Political Motive Asymmetry

This is a excerpt from a TED talk by Arthur Brooks. I was really struck by the talk and particularly section below:
I think it is a valid point. In politics today, it seems like each side has written off and demonized the other. Mitt Romney's 47% and Hillary Clinton's basket full of deplorables being two good examples. It seems like we are heading down a path that the only "acceptable" solution is the total defeat and banishment of the "other" - no matter which side of the political spectrum you are coming from. The self selection bias in social media, news and association seems to be dividing us as never before. Identity politics seems to pull us apart. I am interested in knowing if you see this a key part of the problems facing us today or not. How can be bridge the divide? Should we even try? I love this picture below. Looking forward to the discussion.

Cfscott said:

View attachment 67207245

Click to expand...

This pic is a fallacy, I believe.

The observers do not know the value of the number, but it most likely (but not assuredly) has a specific value. The individual that painted it on the floor does indeed know it's specific value (or intentional ambiguity), and one of the observers is likely wrong.

Lack of understanding or erroneous POV, does not equate factual accuracy!

Mitt Romney's 47% comment was not based on hate at all. That comment was factually stating that proposed federal income tax cuts have zero (none or no) political appeal to those (47%) that currently do not pay (some get actually get paid via EITC) federal income tax. Those that fail to see that are not worth listening to.

That interpretation of Romney's comment is as stupid as saying that Ford, by putting only trucks on sale, hates car buyers. The fact of the matter is that Ford's truck (only) sale has no ill effect on car buyers at all.

Chomsky said:

This pic is a fallacy, I believe.

The observers do not know the value of the number, but it most likely (but not assuredly) has a specific value. The individual that painted it on the floor does indeed know it's specific value (or intentional ambiguity), and one of the observers is likely wrong.

Lack of understanding or erroneous POV, does not equate factual accuracy!

Click to expand...

Yep, much like labeling public restrooms "us" and "them" (as opposed to "men" and "women"). The public is left to guess the gender of the person who labeled them.

It has always been and always will be "us" vs "them".

Cfscott said:

This is a excerpt from a TED talk by Arthur Brooks. I was really struck by the talk and particularly section below:

Now, I don't have to tell anybody in this room that we're in a crisis, in America and many countries around the world with political polarization. It's risen to critical, crisis levels. It's unpleasant. It's not right. There was an article last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which is one of the most prestigious scientific journals published in the West. And it was an article in 2014 on political motive asymmetry. What's that? That's what psychologists call the phenomenon of assuming that your ideology is based in love but your opponents' ideology is based in hate. It's common in world conflict.You expect to see this between Palestinians and Israelis, for example. What the authors of this article found was that in America today, a majority of Republicans and Democrats suffer from political motive asymmetry. A majority of people in our country today who are politically active believe that they are motivated by love but the other side is motivated by hate. Think about it. Think about it. Most people are walking around saying, "You know, my ideology is based on basic benevolence, I want to help people,but the other guys, they're evil and out to get me." You can't progress as a society when you have this kind of asymmetry. It's impossible."

​

I think it is a valid point. In politics today, it seems like each side has written off and demonized the other. Mitt Romney's 47% and Hillary Clinton's basket full of deplorables being two good examples. It seems like we are heading down a path that the only "acceptable" solution is the total defeat and banishment of the "other" - no matter which side of the political spectrum you are coming from. The self selection bias in social media, news and association seems to be dividing us as never before. Identity politics seems to pull us apart. I am interested in knowing if you see this a key part of the problems facing us today or not. How can be bridge the divide? Should we even try? I love this picture below. Looking forward to the discussion.




View attachment 67207245

Click to expand...

The fact of the matter is, the public is being played.

Billions of dollars are being invested to accomplish the very state of affairs being witnessed today.

Until people are willing to look at the forces behind the curtains, this polarization agenda will continue.

When a different opinion is met with an offensive to destroy the person holding that opinion, very dangerous precedent has been established.

When such destructive actions are encouraged and rewarded, the process becomes darker and more dangerous still.

Much like the actions of journalists who are writing Op-Eds attempting to excuse their obvious extreme bias, the effort to blame both "sides" misses the mark.

Lost in such an effort is the genesis which prompted the response.

Placing a chicken/egg argument in front of an attack/respond reality seems to indicate an answer and resolution to the polarization is not the objective of the commentator.

Chomsky said:

This pic is a fallacy, I believe.

The observers do not know the value of the number, but it most likely (but not assuredly) has a specific value. The individual that painted it on the floor does indeed know it's specific value (or intentional ambiguity), and one of the observers is likely wrong.

Lack of understanding or erroneous POV, does not equate factual accuracy!

Click to expand...

Well, I am a computer programmer, and I tend to like my facts clear cut and unambiguous. I don't think all of our political discourse is so black and white.

Cfscott said:

I think it is a valid point. In politics today, it seems like each side has written off and demonized the other. Mitt Romney's 47% and Hillary Clinton's basket full of deplorables being two good examples. It seems like we are heading down a path that the only "acceptable" solution is the total defeat and banishment of the "other" - no matter which side of the political spectrum you are coming from. The self selection bias in social media, news and association seems to be dividing us as never before. Identity politics seems to pull us apart. I am interested in knowing if you see this a key part of the problems facing us today or not. How can be bridge the divide? Should we even try? I love this picture below. Looking forward to the discussion.

Click to expand...

Meh.... I'm increasingly unconvinced of that narrative.

Humans are tribal, period. Anyone with even a passing understanding of history is likely to realize that this is more a return to normal than some exceptionally disastrous period. The idea that we were not heavily partisan during the Iraq War, Clinton's impeachment, Reagan's economic policies, Vietnam War, the McCarthy era, over the New Deal, about Prohibition, over the gold standard, and over slavery (!!!) is not paying attention.

ttwtt78640 said:

Mitt Romney's 47% comment was not based on hate at all. That comment was factually stating that proposed federal income tax cuts have zero (none or no) political appeal to those (47%) that currently do not pay (some get actually get paid via EITC) federal income tax. Those that fail to see that are not worth listening to.

That interpretation of Romney's comment is as stupid as saying that Ford, by putting only trucks on sale, hates car buyers. The fact of the matter is that Ford's truck (only) sale has no ill effect on car buyers at all.

Click to expand...

I get that. I know what he was trying to say. But if you look at the full context of his statement:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what...

It would take a month to unpack that. Even if I agreed with that 100% - and I do think it is mostly accurate - how does labeling 47% of Americans into that "basket" help to identify the underlying issues, identify goals, propose a solution? I am not someone that thinks the government should "fix" everything. There are people that do hold that belief. I guess we can keep calling each other stupid or maybe try to change the dialog? Just a thought. I am really concerned about the country's future and sustainability.

Visbek said:

Meh.... I'm increasingly unconvinced of that narrative.

Humans are tribal, period. Anyone with even a passing understanding of history is likely to realize that this is more a return to normal than some exceptionally disastrous period. The idea that we were not heavily partisan during the Iraq War, Clinton's impeachment, Reagan's economic policies, Vietnam War, the McCarthy era, over the New Deal, about Prohibition, over the gold standard, and over slavery (!!!) is not paying attention.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. We are tribal. Is it helping us or hurting us at this point in time.

Chomsky said:

This pic is a fallacy, I believe.

The observers do not know the value of the number, but it most likely (but not assuredly) has a specific value. The individual that painted it on the floor does indeed know it's specific value (or intentional ambiguity), and one of the observers is likely wrong.

Lack of understanding or erroneous POV, does not equate factual accuracy!

Click to expand...

You know, the more I think about it, when you buy a set of letters and numbers for those old signs - it comes with a number of squares that are identical. They are used interchangeably for both the 6 and the 9. In that case, the picture is accurate in that your point of view determines the factual accuracy. From one side, that is in fact a 6. From the other, it is in fact a 9.

Cfscott said:

I get that. I know what he was trying to say. But if you look at the full context of his statement:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what...

It would take a month to unpack that. Even if I agreed with that 100% - and I do think it is mostly accurate - how does labeling 47% of Americans into that "basket" help to identify the underlying issues, identify goals, propose a solution? I am not someone that thinks the government should "fix" everything. There are people that do hold that belief. I guess we can keep calling each other stupid or maybe try to change the dialog? Just a thought. I am really concerned about the country's future and sustainability.

Click to expand...

The fact is that by simply rewarding personal economic failure, and ignoring any behavior that helps to assure it, you are also not solving the problem. In fact, you virtually assure that the underlying problem remains unfixed. After all of the ever increasing "safety net" spending since 1965 the poverty rate has remained, through good and bad economic cycles, at between 12% and 15%.

The "safety net" is as likely to cure poverty as paying a drunk's bar tab is to cure alcoholism - it keeps the drunk comfortable, makes the bar owner happy and does absolutely nothing to solve the underlying behavior problem.

ttwtt78640 said:

The fact is that by simply rewarding personal economic failure, and ignoring any behavior that helps to assure it, you are also not solving the problem. In fact, you virtually assure that the underlying problem remains unfixed. After all of the ever increasing "safety net" spending since 1965 the poverty rate has remained, through good and bad economic cycles, at between 12% and 15%.

The "safety net" is as likely to cure poverty as paying a drunk's bar tab is to cure alcoholism - it keeps the drunk comfortable, makes the bar owner happy and does absolutely nothing to solve the underlying behavior problem.

Click to expand...

You always get more of what you subsidize. That is a fact. If the safety net has unintended consequences which it does - what were the underlying problems it was trying to address? Are they real problems? If so, how do we address them? Take the 3rd rail of politics Social Security. Why was it implemented? Was it a real issue? If so, what would be the best way to address it? Who should address it. I think it was a real issue. I think it needed to be addressed, but the way it was done was not great. I personally think the best way out of poverty is a job and economic growth. How do we address people that physically can't work? Some would say, let churches take care of the poor. Others would argue, no it is the government's responsibility.

ttwtt78640 said:

The fact is that by simply rewarding personal economic failure, and ignoring any behavior that helps to assure it, you are also not solving the problem. In fact, you virtually assure that the underlying problem remains unfixed. After all of the ever increasing "safety net" spending since 1965 the poverty rate has remained, through good and bad economic cycles, at between 12% and 15%.

The "safety net" is as likely to cure poverty as paying a drunk's bar tab is to cure alcoholism - it keeps the drunk comfortable, makes the bar owner happy and does absolutely nothing to solve the underlying behavior problem.

Click to expand...

This reminds me of arguing austerity with a liberal, technically they are right austerity causes people to suffer, .... of course everyone is better off with spending an endless deficit.

Then they say the economy has not collapsed, it never will as long as we can print our own money. OK, if that is the case why do we need to pay taxes?

Cfscott said:

You always get more of what you subsidize. That is a fact. If the safety net has unintended consequences which it does - what were the underlying problems it was trying to address? Are they real problems? If so, how do we address them? Take the 3rd rail of politics Social Security. Why was it implemented? Was it a real issue? If so, what would be the best way to address it? Who should address it. I think it was a real issue. I think it needed to be addressed, but the way it was done was not great. I personally think the best way out of poverty is a job and economic growth. How do we address people that physically can't work? Some would say, let churches take care of the poor. Others would argue, no it is the government's responsibility.

Click to expand...

SS has one very serious problem - inflation has exceeded wage growth. SS retirement benefits are CPI adjusted but payroll "contributions" are not - that spells doom for a "pay as you" go system. I have no problem with SSDI as a concept.

blaxshep said:

This reminds me of arguing austerity with a liberal, technically they are right austerity causes people to suffer, .... of course everyone is better off with spending an endless deficit.

Then they say the economy has not collapsed, it never will as long as we can print our own money. OK, if that is the case why do we need to pay taxes?

Click to expand...

Borrowing ever more from future generations is OK until the future arrives.

Cfscott said:

I think it is a valid point. In politics today, it seems like each side has written off and demonized the other. Mitt Romney's 47% and Hillary Clinton's basket full of deplorables being two good examples. It seems like we are heading down a path that the only "acceptable" solution is the total defeat and banishment of the "other" - no matter which side of the political spectrum you are coming from. The self selection bias in social media, news and association seems to be dividing us as never before. Identity politics seems to pull us apart. I am interested in knowing if you see this a key part of the problems facing us today or not. How can be bridge the divide? Should we even try? I love this picture below. Looking forward to the discussion.

Click to expand...

Yes! A thoughtful, introspective analysis! Would that everyone here posted thus! Be advised that this and the two following replies are all meant to be part of the same reply from me, but I had to break them up to meet the 5000-character limit.

I've been pointing out (in so many words) the same kind of thing for years, that the great majority of both sides (or all sides) are hard-working, good-hearted people who truly feel charity towards all and malice towards none. But I think what's missing from the equation - and you may well be offended and strongly disagree with this - is the role that race has to play.

Now before you dismiss everything I just said or will say because I mentioned the word "race", please hear me out. You're new here, and so you probably haven't had to suffer through me telling the story I've had to tell so many times before (and my apologies to the other DP readers who've seen this often before).

I am a progressive now, but I was raised as a strong conservative and as a racist (which sorta comes with the territory when one grows up white in the MS Delta). In my experience, the overwhelming majority of racists are good-hearted people who honestly have no malice towards those of whatever color it is that they don't like. As for myself, my family, and all my friends growing up, we were ALL racist...but every single one of us would have been greatly offended if someone called us racist. Why? Because we would and did help blacks many, many times - giving them food from our garden, giving them money or clothes or furniture or whatever...and if any were in danger, we would have risked our lives to save them. We had no malice towards them, and we honestly wanted the best for them. But we were still racist. Why? Because as soon as the blacks were out of earshot, out would come all the racist assumptions, allegations, and jokes...and we never understood how this affected our social attitudes and - more importantly - our voting.

What does this have to do with the subject of your post? Look at the racial makeup of Democratic rallies, and look at the racial makeup of Republican rallies. One's normally very racially diverse, and the other's almost completely white. That's not an accident. Instead, it is - along with the polarization you point out in your post - a symptom of the social struggle that always, always accompanies large-scale demographic shifts...examples of which are legion throughout human history.

Cfscott said:

I think it is a valid point.

Click to expand...

There are five events which led to the political and racial polarization of our two major parties. They are:

1 - Goldwater's rejection of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He claimed (apparently honestly) that his rejection was ideological and not racially motivated...but in politics, appearances matter.

2 - Nixon's "Southern Strategy", wherein he deliberately courted the vote of the white racists of the Deep South who blamed the Democrats for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (even though it couldn't have been passed without Republican liberals).

3 - Reagan's termination of the "Fairness Doctrine", which had required major news organizations to present opposing views of major issues or events. As a result, people now got to choose to hear only the side of the story they wanted to hear e.g. Fox News.

4 - The rise of right-wing talk radio pundits like Rush Limbaugh, whose influence was such that any Republican politician who disagreed with him quite literally put his own political career at peril. It is not an exaggeration to say that Limbaugh (and the several other major conservative pundits on right-wing radio and television) to a significant extent drove the political and social agenda for the GOP for well over twenty years.

5 - The rise of the Religious Right, with 'preachers' such as Jerry Falwell, who were every bit as powerful within the GOP as the political pundits, and who were even more powerful when it came to driving the GOP's social agenda. Even worse, their influence was such that it had become in the eyes of many conservatives a literal sin for their politicians to work with - much less negotiate with - liberals and Democrats.

While the influence of the conservative pundits and preachers is not what it once was, the damage is already done. Perhaps the single greatest example of the confluence of the effects of those five events is the GOP's relatively sudden (and in lockstep) opposition to reauthorization of the Voting Rights Authorization:

In 2006, when the Voting Rights Act was last reauthorized, no Republican senators voted against it. In 2014, no GOP senators have stepped forward to co-sponsor the amendment to update it.

The opposition began growing just after the election of Barack Obama to the presidency.

Please bear in mind that it is my contention that the GOP's sudden opposition to the Voting Rights Act is - like our two major parties' polarization - a symptom of the growing social struggle due to the great demographic shift in our population...and the five events I listed above enabled those symptoms. There are more symptoms - see the rise of the 'alt-right', for one.

Is this, then, a claim that all or most Republicans are racist? No. That's why I posted the first and third paragraphs above, to show that even the great majority of the ones who are racist honestly feel no malice towards minorities - they're almost all hard-working, good-hearted people. What I am trying to establish, however, is that what you see happening is not because of the actions of individuals or groups or even either of our two major political parties. What you see happening is due to the great demographic shift in our population - and such shifts have always, always led to great social struggles (usually involving a great deal of violence) throughout human history, whether those shifts have been racial, ethnic, or religious in nature.

Cfscott said:

I think it is a valid point.

Click to expand...

So what's going to happen in the future? The polarization will continue to increase. Even if Trump wins, the combination of the racial disparity in our political parties combined with our ongoing - and essentially unstoppable - "browning" of America will continue to weaken the GOP...but the GOP will not allow itself to become moderate. Instead, it will shift further to the right as the demographic shift forces (in the eyes of conservatives) the Right to "circle its wagons" to preserve its hold on power. In my opinion, this will continue to worsen until the day the GOP suffers a resounding defeat in the polls and - like a person waking from a fever that has broken - the Right is forced to reject the racism that has informed its policies since Nixon deliberately welcomed the racists with open arms and allowed the Deep South to become the strongest base of the GOP.

Please be aware that that last sentence is not a wild-eyed accusation made to shock or offend. Ronald Reagan's adviser Lee Atwater pointed it out in even harsher terms:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

And that quote is not a one-off. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the infamous (and obviously racist-dog-whistling) "Willie Horton" ad, but from the last paragraph of the article:

...on behalf of his candidate George H.W. Bush, Atwater ran the infamous ad blaming Dukakis for an escaped Massachusetts convict, Willie Horton, “repeatedly raping” an apparently white girl. Indeed, Atwater pledged to make "Willie Horton his {Dukakis'} running mate." The commercial was sponsored by a dummy outfit called the National Security Political Action Committee—which it is true, was a whole lot more abstract than saying "nigger, nigger, nigger."

I voted for Bush 41 that year.

There are many who are deliberately racist, but the problem isn't the racism per se, but the struggle that faces any society undergoing great demographic change. Hopefully we are educated enough as a nation that we can make it through this irresistible change without the great violence that has plagued nearly all other great demographic changes in human history.

ttwtt78640 said:

Borrowing ever more from future generations is OK until the future arrives.

Click to expand...

Historically the King would lend money to the wealthy land owners until over time the debt was so great it could not be repaid, so the King would forgive all debt and it would start over again.

Today people's greed exceeds their grasp of reality, the debt is already to big to ever be paid back and the deficits year over year will only get larger as the "safety nets" grow larger.

Keynesian economics says loan money in the bad times and pay it back in the good times. Funny thing about that, in the good times they just spend more because there is more to spend.

It is only a matter of time before debt is forgiven or the entire system collapses and the blood spills.

ttwtt78640 said:

SS has one very serious problem - inflation has exceeded wage growth. SS retirement benefits are CPI adjusted but payroll "contributions" are not - that spells doom for a "pay as you" go system.

Click to expand...

Well....

Wages have been flat since the 70s, so for the most part they are keeping up with inflation (as payroll taxes are a percentage). They only declined in real dollars for a few years after the recession.

The real issues are:

- We have far more people collecting benefits than in the past, and fewer people paying into payroll taxes.

- Segregating payroll taxes from other revenues is little more than a sleight of hand. While the increases in spending are real, the arrangement is manufacturing a fake crisis.

- It is very, very hard to do things like cut benefits or increase payroll taxes in order to fix the (fake) crisis.

Visbek said:

Wages have been flat since the 70s,

Click to expand...

While corporate profits have soared.

Glen

Thanks for the reply. I am stuck at work right now, but once I have a few minutes, I would like to respond. It is funny we have taken the exact opposite path You went conservative to progressive - I did just the reverse. I am 57 so yea, I have been politically active for a while.

Cfscott said:

Glen

Thanks for the reply. I am stuck at work right now, but once I have a few minutes, I would like to respond. It is funny we have taken the exact opposite path You went conservative to progressive - I did just the reverse. I am 57 so yea, I have been politically active for a while.

Click to expand...

I'm 53, so you're not that much older than me

Cfscott said:

You know, the more I think about it, when you buy a set of letters and numbers for those old signs - it comes with a number of squares that are identical. They are used interchangeably for both the 6 and the 9. In that case, the picture is accurate in that your point of view determines the factual accuracy. From one side, that is in fact a 6. From the other, it is in fact a 9.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the delay in reply.

Yeah - that's a good point, and that's why in my post I left the opening of "likely", because it depends on intent.

But the main idea was: Irregardless of one's perceptions, facts are facts, and perceptions are just that. One having the wrong perception of an event or or fact, does not make an erronious perception accurate.