How would you react to seeing a man eating worms?

[JihadJane]

I've often wondered makes makes some people go to the right and others to the left, often in the same family.

An Op-Ed article is today's NY Times, Our Politics May Be All in Our Head (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/opinion/14kristof.html?th&emc=th) (may require registering) explores the subject.

Tentative research findings (The Ick Factor: Physiological Sensitivity to Disgust as a Predictor of Political Attitudes (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/3/6/2/2/4/p362242_index.html)) suggest political leanings may be hard-wired into our brains. This fits in with a framework that emerged from data showing a correlation between attitudes toward spanking children and voting patterns. Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics (http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=052171124X):

"Professors Hetherington and Weiler contend that the differences stem from profound differences in cognitive styles. Spankers tend to see the world in stark, black-and-white terms, perceive the social order as vulnerable or under attack, tend to make strong distinctions between “us” and “them,” and emphasize order and muscular responses to threats. Parents favoring timeouts feel more comfortable with ambiguities, sense less threat, embrace minority groups — and are less prone to disgust when they see a man eating worms."

Is political discussion an exercise in epic futility?

What do you think is the genesis of difference in political attitudes?

[Beerina]

It's loaded with untested suppositions and hidden agendas. Worse, you can prove a law is harmful, and still can't get it repealed. For example, France's laws limiting work hours, under the theory that, by restricting hours per person, that an economy needs so much work done, it will hire more people, and thus reduce unemployment.

In fact, the opposite happens. But the law is not repealed, and most likely can't be thanks to idiotic memetic infestation of the masses, though I understand there's more of a push for it now than ever. Of course, if The People want a shorter work week, that's fine, but quit pretending to hide it behind a quite literally disproven theory and just say, "We want a shorter work week so we don't have to work so long."


So not only is there little proof anything works, and almost never ahead of passing the laws, but even when proof comes about, it's hard to change things.

[funk de fino]

It's loaded with untested suppositions and hidden agendas. Worse, you can prove a law is harmful, and still can't get it repealed. For example, France's laws limiting work hours, under the theory that, by restricting hours per person, that an economy needs so much work done, it will hire more people, and thus reduce unemployment.

In fact, the opposite happens. But the law is not repealed, and most likely can't be thanks to idiotic memetic infestation of the masses, though I understand there's more of a push for it now than ever. Of course, if The People want a shorter work week, that's fine, but quit pretending to hide it behind a quite literally disproven theory and just say, "We want a shorter work week so we don't have to work so long."


So not only is there little proof anything works, and almost never ahead of passing the laws, but even when proof comes about, it's hard to change things.

Theres an EU Working Time directive. It has personal opt out clause however.

[fuelair]

Re: OP: At this point, I do not think about it. It isn't my field directly. However, the theory is interesting and I will wait with semi-bated breath for further, more complete work on this.

[Cynic]

Is political discussion an exercise in epic futility?

What do you think is the genesis of difference in political attitudes?


It can surely seem like it. But I tend to lump it in with religious discussion. Just because it doesn't seem to have an immediate impact doesn't mean ideas don't sink in eventually. This theory you've shown might apply -- just like reports that conservatives also tend to more often be more fear-based in their reactions (which would seem to dovetail with this, actually).

But people can and do rise above their innate inclinations all the time. They can become brave, or at least learn to put on a brave face. Spankers can intellectually agree that time-outs are a better idea and use them, even if their urge to hit out of frustration is great. Even people with the strongest aversion to worms can grow and decide that if someone else wants to eat them, that's their right.

Overcoming inclinations might be treating the symptoms rather than providing a cure, but it's still progress. I tend to think that there's a sort of baseline, a common conception in any given society that serves as the middle ground between majority extremes. And the conversation is vital to establishing and moving it around. Progress is incremental (and subject to opinion), but it's real and proceeds from there. Eating worms and people's innate reaction to it might, for instance, be the perfect analogy (and imagery!) for gay rights. It's difficult to say to what extent our reactions are inborn and to what extent our aversions are informed by culture itself -- but it's clear it's nature and nurture. Americans aren't so genetically dissimilar than Middle-Easterners, so political and social views are undoubtedly best explained by culture and described in terms of their own baselines.

For gay right and politics, our own baselines have been moving continuously because of these discussions. While it's easy to look at many Western conservatives and condemn them for their socially backward attitudes towards gays, in some parts of the Middle-East they're still literally condemned for it. Clearly their baselines are positioned somewhere else.

Anyway, my point is, it's not futile to talk about things because while it may well be our innate natures that cause our political divide, the form that divide takes is another thing altogether and results from the conversation.

[JihadJane]

Thanks for your thoughtful and thought-provoking post, Cynic. I'm going to think about it and maybe comment some more later.