Politics as cognitive bias

[All Along The Watchtower]

Why does this particular person believe that particular thing, while someone else believes a contrary thing?

They both are fervent in their beliefs, but are either of them correct? They can't *both* be correct (or perhaps they can...), yet they can both be wrong. Or more likely, both are differing degrees of wrong, or wrong on different aspects of the same "issue."

[All Along The Watchtower]

No other thoughts?

[Foucaulf]

I've actually clicked on this thread a few times now, trying to figure out what you're saying. It's not working.

It should not be true that all politics is cognitive bias; if the government throws me out of my house, I'll protest against it not due to a psychological fault. So maybe you're saying political strategy employs cognitive bias... then what does that have to do with the OP?

We can say both are wrong if the subject of dispute is information, but it's harder to say if it's a moral principle. If we say one is "right" and the other is "wrong" we're assuming the principle has been established, which is circular. Either we try to dismiss the other based on "truth," or we appeal to emotions. Am I getting closer?

[Lumine]

I think Progressive Realist is talking about the fact that politics (and most things anyway) are subjective and that they lack an objective truth (since it's all a matter of perception).

If that's what this thread is about, and taking the example he gave, I'd say both of them are wrong in almost every situation (climate change could be an exception, but I'll explain that later). The problem with politics is that people insist on making it a duel of "Good" v. "Bad", when the truth is that there is no "Bad" side, or at least no side or person 100% "Bad". Most politicians (with extremely rare exceptions) sincerely believe they are doing the right thing, not to create chaos on purpose. Politics are irrational and highly subjective, which is why it's almost impossible to be right.

The difference comes in being "less" or "more" wrong in a certain issue, but how can you judge? Climate change is my ideal example since you have massive evidence to explain and support a determined postion, and yet at the same time there's a side that denies that a creates their own truth. I believe that in politics you have two choices: dogma or pragmatism, with the consequence of becoming "partisan" (and therefore bad to the other side), or a "moderate hero" (and therefore bad to your won side). Some people realize that and make the choice, and others simply go with the easiest path for them.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I think Progressive Realist is talking about the fact that politics (and most things anyway) are subjective and that they lack an objective truth (since it's all a matter of perception).

If that's what this thread is about, and taking the example he gave, I'd say both of them are wrong in almost every situation (climate change could be an exception, but I'll explain that later). The problem with politics is that people insist on making it a duel of "Good" v. "Bad", when the truth is that there is no "Bad" side, or at least no side or person 100% "Bad". Most politicians (with extremely rare exceptions) sincerely believe they are doing the right thing, not to create chaos on purpose. Politics are irrational and highly subjective, which is why it's almost impossible to be right.

The difference comes in being "less" or "more" wrong in a certain issue, but how can you judge? Climate change is my ideal example since you have massive evidence to explain and support a determined postion, and yet at the same time there's a side that denies that a creates their own truth. I believe that in politics you have two choices: dogma or pragmatism, with the consequence of becoming "partisan" (and therefore bad to the other side), or a "moderate hero" (and therefore bad to your won side). Some people realize that and make the choice, and others simply go with the easiest path for them.

Yes, this is what I was trying to say. Thanks!

[Foucaulf]

I think Progressive Realist is talking about the fact that politics (and most things anyway) are subjective and that they lack an objective truth (since it's all a matter of perception).

This is good! Leads the way to interesting stuff.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This seems like it's true, but quickly dovetails into meta-ethics. What do we mean when we say "good" - an extremely hard question in which differing answers create completely different moral worlds. And the claim "there is no 'bad' side" is a very modern reaction to a Platonism that supposes the necessity of a good "substance".

Most modern research in ethics focus on the creation of value through judgement, calculation and rule-making. I'm thinking of Moore here (though I never read him, so don't quote me on anything!) The idea is that moral principles are distinct from the way of the world, so-called "naturalism". In this view, there is a good and a bad, but they have no relation to any non-moral judgement.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To apply that above thinking to this passage: It can be true that politics is irrational and highly subjective. That has no bearing on whether a certain policy is right - and certainly no reason for us to stop arguing about its rightness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But now we remember that politics is not purely moral. A politician can have epistemic - concerning knowledge - duties to his constituents; transparency, accountability, frequent communication, whatever. To be more cynical, a politician is elected to represent interests. Even in this case we can judge whether that politician is representing those interests accurately.

How do we respond to a side that "creates their own truth"? The easy way may be to argue based on moral principle, but that is sketchy - as I discussed above. And, since politics has both moral and material dimensions, we can also argue from this different material angle. In this case the politician is "bad" for a betrayal of his role. Notice that this is now a two-step procedure. First we argue from observation, then connect that with morality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To connect this passage with what I've said, there is a moral intuition against an "inconsistent role" played by the politician. Here's a possible origin for this; we elect politicians based on their campaign behaviour, but cannot control how they act afterwards. Institutions can be designed to keep them to account (this is the heart of the principal-agent problem). But how can we keep them to account when we're not the ones designing them? The only way is to establish a morality against inconsistency to guarantee vigilance against those elected.


I realize I've complicated the discussion enormously, but this is great; we're not really talking about cognitive bias but political philosophy. Psychology bores me to death; philosophy the very opposite.

[Lumine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, political philosophy is by itself a very fascinating (and often overlooked) subject. That said, it's not very likely to see it applied to the practical levels when a certain country's politics are based on personality or saying what the people wants to hear. I'm currently reading "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 72", and I think that serves as a practical example of this. I know quoting Hunter Thompson is strange (and perhaps I should be using actual philosophers), but here you have Muskie, Humphrey and Nixon characterized as people who make up their own convenient truth to be elected, and the people proceed to choose which "truth" they like the best, while McGovern (supposedly) is the only one who says things that are close to the so called objectivity (therefore the only "honest"), and thus the one people avoid.

Now, going to the specific points you mentioned, I found the modern view you mentioned interesting in the way that it persists on creating good and bad. I accept having a degree of "objectivity" (that is, the so called common sense) on ordinarily life in order to make things simpler, but it's impossible to separate objective good/bad from subjective points of view. Here's a flawed example: If idea A is good and I believe on that idea, then that automatically makes me good. It's a argumentative fallacy, but it's bound to happen. That leaves us with the "material" role, which has a potential to reach objectivity. But once you combine both roles, you are left with some tough choices: Should we accept all material evidence as objective, and discuss only how to interpret it? Should we take everything as subjective and therefore disregard reason? Or perhaps accept objective evidence and a determined set of beliefs as the correct answer?

I agree with you, politicians represent interests, and the way we have of holding them accountable is very flawed and (ironically), subjective. That's why Ronald Reagan goes free after Iran-Contras and Watergate destroys Nixon. It wasn't the truth that destroyed them, it was the subjective truth/narrative that won the battle of perceptions. Some people can do this and be branded as bad, others can do the same and be good.

That is my basic problem with political morality, the fact that the absolute objective truth is an utopia. We are left with a very uncomfortable decision (which most people ignore and cynical people - like me - struggle to comprehend) between having determined sets of beliefs for determined situations, a set of beliefs that encompassed everything, thus simplifying political issues to make it a discussion of details instead of ideas, or trying to handle the variety of ideas in order to come up with something somewhat democratic, but unrealistic and chaotic.

[ElectionsGuy]

wat

Politics is not right or wrong, but varying degress of right and wrong, as you said. And even calling it right or wrong at all is pretty bold considering politics is about your personal opinion and views.

[Foucaulf]

Since I have a vested interest in this thread now, I should simplify my discourse a little.

wat

Politics is not right or wrong, but varying degress of right and wrong, as you said. And even calling it right or wrong at all is pretty bold considering politics is about your personal opinion and views.

Why do we call politics "varying degrees of right and wrong"? Few compete a scientific theory with another and say "they can't be both correct" or "they must be only varying degrees of wrong". You can't use the former much with the social sciences, but the latter still applies. What is it about political statements that inspire an ambiguous notion of wrongness that would be unacceptable in most academic discourse?

And a statement like "politics is about your personal opinion and views" is just odd. Should we delete every post in the demographics board or something?

I've tried to look for a Crooked Timber post that argues modern theories of politics abstract away the idea of unifying ideas, to create what I would call inherently absurd discourse. This is where political philosophy can help - to build a framework around the confusion so we say the right things about the right people. First step is to distinguish what's a "good" political statement - which I tried to do.

I'll get to Lumine's post once I catch up on sleep. I will say for now that, when acting as a philosopher, I am going to want objective truth. I'm not looking for a utopia as I am faithful for better understanding. People are a lot more interested in the second choice you listed in the last paragraph - and so am I.