at a dinner party and debating politics with someone and very much enjoyed it, because we were both quite adept at keeping things unemotional and intelligent.

Also, having two of my own children really hit home with me how little I influence certain ways of thinking with them. Sure I can influence certain, obvious things, and I am sure they too will follow my line of thinking at first, but I definitely see how they react and interpret life is something that they were born with, so their politics naturally will evolve depending on their innate outlook.

The red wine is wearing off. Time to hit the sack.

It's genetic.