The 'third way' experience in political debates

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:20 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[4][5]

Interesting that you can quote something and manage to completely miss the meaning.

-Crissa

Just trying to learn from you.

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Brace » Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:57 pm UTC

This post had objectionable content.
Last edited by Brace on Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:42 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

Autolykos
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:32 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Autolykos » Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:55 pm UTC

mobiusstripsearch wrote:If I had to hypothesize why, it's because liberals generally have the dominant position. Liberal values rule society. Conservatives are already used to empathizing with different opinions. Disputing conservative values is not heresy -- they're already heretics.

Hm, I think it's more difficult than that. Being conservative is about not wanting change in society. So conservative values are, by definition, held by a majority (or at least more common than any other position). If that's not the case, they would be reactionary.

What liberals (using the American meaning of the word) have going for them is "air superiority" in debates. It's very hard to argue against them without looking mean and cruel, or at the very least cold and heartless. Even if you're technically right. Most people like others to see them as more friendly than they are, so they will usually pretend to be more liberal, too.

What conservatives tap into is mostly basic human instincts like "tribe mentality". They don't need to win debates, they just have to appeal to emotions or "common sense". That's probably why you have way more conservatives pretending to be liberal than the other way round (just look at the "redshift" phenomenon in voting polls).

For both sides, rational arguments aren't what wins them their support. It comes down to a fight between social pressure and fear. The reason for this is that we're still, by and large, hairless monkeys. We are capable of rational thought, but most of the time we only use it to rationalize our gut decisions. Getting over this takes a lot of training and discipline, and will always 'feel' a little wrong, even if you know it's right.

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Brace » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 pm UTC

This post had objectionable content.
Last edited by Brace on Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:42 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

Autolykos
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:32 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Autolykos » Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:21 pm UTC

You're right, it is a false dichotomy. But it is often only false by a very tiny margin, and may require sharp observation and tricky argumentation to point that out in individual cases. So tricky that it's easy to dismiss as sophistry in an actual debate without most of the audience thinking twice about it. In practical politics, logic just doesn't win you the game. That's part of what makes it so depressing.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Crissa » Wed Jul 16, 2014 9:06 am UTC

Why is it that we constantly argue about what's sustainable in fifty years for conservative spending, but never environmental exploitation? Why is it the policies which 'balance' fifty years always seem to need to be applied today, whether tor not they haven't been applied for the last fifteen years, and the mystical end date is always fifteen years in the future?

We may never know.

Instead, maybe you should stop hiding behind 'logic' that has negative outcomes. Maybe something is wrong with that 'logic'.

-Crissa
Last edited by Crissa on Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:17 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby leady » Wed Jul 16, 2014 11:45 am UTC

because politics!

But on a discussion basis, the economic costs of long term programmes are pretty accurately objectively known (the social outcomes are debateable). "Environmental exploitation" is wholly debateable. Hence the case that "your children will pay for your proflgacy" is going to be true (taking no view on economic progress), "your children are going to be choking in polution / under water" is a prediction - hence why the GOP use the former, but democrats general shy from the latter (is easier to use the immediate social impact of the first) :)

but politics really

User avatar
Brace
Posts: 1169
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:40 am UTC
Location: Denver, Co
Contact:

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Brace » Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:15 pm UTC

This post had objectionable content.
Last edited by Brace on Mon Oct 06, 2014 12:42 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves" - Albert Camus

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:34 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:Why is it that we constantly argue about what's sustainable in fifty years for conservative spending, but never environmental exploitation? Why is it the policies which 'balance' fifty years always sem to need to be applied today, whether tor not they haven't been applied for the last fifteen years, and the mystical end date is always fifteen years in the future?

We may never know.

Instead, maybe you should stop hiding behind 'logic' that has negative outcomes. Maybe something is wrong with that 'logic'.

-Crissa


Because certain issues are labeled "democrat" or "republican". It's two competing power blocs struggling for more power, not a philosophy class.

If you want both concern about environmental costs and long term economic responsibility, you should probably consider looking into libertarians instead. The pessimistic may note that if they acheive power, they will eventually morph into a competing power bloc instead of worrying about ideological consistency.

And yes, long term planning always needs to start soon. As for "end dates", the ten year forcasting is a common government budgetary model. Different projections are sometimes made, but you're going to frequently see projections clustered around that.

Autolykos
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:32 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Autolykos » Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:20 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:Why is it that we constantly argue about what's sustainable in fifty years for conservative spending, but never environmental exploitation?
Was that addressed to me? (EDIT: Apparently it wasn't. Sorry if my post came over too direct/rude.) If it wasn't,please disregard everything below - but your post looks like a reply to someone/-thing, my post is just above yours, and your answer is something I get a lot when calling liberals 'illogical', so I'm just going to treat it that way. But even if it isn't a reply to you personally, it's still somewhat on topic, so here it goes:

First, note that I did not talk about any specific points, especially fiscal or environmental policy. I actually believe environmental policy to be way more important, because finances are just pieces of paper with some ink on them (or now, bits and bytes on a hard drive). We can replace them with something new when they're broken. With nature, that's slightly harder. Especially, it does not follow that everything advertised with illogical/faulty arguments is automatically wrong. You're just dishonoring your cause and insulting your audience if you do it.
Second, I wrote pretty clearly that IMO conservatives are arguing just as illogically as liberals, only in a different way.

But what I actually find interesting here is that expressing an opinion that finds faults in both camps will get you immediately associated with the conservatives by any liberal present (like the assertion I would find protection of the environment less 'logical' than balanced fiscal policy), while conservatives tend to wait a little longer before throwing around baseless assumptions about what I might believe about other, unrelated issues. And this seems to be exactly what the OP was talking about.
Last edited by Autolykos on Fri Jul 18, 2014 12:33 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6860
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby ucim » Thu Jul 17, 2014 1:37 am UTC

Autolykos wrote:...finances are just pieces of paper with some ink on them [...]. We can replace them with something new when they're broken. With nature, that's slightly harder.
While I agree that with nature it's "slightly harder", I don't think we can just "replace finances with something new when they're broken"... because some people will be on the losing end of this, and they will fight it. Revolution and war are not very good for the environment either, and neither is the detritus of a broken economy.

There is a dilemma here: What is good for the individual tends to be bad for the group, and what is good for the group tends to be bad for the individual, and this feeds on itself in a circle, because the group is made of individuals. "Liberal" vs "Conservative" or "Democrat" vs "Republican" (US terminology) tend to be broad strokes of which side of the dilemma one is pushing. But whichever side it is, push far enough and it comes back around and has the opposite effect.

Politics is the art of getting people to overlook this, and push harder.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby leady » Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:48 am UTC

ucim wrote:There is a dilemma here: What is good for the individual tends to be bad for the group, and what is good for the group tends to be bad for the individual, and this feeds on itself in a circle, because the group is made of individuals. "Liberal" vs "Conservative" or "Democrat" vs "Republican" (US terminology) tend to be broad strokes of which side of the dilemma one is pushing. But whichever side it is, push far enough and it comes back around and has the opposite effect.

Politics is the art of getting people to overlook this, and push harder.

Jose


yeah - I don't agree with that at all. Thats the post facto justification as to why intervention was required, trotted out by politicians who don't trust people ala "Those plebs are too stupid to put their children into schooling" (of course they use the term "poor" but they mean stupid).

I'm firmly of the view that whats good for the individual is good for the group (note not all individuals - no need to bring out the exception goblins), particularly once long vs short term benefits are covered (and opportunity costs). The problem I see generally is that the social system can distort and obsfuscate this truth, particularly for certain groups ala benefit traps etc

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Crissa » Thu Jul 17, 2014 9:37 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:If you want both concern about environmental costs...

Do you know of a libertarian of that stripe in elected office or leading an environmental think tank?

I don't believe there are unicorns.

leady wrote:I'm firmly of the view that whats good for the individual is good for the group (note not all individuals...

You can believe the sky is always pink, for all I care. It doesn't make it so.

It might be nice to live in your fantasies, but they don't apply to the real world. The sky is not pink, there are no unicorns, there are no libertarians who protect the environment and it's bad for all if I chose what is personally expedient.

-Crissa

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:52 am UTC

Crissa wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:If you want both concern about environmental costs...

Do you know of a libertarian of that stripe in elected office or leading an environmental think tank?

I don't believe there are unicorns.


Libertarians lack much in the way of power, yes. Not a ton in higher office, or generally in positions of power, even unelected ones.

This does not mean their beliefs are not genuine, merely that they lack power compared to the primary two groups.

Oddly enough, this is a topic on which Libs and Greens tend to mostly agree. They do tend to evaluate costs differently, but both parties typically wish for economic costs to be more universally expressed in a dollar value. Of course, the Green party also mostly lacks power in the US, so hey.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Crissa » Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:37 am UTC

I would seriously back a plan to make - at least half - the Senate into apportion by party. Our fixation on geography makes dispersed groups too powerless.

-Crissa

Autolykos
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:32 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Autolykos » Fri Jul 18, 2014 12:28 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:I would seriously back a plan to make - at least half - the Senate into apportion by party. Our fixation on geography makes dispersed groups too powerless.
That's actually pretty much how we run things in Germany: Half of the parliament are direct mandates from the local districts (first vote), and the rest is filled up from party lists so they are represented proportionally (second vote). We also disregard parties under 5% and have some complex balancing in case you can't get to the correct proportions from just filling up the remaining seats, but the details would take us too far and were just recently revised by our Constitutional Court anyway.
It certainly gets rid of the two-party-system, but it strengthens the Right because the Left traditionally has more infighting and is split up into multiple parties that will only cooperate grudgingly (or not at all).

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby leady » Fri Jul 18, 2014 1:21 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:You can believe the sky is always pink, for all I care. It doesn't make it so.

It might be nice to live in your fantasies, but they don't apply to the real world. The sky is not pink, there are no unicorns, there are no libertarians who protect the environment and it's bad for all if I chose what is personally expedient.

-Crissa


Well the alternative is that the bulk of humanity are herd animals that need to be dominated by a higher caste (reword to your fancy) because they can't be trusted to make the "correct" choices

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Crissa » Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:24 pm UTC

leady wrote:Well the alternative is that the bulk of humanity are herd animals that need to be dominated by a higher caste (reword to your fancy) because they can't be trusted to make the "correct" choices

That is what is called a 'false dichotomy'.

It's just a fact - if I were to do what is good for me, it would be bad for the group. Graze my sheep until their full leaves no grass for everyone else's sheep. Etc.

-Crissa

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jul 18, 2014 7:12 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
leady wrote:Well the alternative is that the bulk of humanity are herd animals that need to be dominated by a higher caste (reword to your fancy) because they can't be trusted to make the "correct" choices

That is what is called a 'false dichotomy'.

It's just a fact - if I were to do what is good for me, it would be bad for the group. Graze my sheep until their full leaves no grass for everyone else's sheep. Etc.

-Crissa


*sigh* Not everything is a tragedy of the commons. Not all actions should be treated as such.

Sometimes what is good for you is indeed good for everyone else, too.

And libertarians do not dispute that externalities exist. This is a significant point of discussion for them. However, you cannot reasonably hold that every single government action is currently justified by preventing externalities. Quite a lot of them have other purposes.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Crissa » Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:43 pm UTC

Tyr, do you understand that the world is messy, not binary? The example of the tragedy of the commons is the perfect example of why what's good for an individual is not good for the group.

Because you repeatedly pop in and contradict, then argue points no one was arguing. Although I'd love to see a libertarian to explain how to pay for externalities.

-Crissa

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Jul 19, 2014 2:27 am UTC

Crissa wrote:Tyr, do you understand that the world is messy, not binary? The example of the tragedy of the commons is the perfect example of why what's good for an individual is not good for the group.

Because you repeatedly pop in and contradict, then argue points no one was arguing. Although I'd love to see a libertarian to explain how to pay for externalities.

-Crissa


Determine who has to pay whom, and they can either agree how much it is worth, or if necessary, regulate through government.

For example, I want a dog. My neighbor hates barking. If I have the right to own a dog, my neighbor can pay me $200 not to buy a dog. If I don't have that right without my neighbor's permission, I could offer him $500 for the permission to buy a dog.

A public park adds on average, $500 to 100 people. But it costs $10,000 to build. No one wants to pay more than they gain. The community can vote to raise taxes by $100.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby leady » Sat Jul 19, 2014 12:11 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
leady wrote:Well the alternative is that the bulk of humanity are herd animals that need to be dominated by a higher caste (reword to your fancy) because they can't be trusted to make the "correct" choices

That is what is called a 'false dichotomy'.

It's just a fact - if I were to do what is good for me, it would be bad for the group. Graze my sheep until their full leaves no grass for everyone else's sheep. Etc.

-Crissa


I always find that if you want to claim a false dichotomy it should be pretty easy to show a third option. In fact your follow up confirms your view that people can't be trusted to act in their own best interests and need to be dominated. Thats fine, its hardly a unique position - just be honest about it :)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby morriswalters » Sat Jul 19, 2014 2:01 pm UTC

leady wrote:Well the alternative is that the bulk of humanity are herd animals that need to be dominated by a higher caste (reword to your fancy) because they can't be trusted to make the "correct" choices
Interesting way to state something really much more complex. People can be trusted to make choices. Seven billion individual choices. Some of them correct, some less than correct. What they can't do individually is deal with large events over long spans of time involving huge amounts of information and large groups of people, that are ambiguous. False dichotomy? Apples and oranges? I'll leave that to the logic and philosophy people.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:05 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
leady wrote:Well the alternative is that the bulk of humanity are herd animals that need to be dominated by a higher caste (reword to your fancy) because they can't be trusted to make the "correct" choices
Interesting way to state something really much more complex. People can be trusted to make choices. Seven billion individual choices. Some of them correct, some less than correct. What they can't do individually is deal with large events over long spans of time involving huge amounts of information and large groups of people, that are ambiguous. False dichotomy? Apples and oranges? I'll leave that to the logic and philosophy people.


Oh, some of them will most certainly make poor choices. People do that all the time.

But...any power structure still has people in charge. No matter what system you favor, you still end up with decisions being made by people. Human falliability is not an avoidable thing. Yet.

Democracy is inherently rooted in a "wisdom of the crowds" principle. Yeah, some people may be idiots, but on the whole, most people will get the answers to most things right. All of us fail at times, but mostly in different ways. There are times when everyone gets something wrong...be it through misinformation or ignorance or whatever, but if something is that pervasively misunderstood in society...it would likely have been gotten wrong through another form of governance as well. On the flip side, if you have one, or very few people making choices, then individual failings matter in addition to generalized failings.

So, there's a certain safety in relying on many individual choices instead of a very few.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:38 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
leady wrote:Well the alternative is that the bulk of humanity are herd animals that need to be dominated by a higher caste (reword to your fancy) because they can't be trusted to make the "correct" choices
Interesting way to state something really much more complex. People can be trusted to make choices. Seven billion individual choices. Some of them correct, some less than correct. What they can't do individually is deal with large events over long spans of time involving huge amounts of information and large groups of people, that are ambiguous. False dichotomy? Apples and oranges? I'll leave that to the logic and philosophy people.


Oh, some of them will most certainly make poor choices. People do that all the time.

But...any power structure still has people in charge. No matter what system you favor, you still end up with decisions being made by people. Human falliability is not an avoidable thing. Yet.

Democracy is inherently rooted in a "wisdom of the crowds" principle. Yeah, some people may be idiots, but on the whole, most people will get the answers to most things right. All of us fail at times, but mostly in different ways. There are times when everyone gets something wrong...be it through misinformation or ignorance or whatever, but if something is that pervasively misunderstood in society...it would likely have been gotten wrong through another form of governance as well. On the flip side, if you have one, or very few people making choices, then individual failings matter in addition to generalized failings.

So, there's a certain safety in relying on many individual choices instead of a very few.


47% of Americans believe the second coming of Jesus will probably be within the next 40 years. That... might cause some problems in terms of any long-term public policy decision making.

[edit]Sorry, that's 47% of Christians, so I guess about 38% of Americans.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby leady » Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:44 pm UTC

I'm pretty sure surveys like that are deliberately warped to drive a result that looks exciting. Its about the proportion you get to any "within 40 years" type question

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:49 pm UTC

leady wrote:I'm pretty sure surveys like that are deliberately warped to drive a result that looks exciting. Its about the proportion you get to any "within 40 years" type question


So you're saying that people are too stupid to realize they're being tricked by the survey company to get the result that the survey wants?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jul 21, 2014 3:26 pm UTC

What we need is a bunch of Christian preachers to stop saying "God is coming back and He will fix everything" and start saying "God is coming back and if His place is a mess He is going to be piiiiissed!"

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:21 pm UTC

I simply mean that no individual can run anything very large.
Tyndmyr wrote:Yeah, some people may be idiots, but on the whole, most people will get the answers to most things right.
It depends on the type of problems that you have. I would think that most people can't think far enough out in time. Beach owners can't make the connection that it is a game of musical chairs if sea rise predictions are correct. At some point the music will stop and peoples property will be worthless, because the beach will be behind them at that point. So rather that making plans to give people their money and make them move, we build seawalls and act like we can stop the tides. And force governments to rewrite the science because they don't like it. And that particular behavior isn't a province of any given political party.


LaserGuy wrote:So you're saying that people are too stupid to realize they're being tricked by the survey company to get the result that the survey wants?
He might be saying that the survey company manipulates how the questions are formed and presented to prime the respondent to say what the survey wants to hear. Particularly true when surveys have agenda's. Do you believe that isn't the case.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 21, 2014 4:55 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:I simply mean that no individual can run anything very large.
Tyndmyr wrote:Yeah, some people may be idiots, but on the whole, most people will get the answers to most things right.
It depends on the type of problems that you have. I would think that most people can't think far enough out in time. Beach owners can't make the connection that it is a game of musical chairs if sea rise predictions are correct. At some point the music will stop and peoples property will be worthless, because the beach will be behind them at that point. So rather that making plans to give people their money and make them move, we build seawalls and act like we can stop the tides. And force governments to rewrite the science because they don't like it. And that particular behavior isn't a province of any given political party.


Certainly. This is often enabled by governmental intervention, which both sides seek. Insurance subisidies are a way of enabling this particular action currently. And yeah, neither political party can fix this human flaw...nor can a different governmental structure really handle it.

Discounting future problems is actually pretty rational...if you're not alive then, do you care as much if your house gets flooded? Probably not. But as lifespans keep extending and society becomes more stable, the discounting rate needs to decrease. It's probably behind where it should be, because evolution is fairly slow, and it seems a hard problem to change with education alone. Well, with modern education, anyway. Improvements in education are certainly a reasonable approach to this problem.

LaserGuy wrote:So you're saying that people are too stupid to realize they're being tricked by the survey company to get the result that the survey wants?
He might be saying that the survey company manipulates how the questions are formed and presented to prime the respondent to say what the survey wants to hear. Particularly true when surveys have agenda's. Do you believe that isn't the case.


This is most likely the case here, yes. However, to answer the underlying point about how if the majority believes some strange religious thing, it can be a problem, well...yes, of course it can be. It's a problem in any governmental model, though. With a system that allows more individual choice, though, at least those of us who do NOT believe the crazy thing can act appropriately.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Jul 21, 2014 7:50 pm UTC

Yeah, if a large percent of the population is all wrong in the same way, that's not an argument against letting people make individual choices and having some enlightened leaders guide them to righteousness, because those leaders are going to be drawn from that population and thus have a high chance of being wrong in exactly the same way themselves. Especially since, official democracy or not, any leader getting and staying in power requires widespread popular support (or at least, wider support than opposition), so you'll have that same crowd of mostly-wrong people putting one of themselves in a position of power.

"People are often wrong about a lot of things" is a good argument for individual liberty: let people make choices over their own lives and only their own lives, so the damage of people screwing things up is constrained to just those people, and those who get it right can continue along without them.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:07 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:So you're saying that people are too stupid to realize they're being tricked by the survey company to get the result that the survey wants?


He might be saying that the survey company manipulates how the questions are formed and presented to prime the respondent to say what the survey wants to hear. Particularly true when surveys have agenda's. Do you believe that isn't the case.


Honestly, I wouldn't be all that surprised to find the numbers are, if not that high, probably not that far off. That isn't to say that necessarily translates into policy decisions in any way. Believing something to be true and not behaving in a way that would be consistent with that thing being true is something that happens all the time.

That said, even if the survey company is manipulating the results, that's simply changing the problem from "47% of people believe something crazy" to "47% of people can be manipulated into giving crazy information to a survey", which is not necessarily any better when we're running a democratic system that relies on people casting a single vote on policy. If anything, the survey is more finely grained than our voting process, because at least it is probably asking your opinions about a bunch of different issues rather than just "Team Red or Team Blue".

I'm more pessimistic about the idea of "wisdom of crowds" and "most people will get the answers to most things right" than some others here. There are many problems that are complex, or unintuitive, and getting the "right" answer, if there is one, may not be a trivial process. Then there are whole industries dedicated to manipulating large groups of people into acting in ways that are against their interests.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:05 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Discounting future problems is actually pretty rational...if you're not alive then, do you care as much if your house gets flooded? Probably not.
Really. Than why have children? Or worry about what you leave them? It doesn't matter until it does. I don't need an answer. What I wanted to do is point out that we are inconsistent. The attitude is rational only if you don't care if the world ends if you die. It is understandable, since you have to survive today. I would assume it is the basis, in part, for the tragedy of the commons.
Pfhorrest wrote:Yeah, if a large percent of the population is all wrong in the same way, that's not an argument against letting people make individual choices and having some enlightened leaders guide them to righteousness, because those leaders are going to be drawn from that population and thus have a high chance of being wrong in exactly the same way themselves. Especially since, official democracy or not, any leader getting and staying in power requires widespread popular support (or at least, wider support than opposition), so you'll have that same crowd of mostly-wrong people putting one of themselves in a position of power.

"People are often wrong about a lot of things" is a good argument for individual liberty: let people make choices over their own lives and only their own lives, so the damage of people screwing things up is constrained to just those people, and those who get it right can continue along without them.
It isn't that the population is wrong all the time, or right. It's that each has different priorities and needs. For instance I live inland at about 400 foot above mean sea level. My attitude here and now is to hell with all those crazy people on the coast. I also live on a river that drains a large portion of the Eastern United States. The attitude upriver is that their waste has to go somewhere, being how I get my drinking water from that river that attitude leaves me a little queasy despite the fact that we do something similar. I personally consider the idea of any individual action not affecting us all, as a little bit of an internet myth.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:43 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Discounting future problems is actually pretty rational...if you're not alive then, do you care as much if your house gets flooded? Probably not.
Really. Than why have children? Or worry about what you leave them? It doesn't matter until it does. I don't need an answer. What I wanted to do is point out that we are inconsistent. The attitude is rational only if you don't care if the world ends if you die. It is understandable, since you have to survive today. I would assume it is the basis, in part, for the tragedy of the commons.


I do not hold that we cease to care about what happens after we die altogether...merely that our caring is decreased. Your house flooding after you die is probably still not a good thing...but it's certainly less important to you.

That said, as for the "why do we have children", it seems to be largely due to lack of birth control. Children might be a rational pursuit of some goal, sure...but I'd wager that in practice, they very often are not. The steep dropoff in birth rates as populations gain access to decent birth control supports this.

LaserGuy wrote:That said, even if the survey company is manipulating the results, that's simply changing the problem from "47% of people believe something crazy" to "47% of people can be manipulated into giving crazy information to a survey", which is not necessarily any better when we're running a democratic system that relies on people casting a single vote on policy. If anything, the survey is more finely grained than our voting process, because at least it is probably asking your opinions about a bunch of different issues rather than just "Team Red or Team Blue".


Yup. And that gets you to the worry over pure democracy. Thus, you end up with various checks and balances to limit the power of the democracy to reduce error due to manipulation, temporary surges in popularity, and other such human behaviors. Individual choice is still important...but it is not always best safeguarded by a simple majority-wins voting structure.

morriswalters wrote:It isn't that the population is wrong all the time, or right. It's that each has different priorities and needs. For instance I live inland at about 400 foot above mean sea level. My attitude here and now is to hell with all those crazy people on the coast. I also live on a river that drains a large portion of the Eastern United States. The attitude upriver is that their waste has to go somewhere, being how I get my drinking water from that river that attitude leaves me a little queasy despite the fact that we do something similar. I personally consider the idea of any individual action not affecting us all, as a little bit of an internet myth.


Some actions affect others sufficiently little as to be effectively a non-issue. Some resources are very heavily shared. The air, for instance, is not really a respecter of state lines. So, air pollution regs on one side of the line are logically affecting someone just on the other side quite a bit(and currently, that person may not have a great deal of say in that...certainly not in proportion to how much he or she is affected).

But say, the color one paints the doors of their homes has fairly little effect on you, yes*? Oh, sure, exterior doors, you might see them if you happen to live in the nearby area. Still...that's a pretty minor thing, yes? Interior doors, why...one would have to get fairly elaborate, with multiple steps to draw a pretty tentative and minor connection. In practice, it would be difficult or impossible to show any effect on you at all.

Surely, the two issues need to be handled differently, with the easily corrupted shared common resource being handled differently than the private resource, yes?

*This example is actually regulated in some communities near me...and building permits are normally required here for even interior-only changes. So, not that much of a stretch.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jul 21, 2014 10:59 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:But say, the color one paints the doors of their homes has fairly little effect on you, yes*? Oh, sure, exterior doors, you might see them if you happen to live in the nearby area. Still...that's a pretty minor thing, yes? Interior doors, why...one would have to get fairly elaborate, with multiple steps to draw a pretty tentative and minor connection. In practice, it would be difficult or impossible to show any effect on you at all.
Widen your focus. Where does the paint come from, how is it manufactured, where is it sold, how is it disposed of as waste. It is easy enough to say that there is no impact if you narrow your focus enough. I'll give an example. Prior to, say 1980, lead was commonly used in paints. My daughter has or had pica, she ate paint(I haven't seen her eating paint in years :D). Lead in paint causes lead poisoning in children with pica. There was lead on every interior painted surface. We had to abate. And we almost had to subject her to chelation. The same for leaded gas. We (communities)are still struggling with it today. Again for asbestos. To get a demo permit in my locale you must have an engineer test the site for asbestos. It was in anything that you can imagine. Including common floor tiles and siding, and for years brake pads. And that is based on current knowledge. You can say with a certain degree of certainty that it will happen again. So I will stick with my statement. :)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:19 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:But say, the color one paints the doors of their homes has fairly little effect on you, yes*? Oh, sure, exterior doors, you might see them if you happen to live in the nearby area. Still...that's a pretty minor thing, yes? Interior doors, why...one would have to get fairly elaborate, with multiple steps to draw a pretty tentative and minor connection. In practice, it would be difficult or impossible to show any effect on you at all.
Widen your focus. Where does the paint come from, how is it manufactured, where is it sold, how is it disposed of as waste. It is easy enough to say that there is no impact if you narrow your focus enough. I'll give an example. Prior to, say 1980, lead was commonly used in paints. My daughter has or had pica, she ate paint(I haven't seen her eating paint in years :D). Lead in paint causes lead poisoning in children with pica. There was lead on every interior painted surface. We had to abate. And we almost had to subject her to chelation. The same for leaded gas. We (communities)are still struggling with it today. Again for asbestos. To get a demo permit in my locale you must have an engineer test the site for asbestos. It was in anything that you can imagine. Including common floor tiles and siding, and for years brake pads. And that is based on current knowledge. You can say with a certain degree of certainty that it will happen again. So I will stick with my statement. :)


That's why I specified color. If they buy white or red, it's probably coming from the exact same brand, and the exact same store.

You'll note my example fully accepted that environmental dangers are a thing. But not EVERY decision presents an environmental danger. You walk into Home Depot now, and decide to paint your kitchen blue or red...what practical difference does this make to anyone else?

You cannot reasonably disprove my example by coming up with an entirely different example that has nothing to do with color(lead paint came in a great many varieties).

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:18 pm UTC

If your focus is just the color. It makes absolutely no difference to me if you color your interior doors purple, with lime green trim. Can you do that without paint? :D Humor aside I understand the distinction you are making.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: The 'third way' experience in political debates

Postby Crissa » Mon Jul 28, 2014 5:36 pm UTC

The color of your doors, inside and out, affects the valuation of all homes in a neighborhood.

Lead paint poisons animals and children now and when it decomposes.

What's the conversation here? Who said every decision is an environmentally degrading one? Everything is, but it's whether we can mitigate them or not.

One person walking across a lawn doesn't destroy it. A thousand does.

-Crissa


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests