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?

[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!