What is it about politics...

that drives people to be militant about things they know so little about?

Everyone from the tea party, to knee jerk left wing latte slurpers — I find that most people are quick to give you an answer even when they don't know if its right or wrong. Is it that people get their "facts" from entertainment TV? Do they feel bad saying they don't know? Wouldn't it be better to just go online or read a book?

I just don't get it.

If you dont believe me ask someone why tax cuts are good or bad. Or better, what principles are the democratic and republican parties based on.

I'm sure it is a process of indoctrination that starts from a very young age, just assuming the opinions you hear are facts when you're a kid and subconsciously carrying a lot of these prejudices with you until you actually rigorously study politics and form your own opinion based on rationality rather than dogma. Although there are certainly many exceptions, especially in academic circles, I think a good general rule is if someone can define their political leanings in one or two words then they don't really know what they're talking about.

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” - Churchill

It's education and some people are just too stupid/lazy/ignorant/etc.

Their militant stance is a defense mechanism, in order to avoid exposing their lack of depth on the topic.

well, ya know....opinions....people have them

politics is religion without constraint.

I fucking hate having face to face discussions on politics with people who clearly don't know shit and aren't prepared to listen.

It would be like me telling Warren Buffet what's what about investment, Stephen Hawking how the universe works and Einstein on molecular physics.

I think I just implicitly compared myself to Buffet, Hawking and Einstein.

I'm cool with that.

I think I just implicitly compared myself to Buffet, Hawking and Einstein.

 

I'm cool with that.

Buffett

it's like the opposite of that thing they teach you about dessert and desert... a buffet gets you one unlimited meal but if you're Buffett you get unlimited buffets for life.

*ps, nicely done though.

Because unlike in other fields, political decisions have an effect on how you live your life, how you raise your family, etc and etc. Not saying this doesn't happen with things like science, but if you like to do something, and it suddenly becomes illegal, there is an issue. If you run a certain kind of business and all of a sudden new policy changes your ability to run your business, you have to take action. Minor examples, but they could have a major impact on your life.

And, what Yum said earlier.

people dont become militant because they lack understanding or knowledge of political issues, they become militant because they come to a point where they feel their back is against the wall and there is no other choice but to use force. to call the tea party militant is stupid, they arent militant whatsoever, they carry weapons to show their support for their right to bear arms and that is all really.

what is it about politics that creates this hubris and elitism in individuals where they tend to become so close minded, and feel they have a right to look down and talk down to others because they deem themselves more knowledgeable on political discussions? you can be book smart but still lack a lot of common sense when it comes to other aspects of life, and just because you feel your educated doesnt mean that gives you the right to look at everyone else like they are idiots. thats the real problem with politics imo.

I think you'll find elitism is everywhere in life.

You been in to Brickslayers lately?!

It's also easy to rag on politicians and policy, just like it is sport stars and plays, celebrities and movies, etc. Those educated in politics get worked up about particular politicians and particular policy. Those educated in other things just get worked up about politics and politicians in general .

I've been thinking about it for a while and I came to two conclusions. These ideas go for the people who are uneducated in the subject matter of the particular argument or discussion.

1. Because western society frowns upon ignorance people would rather put forth an opinion, that may be inappropriate, than admit they are not well versed on the subject.

2. Because, at least in America, citizen vote for an elected official to serve in their interests they do not feel the need to study laws and topics like they might if they represented themselves like they would in a true democracy. Even so they still feel passionate about their choice in leader and will commonly repeat what they have heard from them and other supporters in their defense.

I'm sure it is a process of indoctrination that starts from a very young age, just assuming the opinions you hear are facts when you're a kid and subconsciously carrying a lot of these prejudices with you until you actually rigorously study politics and form your own opinion based on rationality rather than dogma. Although there are certainly many exceptions, especially in academic circles, I think a good general rule is if someone can define their political leanings in one or two words then they don't really know what they're talking about.

I am totally agree with you.Education is very very compulsory in politics,but sometime non educated person can better understand politics discussion.

Birthplaces of Politicians

I read a really interesting article about this sort of thinking the other day. It was more pointed at how, when the apocalypse DOESN'T happen the 'believers' faith will actually be strengthened. It still points directly at politics however, showing why Republicans keep clinging to the party line because they are 'fiscally conservative'.

I can't however find the freaking article again after a half hour search so, more on that later...

A google search for "failed rapture increases faith" also failed to turn up the article but I saw a reference to a book cited in the recent study. It was written in the 50's about a UFO cult who's ship failed to arrive. It's called "When Prophesy Fails" by Leon Festinger.

Interesting stuff but I found the most interesting part of the missing article a portion describing a study that showed people who get the shitty end of a deal are more likely to ignore obvious facts and reshape their belifs to make themselves feel better about getting the previously mentioned 'shitty end'.

I've been thinking about it for a while and I came to two conclusions. These ideas go for the people who are uneducated in the subject matter of the particular argument or discussion.

 

1. Because western society frowns upon ignorance people would rather put forth an opinion, that may be inappropriate, than admit they are not well versed on the subject.

 

2. Because, at least in America, citizen vote for an elected official to serve in their interests they do not feel the need to study laws and topics like they might if they represented themselves like they would in a true democracy. Even so they still feel passionate about their choice in leader and will commonly repeat what they have heard from them and other supporters in their defense.

you're limiting your argument by pegging it to western societies

people get passionate about things they perceive to have a dramatic impact on their life

(it's why the uneducated in the inner city America don't care for politics, they don't feel it has any impact on them)

and why you see the poverty stricken in other lands caring a lot about government once they can put food in their mouths; after basic needs are satisfied, they move to the next issues that impact them: god and politics.

i read recently about why people don't believe science, even when it is indubitably true:

you form a world view, then pile on evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) to support that view. then when something challenges your view, you dispute it vigorously because it threatens your entire belief system, so rather than listening to logic, you just reason your way out of the truth.

similar shit in politics, when one tries to present the opposition with facts. the opposition then just produces some other stuff they call facts to argue

.....

An array of new discoveries in psychology and neuroscience has further demonstrated how our preexisting beliefs, far more than any new facts, can skew our thoughts and even color what we consider our most dispassionate and logical conclusions. This tendency toward so-called “motivated reasoning” helps explain why we find groups so polarized over matters where the evidence is so unequivocal: climate change, vaccines, “death panels,” the birthplace and religion of the president (PDF), and much else. It would seem that expecting people to be convinced by the facts flies in the face of, you know, the facts.

The theory of motivated reasoning builds on a key insight of modern neuroscience (PDF): Reasoning is actually suffused with emotion (or what researchers often call “affect”). Not only are the two inseparable, but our positive or negative feelings about people, things, and ideas arise much more rapidly than our conscious thoughts, in a matter of milliseconds—fast enough to detect with an EEG device, but long before we’re aware of it. That shouldn’t be surprising: Evolution required us to react very quickly to stimuli in our environment. It’s a “basic human survival skill,” explains political scientist Arthur Lupia of the University of Michigan. We push threatening information away; we pull friendly information close. We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.

When we think we’re reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing. Or to use an analogy offered by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt: We may think we’re being scientists, but we’re actually being lawyers (PDF). Our “reasoning” is a means to a predetermined end—winning our “case”—and is shot through with biases. They include “confirmation bias,” in which we give greater heed to evidence and arguments that bolster our beliefs, and “disconfirmation bias,” in which we expend disproportionate energy trying to debunk or refute views and arguments that we find uncongenial.

http://www.disinfo.com/2011/05/the-science-of-why-we-dont-believe-science/

Politics is a shadow, another game to keep the people distracted.

If con is the opposite of pro, is congress the opposite of progress?

No Mr. Lahey, I NEED a cheeseburger!