How do you view political groups?

through which lens do you view political groups?

It is a subject of curiosity for me as I will watch two people, both of which are obvious examples of their ideology sit and argue that the other isn't a true (whatever). Yet there is obviously some sort of grouping that works or else these institutions would never have risen up in the first place.

The question for me is how to get my finger on that line of demarcation that truly works and is predictive.

The heart of an ideology is the philosophy behind it.

TeleKat said:

The heart of an ideology is the philosophy behind it.

Click to expand...

I actually disagree with that. I tend to see a philosophy as being constructed to affirm and justify instinctual moral impulses that are present from birth, but ultimately created by survival pressures and natural selection preference for certain behaviors over others.

tacomancer said:

through which lens do you view political groups?

It is a subject of curiosity for me as I will watch two people, both of which are obvious examples of their ideology sit and argue that the other isn't a true (whatever). Yet there is obviously some sort of grouping that works or else these institutions would never have risen up in the first place.

The question for me is how to get my finger on that line of demarcation that truly works and is predictive.

Click to expand...

Should have made it multiple choice.

American said:

Should have made it multiple choice.

Click to expand...

View Poll Results: through which lens do you primarily view political groups?

tacomancer said:

View Poll Results: through which lens do you primarily view political groups?

Click to expand...

Maybe it's a combo.

tacomancer said:

I actually disagree with that. I tend to see a philosophy as being constructed to affirm and justify instinctual moral impulses that are present from birth, but ultimately created by survival pressures and natural selection preference for certain behaviors over others.

Click to expand...

.... I don't know if I would have added in the same source that you do - especially now natural selection is not the driving force behind the morals that feed our political impulses (think, for example, about the darwinian v modern approaches to the poor and infirm). But I think you are correct that politics are often constructed to reinforce or serve pre-existent / a priori moral positions.

cpwill said:

.... I don't know if I would have added in the same source that you do - especially now natural selection is not the driving force behind the morals that feed our political impulses (think, for example, about the darwinian v modern approaches to the poor and infirm). But I think you are correct that politics are often constructed to reinforce or serve pre-existent / a priori moral positions.

Click to expand...

I think what we call morals are behaviors that we have evolved to help ensure successful group dynamics.

Now we can though divide morality into two types
transcendental - the "should" morality, often derived from philosophy or religion. Morality is external from the human experience
natural - how people actually behave and beliefs that come about naturally. Morality is internal to the human experience

However, we tend to want to be moral, because it often feels good in that it excites the pleasure centers in our brain, this is because we are fulfilling instinct. Philosophical and often religious morality is an extension of the innate desire to activate pleasure centers (which pretty much governs all human and animal behavior). However, humanity seems to have multiple workable survival strategies (at least based on our evolution and phases of technology and societal organization such as hunter gatherer or agricultural), so the modern expression of this is different political philosophies (this part is my speculation based on the evidence I have reviewed thus far)

I am way oversimplifying my POV (which would end up being a big wall o' text if I were to fully express it), almost to the point of missing the point .

But suffice to say, MRI studies that I have reviewed show that the neural network that are involved in deciding morality are not in the rational or at any conscious level and that rational thinking comes in after most decisions are already made. However the interplay is more complex than that, but this is how it happens most of the time.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/01/the-biology-of-right-and-wrong
http://news.uchicago.edu/article/20...m-are-instant-and-emotional-brain-study-shows <-- good reading

I tend to view them thru "issue stances" and "ideology", based on moral principles. Most people try and keep their philosophy of life simple about what's fair and just in governing the masses, and how the laws and rules apply to all institutions and individuals.

For some it's more personal accountability, while with others it more social responsibilities. There's a struggle to find the happy medium, between personal and social justice, now days. The political groups try to separate the issues to represent from different spectrum's. What's amazing is how diametrically opposed they've become to compromise or consolidation of ideas for the good of the whole. The issues have actually taken a backseat to ego driven- "my side" wins attitude, over realistic solutions.

I view them as devices to control people.

Many people think it terms of teams\team loyalty, and their team is infallible simply because they have been accepted as a member, and all other teams are wrong completely.

In addition to sports and politics, this applies to criminal gangs. From what little I've read of biker gangs, I gather it's typical behavior that if you fight with one member, you fight all members. The details of the argument weren't relevant.

Others try to judge based on merit, using their own opinions as guide, and allow that "goodness" exists in all teams, to some extent.

I tend to think this approach is better.

I voted for the historical figure option, and that historical figure is Eugene Debs.

None of the above options.

I take the view that established political affiliation is informed by a broad historical dynamic signified by inertia. However, at a certain point, the quantitative will always become qualitative, so we have eddies that arise from the conflict between those currents that exist as ideological possibility, and those embodied by the prevailing subscription that manifests as institutions. Somewhere along the line, those afflicted with the 'Wing' delusion decide these eddies must be exclusive and inviolate. Moreover, their inability to recognise the cyclical component of historical dialogue only robs them still further of the clarity that could be theirs, were they to forego their accustomed egocentrism in favour of perspective. Given this precondition, they might finally aspire to become something other than figures of fun. As things must stand, the Wing-nuts will always stand aghast as the impermanence of propriety pulls out the rug from under their most cherished biases.

Still, it's always good for a laugh and I'm as human as the next man.

NoC_T said:

None of the above options.

I take the view that established political affiliation is informed by a broad historical dynamic signified by inertia. However, at a certain point, the quantitative will always become qualitative, so we have eddies that arise from the conflict between those currents that exist as ideological possibility, and those embodied by the prevailing subscription that manifests as institutions. Somewhere along the line, those afflicted with the 'Wing' delusion decide these eddies must be exclusive and inviolate. Moreover, their inability to recognise the cyclical component of historical dialogue only robs them still further of the clarity that could be theirs, were they to forego their accustomed egocentrism in favour of perspective. Given this precondition, they might finally aspire to become something other than figures of fun. As things must stand, the Wing-nuts will always stand aghast as the impermanence of propriety pulls out the rug from under their most cherished biases.

Still, it's always good for a laugh and I'm as human as the next man.

Click to expand...

Thank you Mr. Greenspan

tacomancer said:

Thank you Mr. Greenspan

Click to expand...

I'm straight, thanks anyway. Look, you're a great guy and all, but I'm afreud you're somewhat....well, unfeminine, quite frankly.

Can we still be pen pals?

NoC_T said:

I'm straight, thanks anyway. Look, you're a great guy and all, but I'm afreud you're somewhat....well, unfeminine, quite frankly.

Can we still be pen pals?

Click to expand...

I was joking

Alan Greenspan had a reputation for using hard to understand language.

tacomancer said:

I was joking

Click to expand...

It's cool. I didn't get the reference anyway. :lol:

Edit: Ah! I see.

Damn English.

Impenetrable, I tellz ya.

I'm not entirely certain what you are asking. I analyze and understand political groups through your first several options, but that's not necessarily the same as asking what do I look for in whether or not I will agree or disagree with a political group's (or organization's) ideas and statements.

I evaluate them primarily on issue stances but recognize that those stances are usually influenced by cultural / religious beliefs. That is particularly the case with groups that are further from the center in their beliefs. I never go with my gut as I can't say I have ever had a "gut feeling" in my life. Underling political philosophies are worthless in terms of evaluating political groups as those philosophies are never consistent anyway.

tacomancer said:

through which lens do you view political groups?

It is a subject of curiosity for me as I will watch two people, both of which are obvious examples of their ideology sit and argue that the other isn't a true (whatever). Yet there is obviously some sort of grouping that works or else these institutions would never have risen up in the first place.

The question for me is how to get my finger on that line of demarcation that truly works and is predictive.

Click to expand...

Political groups are human tribalism run amok. We band together for power, so that we can use our votes together to get something done, but we all don't come even close to sharing the same viewpoints. Case in point, why so many on DP won't list themselves as straight liberal or straight conservative. I think we call ourselves these things in order to get a few big issue taken care of, but when you drill down to the specifics, no two liberals are alike. no two conservatives think the same. These are just arbitrary titles that should mean very little, yet somehow people have it in their heads that politics is absolutist; that theirs is the right side and everyone else are just the 'others'. I blame the internets.