How To Do Politics

How To Do Politics



when people are upset by politics they either withdraw completely into a cave of silence or double down engaging more and more fiercely than ever because it's easy to get angry when there's so much at stake but that's exactly why you shouldn't for this video we're going to accept to your party politicians and positions as the right ones which makes those who disagree wrong and when they're very obviously very ridiculously wrong and even proud of it you have a right to call them what they are ignorant reckless even dishonest so you tweet or joke or make a video about it but here's the problem when was the last time someone changed your mind after calling you ignorant reckless or dishonest and you might say of course it doesn't change minds it's about standing up for what's right but living in a democracy it means their vote affects you and everyone you know just as much as yours so if taking a stand is that important to you well nobody is stopping you just know that it comes at the cost of the very policies that you claim to be taking a stand for a pacifist is committed to non-violence but a true believer accepts violence that prevents greater atrocities that's not abandoning the principle it's better defending it because defending a principle means nothing if doing so actually impedes its progress and fulfilling your political goals as best you can may look to an observer like abandoning them either people are completely impenetrable to all persuasion and you need not waste a single moment convincing them otherwise that your best interest is to recruit not to repel your political wishlist is likely very long but aim for everything and you'll probably achieve nothing supporting many issues may feel like shooting many arrows increasing the odds that one will succeed but those outside your party don't search your brochure for common ground they gravitate towards your most extreme arguments no matter how reasonable your other opinions are one poorly communicated argument can swallow them all even if only 5% of your wish list it'll consume 95% of their attention every time you talk about issues a B and C they'll always return to the more enraging issue D and that's if you're lucky more likely the media will take your argument distort and exaggerate it and watch it spread from water cooler to water cooler for many this will be their only exposure to your arguments and how they know your party why would I listen to you you're the one that said that crazy thing never mind that you never actually said that you'll know you found your party's issue D when the opposition spends all their time talking about it yet it's only a tiny fraction of your argument and maybe it really is worth fighting for but it prevents you from making real progress anywhere else so you don't need to throw out all your controversial opinions but pick and choose which ones you shout so you don't strike out for every political issue you should start anew do the research explore each side and make a verdict but no one has time for that thinking through each issue independently is just not cost-effective much easier to form a few key beliefs early in life and use them as rulers by which all else is measured taking a position that no longer requires days of research but a quick glance at your ruler and as one leads to another which leads to another and so on the cost of changing your mind increases exponentially why are people so resistant to change opinions on even the most unimportant topics because doing so would also require throwing away years of underlying opinions so the question is never which is better dogs or cats but why dogs are better than cats but if someone is so stubborn they'll follow a core belief any where it leads them find a way to justify your policy with their belief and they'll have no choice but to follow that's the beauty of their stubbornness if you're trying to convince a liberal sprinkle in words like equality and fairness and for a conservative pride and duty to prove the power of words there are places like change my view where you can go explain your opinion click Submit and wait for others to persuade you otherwise if someone is successful you award them a delta which to a researcher studying persuasion is gold because you can take all these conversations plug them into some fancy algorithms and see what good arguments have in common like for example using less extreme language effective replies hedge their arguments with words like perhaps or it's possible and if you don't convince someone after four replies you probably never will in other words the clock is ticking as effective as these strategies are there is an asterisk no matter how far you push the political boulder forward it will always eventually fall back down because behind every bad law and politician is a bad system that produced it politicians can be removed and laws can be retracted but these are band-aids and pretty bad ones their replacements will only be more deceptive versions of the same that's the nature of politics public anger doesn't make politicians rethink their values only how carefully to hide them focusing on individuals is a recipe for eternal frustration the only real solution is to change systems if politics feels like a constant fire in need of attention the solution is to figure out what's so flammable whether that be who can vote how elections are run or where districts are drawn of course if all this sounds like too much work you can always just yell on Twitter but you may just be campaigning for the opposition if you enjoyed the section on how words affect persuasion I think you'd like a book called the stuff of thought by Steven Pinker it's about the interesting things language can tell us about people and the way we think but as much as I enjoyed the book it's a pretty big time commitment that's why I recommend an app called Glinka it takes the key insights of thousands of non-fiction books and condenses them into a few minutes reading or listening the stuff of thought is 524 pages but it's a 15 or 20 minute read with Linkous another great thing is that it solves the commitment problem of finishing books I've often found myself halfway through a book not really enjoying it but knowing that I paid for it I try to finish it anyway with a subscription to blink hist you can read as many books as you want so you don't have to feel bad stopping a book that you're not enjoying in fact you're incentivized to read more to maximize its value you can go to blink Escom slash poly matter AFF or just click the link in the description to try it out for free or get 20% off a subscription doing either one will directly support this channel so thanks to everyone who signs up you

27 thoughts on “How To Do Politics

  1. As someone who doesn’t use Facebook, I’m curious: Where is the worst for angry and unproductive politics? My guess is Facebook, but I also see a lot on Twitter, and I wonder if the character limit helps or hurts in this respect.

  2. Your theory is based on disproven or outright false assumptions. The most glaring false assumptions is this BS about "A true believer accepts violence that ends all atrocities." For example, they called world war 1 the war to end all wars. We now know thats a lie. Violence only triggers more violence. You need to start citing what you say man.

  3. Please subscribe to me. I post everything about politics! I’ve just started so any support will be appreciated

  4. Politics is 100% about cooperation and trust, and how to build them with healthy levels of counterbalancing contest and distrust. Ultimately, politics serves as the expression for how much fear is felt and deterministically valent in a society at a given time; the more volatile the politics, the more that people are afraid. In this regard, the above video has some successes as well as some misgivings.

    Successes:
    + Acute observation for most to either run away from politics or to double down. This accurately captures the fear mechanics at play; some feel cornered and with a need to lash out, others are just wary and weary of the conflict and duck out.
    + Feeling that the political opposition is reckless and/or dishonest as an important part of the fear profile; representing the two prongs of danger perception, namely that "this is dangerous because it's out of control" and "this is dangerous because it's out to get us"
    + Correctly noting that "attempting to change minds" is not the motivation behind pretty much any element of politics – in fact the entirety of politics on every level is a "post-making-up minds" activity, and the very act of trying to change the interlocutor's mind or give them the impression that they need to return to basics and recalcuate, is actually one of the strongest drivers of political mistrust and animosity. Without extremely clear and obvious evidence, of a sort that's outstanding rare and immediately suspicious as a contrived forgery or fabrication, most people (however solipsistic and short-sighted they may seem to you) can feel pretty confident that they've got the gist of things, and will respond badly to any form of effort to change their stance; they're at the point of willingness to make a deal and not change their or your mind/s.
    + Understands the value of political recruitment
    + Noting the gravitation among political enemies to focus on extreme points and arguments for the other side but stick to the most central and safe/normal ones of their own; fear again is the root of this behaviour. Threat assessment must always be made in terms of the highest possible damage the danger could unleash, regardless of how fringe or unlikely that is. Meanwhile preaching to the choir/home audience means appearing as safe and sensible as possible. When political tensions are at their highest, the safe home preaching of each side is guaranteed to sound like increasingly dangerous provocations to the other.
    + Acute perception that attempting to hard research or confer on every point is impossible and never works.
    + Observes the efficacy of using mild, conciliatory, flexible and deal-bargaining language in actually changing minds. All of these things serve allay fears and diffuse tension. Eliminating the stressors of the opposition is the fastest way to make them no-longer your opposition, which choosing to aggravate them is the fastest way to make them double down and swear on your destruction.
    + Interesting observation about the "four posts" rule, which is something that I can say lines up with my experience of internet arguments fairly well. Simply put, people just tire of engaging in the battle of constant assertions and contradictions, each of which seems like detailed and careful astute insight from one's one vantage but mendacious quibbling and forest-missing-for-trees from the other. If hard, "okay wow that's true"-tier evidence can't or won't crop up in four comment exchanges, it likely never will, at least not today.
    + If there's one thing that everyone can take from this video, it's the simple truth that systems break. The bad politicians and bad laws that characterise the system are symptomatic of its problems, and make sense when assessed as such and not as independent and disconnected problems in themselves. Viewing nations and governments ans organisms helps immensely with understanding the complex interplay of forces and conflicts and cooperations in power.

    Misgivings:
    – Opens with the claim that it's easy to be angry when there's some much to risk, but you actually shouldn't. Doesn't really back this up, and in fact justifies a position of anger in many ways while at best redirecting it and enhancing it. General focus on anger common among left-of-centre politics, and not of other equally or more valent emotions such as fear.
    – Feeling that the political opposition is ignorant, which is typical only of the left and the centre. The right is more prone to feeling the opposition is simply delusional and in denial.
    – Sense of "standing up for what is right" only works in a defensive context, and not in a fashion for instigating active change which always involves a persecutory and or analytically discriminative perspective.
    – Circuitous logic concerning the Pacifist example. If a Pacifist was truly a committed Pacifist, capital P, then they would object as strongly to the suggestion of using force and violence to defend themselves as they would the very violent attackers coming after them. And if someone was only a little letter p pacifist, then they wouldn't need persuading along this line. Ultimately one cannot change hard convictions that are rooted in deeply felt survival emotions, which includes the feeling that "if I engage in XYZ acts, I am corrupt and forsaken". To object to this in any fashion is to tell someone their feelings are "wrong", which is impossible and will only result in further resistance. You can only bargain with them.
    – Advocates political recruitment unmitigatedly, when in fact this tendency is at the base of the issue in politics, namely the spreading of fears and fanning them to more easily earn support and votes. All factions do this because it's easy and consequence free, and lets them get at more power within the system. In fact it's the most basic observation of all that all factions tacitly agree to this as they all benefit from a climate of high continual stress and fear. In the game of politics, the voters are the ball.
    – Blanket advocacy for picking limited or narrow issues does not work. The points raised against having diverse platforms with many goals have some sense to them, but almost all major parties do hedge their bets with may stakes high and low. One-note one-issue parties are generally the rump of the system, with only limited moments of genuine success – typically under extreme conditions such as Brexit.
    – Connected to the above, picking only one talking point to "shout out" may in fact be the most dangerous way to "strike out" if you happen to pick the one thing that's everyone's panic button. Of course, some make a living out of deliberately defying safe standards of society, and that's an excellent thing in my books, but it won't make an argument or political stance/campaign/party safer or stronger. It'll make it sharper and more interesting. Big difference.
    – Forwards a notion of an early-life tabula rasa of key beliefs that get used as a rule of thumb from after the point you're views harden. This is another common left-leaning belief, and perhaps an actual trait of left-leaners themselves, but not necessarily of centres or rights. For what it's worth, centres tend to more belief in constant belief flux and update in the face of evidence, and rights more in a profound gut feeling that remains felt throughout life, and which is backed up as being highly heritable through twin studies.
    – Often times simply stating "Dogs are better than cats because I just feel that way" is a safer and more friendly, less fear-generative stance than claiming an objective "Here's why". It's the details of reading someone else's "here's why" for something that you would never do ever that drives most people apopleptic, and leads to the sense that the other side cannot be trusted because they're all stupid, evil or crazy. This is most crucial in light of the fact that the people writing up the "Why" argument aren't intending to whip up the other side into a terror froth. They are casually advocating for something they think is good and they'd like to see, and have no perception of what might make one or more aspects of it scary to the other. So perhaps the best approach is to say – not "Here's why dogs are great" but rather "Here's why dogs aren't a problem". At least this directly addresses the concerns of the other side. You're still not going to convince anyone however, but you might not send them into a paroxysm of knee-jerks either.
    – "Equality and Fairness" contra "Pride and Duty" is a fairly textbook left-of-centre take on the distinction between left and right. A more accurate might be "Finding a role for everyone, no-one left behind" versus "Fair rewards for fair results, everyone matched to their fitting station". The left tends to think organisationally in horizontal principles, as though everyone is a different type of organ with a different function, big or small. The right tends to think in z-axis principles, with some needing to be safely compressed at the back/under and others expanded to deal with the frontier at the outer surface. This reflects the left and right's genesis from individuals adapted to the interior of complex civilisations contra their exterior, which is reflected in the predominant voting distribution in living occupations to this day.

  5. There are many complex political issues on which it would be logical to disagree upon but there are also many dumb people that can not see the bigger picture.
    Its just sad to see so many young Americans nowadays promoting communism and trying to eliminate free speech.

  6. I have an IQ of 100000 then because you can (sorta, not really) rig the election by just making a very bag argument of what you disagree with so if you are right just make a bad or angry argument for the left and make the people on the right or in the middle think of the opposite and go with your beliefs.

  7. Elites are Monopolists. Everything they do is aimed at taking the whole world and everything in it for themselves. They use the Hegelian dialectic to create a problem and offer a "solution" to get the"result" that furthers them to their goal. That of being the full on owners of Plantation Earth. They back both parties and anyone who thwarts that can be easily discredited or got rid of. Too many people will whore themselves for a few crumbs at all levels.

  8. Do you know the flag of FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF SOMALIA is featuring in your video whitout copyright act.
    I will report you😂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *