OtherGround Forums Why Can't People Be Objective With Politics?

6 days ago
7/17/14
Posts: 63
Usually people are born into their politics, so you can't really be objective.
Edited: 6 days ago
1/6/20
Posts: 144

I think that I can pretty objective.  I'm right leaning but do not agree with ALL of their policies.  For instance, I have my reservations about the 2nd ammendment but think that it's too late for it to be reversed. I also believe in universal health care over private healthcare. So I don't automatically side with everything right wing.

I'm also a Trump supporter but am thinking that he has dropped or is dropping the ball on a couple of things; firstly closing the border to Chinese travellers was an outstanding move which he didn't get any credit for by the media, however he could have voiced greater concern with the covid-19 early on rather than downplaying it at the press conferences for a short period. 

Secondly, this getting back to business in a couple of weeks does not sit well with me,  I don't think it will happen but still way too soon imo.  This gives the perception that the economy is more important than a possible plague. Yes, I understand that the health of the economy is tied to the health of the people but still too soon, why bring everyone together amidst a virus breakout? Would be a huge mistake imo.   

On the other hand I know of libtards that will bash Trump no matter what, I have not seen any objectivity amongst those with full blown TDS. 

6 days ago
1/3/18
Posts: 6687
Kwang -

I think the free thinker point made earlier is the reason. Most have already made their minds up about what is best and refuse to hear evidence to the contrary. 

Is it really that they refuse to hear evidence to the contrary, or could it be that they refuse to give audience to opinions, conjectures or outright lies being presented as evidence? 

6 days ago
5/23/07
Posts: 21025
Hippias12345 - I realized that I have not heard ONE person who was pro-Trump before the pandemic say that he has really handled the situation badly.

And I have not heard ONE person who was anti-Trump before the pandemic say that he has really handled the situation well.

Something about that really depressed me. It seems like proof of something I've always suspected, but never had such clear evidence for.

Welcome first time poster, long time lurker.

6 days ago
7/17/14
Posts: 64
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/3/20/14915076/7-psychological-concepts-explain-trump-politics

There have been a lot of studies on political thought. Some are in the link above.
6 days ago
4/1/11
Posts: 7409

Anyone on this thread who hasn't read "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt should go order/download it right now. The best book you'll ever read on why people align politically the way they do. 

6 days ago
2/5/06
Posts: 40376
Pilgor the goat - 

Because politics isn’t an object, it’s a part of the subject (which we call identity). People see their moral intuitions as intrinsic to their character. Identity, morality, intuition and character are all things that don’t fit into the language of objectivity. 


Sounds great!


It isn't true, but it sounds nice.

You're still talking about bias, you can still be objective with your bias..as you can about your character and identity.

Objectivity isn't talking about physical objects....Objectivity is a philosophical concept of maintaining and seeking truth in spite of our emotional preconceptions.

6 days ago
2/5/06
Posts: 40377
Hippias12345 - I realized that I have not heard ONE person who was pro-Trump before the pandemic say that he has really handled the situation badly.

And I have not heard ONE person who was anti-Trump before the pandemic say that he has really handled the situation well.

Something about that really depressed me. It seems like proof of something I've always suspected, but never had such clear evidence for.

I have heard one

And it wasn't from the side I'd suspect. A major Trump hater made a FB post, something like "Just take what Trump says initially and ignore it, his actions have actually been responsible" or something to that affect.

I was shocked

6 days ago
3/16/11
Posts: 7617
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 

Because politics isn’t an object, it’s a part of the subject (which we call identity). People see their moral intuitions as intrinsic to their character. Identity, morality, intuition and character are all things that don’t fit into the language of objectivity. 


Sounds great!


It isn't true, but it sounds nice.

You're still talking about bias, you can still be objective with your bias..as you can about your character and identity.

Objectivity isn't talking about physical objects....Objectivity is a philosophical concept of maintaining and seeking truth in spite of our emotional preconceptions.

Objectivity is that which exists outside of subjectivity. It requires no observation, perception, emotion or bias to exist, like the things I listed in my original post do. How exactly can politics, morality, character or intuition exist outside of subjectivity? 

6 days ago
3/18/14
Posts: 2343

They can't control their ego

5 days ago
11/28/08
Posts: 22958
shen - The Founding Fathers were actually quite AGAINST the idea of political parties, because they saw what effect they had in England.

In groups & out groups. Tribalism. It's a problem that has been around forever.

The Founding Fathers had political parties.

5 days ago
11/11/11
Posts: 8738

Consider the mantra of publishing self-help books: Tell people what they want to hear, get rich. Tell people what they want to hear, go poor.

(That is why someone like Tony Robbins got rich because he was a master at telling people "you can do it!" when in really, most people can't)

Too much of the media has applied this principle to their own business. And us readers and viewers now can simply choose the source that reaffirms our existing beliefs: My side is right, the other side is wrong.

Sadly, some media has pushed that principle to the point that the line between responsible journalism, opinion, propaganda and outright baseless conspiracy theories has been blurred, all in the name of pushing their own agenda. They deflect, deny or just ignore stories that don't fit their narrative. And the reader/viewer doesn't question it because it's exactly what they want to hear.

5 days ago
2/5/06
Posts: 40382
Pilgor the goat - 
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 

Because politics isn’t an object, it’s a part of the subject (which we call identity). People see their moral intuitions as intrinsic to their character. Identity, morality, intuition and character are all things that don’t fit into the language of objectivity. 


Sounds great!


It isn't true, but it sounds nice.

You're still talking about bias, you can still be objective with your bias..as you can about your character and identity.

Objectivity isn't talking about physical objects....Objectivity is a philosophical concept of maintaining and seeking truth in spite of our emotional preconceptions.

Objectivity is that which exists outside of subjectivity. It requires no observation, perception, emotion or bias to exist, like the things I listed in my original post do. How exactly can politics, morality, character or intuition exist outside of subjectivity? 


Because it's not a zero sum game.

True, 100% true objectivity can't I suppose,.... subjective bias will always be there. The point I'm trying to make is we need to understand that subjective bias is there,...to try and be objective as you can, recognizing fallacies as they come.

5 days ago
2/5/06
Posts: 40383
kevsh - 

Consider the mantra of publishing self-help books: Tell people what they want to hear, get rich. Tell people what they want to hear, go poor.

(That is why someone like Tony Robbins got rich because he was a master at telling people "you can do it!" when in really, most people can't)

Too much of the media has applied this principle to their own business. And us readers and viewers now can simply choose the source that reaffirms our existing beliefs: My side is right, the other side is wrong.

Sadly, some media has pushed that principle to the point that the line between responsible journalism, opinion, propaganda and outright baseless conspiracy theories has been blurred, all in the name of pushing their own agenda. They deflect, deny or just ignore stories that don't fit their narrative. And the reader/viewer doesn't question it because it's exactly what they want to hear.


I've seen your posts

Do you consider yourself objective when it comes to politics?

Edited: 5 days ago
7/12/03
Posts: 11519

I dont like Trump, I didnt vote for him and wouldnt vote for him. Its obvious to me that the media and the opposition hates him so much they resort to outright lies and fabrications just to score points which IMO does more damage to them than if they stuck to actual facts.
As far as Trumps handling of the pandemic he is in a no win situation.

5 days ago
2/5/06
Posts: 40384
pcuzz - 

I dont like Trump, I didnt vote for him and wouldnt vote for him. Its obvious to me that the media and the opposition hates him so much they resort to outright lies and fabrications just to score points which IMO does more damage to them than if they stuck to actual facts.
As far as Trumps handling of the pandemic he is a no win situation.


I like this post

5 days ago
12/17/06
Posts: 83052
pcuzz - 

I dont like Trump, I didnt vote for him and wouldnt vote for him. Its obvious to me that the media and the opposition hates him so much they resort to outright lies and fabrications just to score points which IMO does more damage to them than if they stuck to actual facts.
As far as Trumps handling of the pandemic he is a no win situation.


Totally fair.

Edited: 5 days ago
3/16/11
Posts: 7618
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 
CaptainWoody -
Pilgor the goat - 

Because politics isn’t an object, it’s a part of the subject (which we call identity). People see their moral intuitions as intrinsic to their character. Identity, morality, intuition and character are all things that don’t fit into the language of objectivity. 


Sounds great!


It isn't true, but it sounds nice.

You're still talking about bias, you can still be objective with your bias..as you can about your character and identity.

Objectivity isn't talking about physical objects....Objectivity is a philosophical concept of maintaining and seeking truth in spite of our emotional preconceptions.

Objectivity is that which exists outside of subjectivity. It requires no observation, perception, emotion or bias to exist, like the things I listed in my original post do. How exactly can politics, morality, character or intuition exist outside of subjectivity? 


Because it's not a zero sum game.

True, 100% true objectivity can't I suppose,.... subjective bias will always be there. The point I'm trying to make is we need to understand that subjective bias is there,...to try and be objective as you can, recognizing fallacies as they come.

Agreed. I just find it funny that people insist on grounding truth in objectivity, when we can’t even really be sure it exists. I believe it does, and I believe systematically investigating it is the best way we have of making sense of the world around us, but people need to realize that there are elements of intelligent life that science, physicalism or objectivity simply can’t explain in any meaningful way. 

Edited: 5 days ago
9/30/09
Posts: 9786

I post this a lot on here. But if it fits on any thread.... it’s here.

 

 

5 days ago
11/20/09
Posts: 43129

I try to stay out of politics.  My friend posted something on his wall, and one of his friends tried to downplay the author of the article he posted by pointing out his highest viewed article was 150k. 

 

I mocked her by fake mocking my friend saying he should provide an article where the author has at least 200k views. 

I then asked his friend if there was a certain # of views one has to have to be credited by her, and she replied =

"I mention it because if it's the one claim you make in your boiler plate, you're not a reliable source."

 

To which I replied-

"Well Jennifer, thank you for replying. Before I take anything you have to say serious, can you point to me the direction of an article you posted that had more than 151k views?"

 

She didn't reply after that lol

 
5 days ago
2/5/06
Posts: 40386
D241 - 

I try to stay out of politics.  My friend posted something on his wall, and one of his friends tried to downplay the author of the article he posted by pointing out his highest viewed article was 150k. 

 

I mocked her by fake mocking my friend saying he should provide an article where the author has at least 200k views. 

I then asked his friend if there was a certain # of views one has to have to be credited by her, and she replied =

"I mention it because if it's the one claim you make in your boiler plate, you're not a reliable source."

 

To which I replied-

"Well Jennifer, thank you for replying. Before I take anything you have to say serious, can you point to me the direction of an article you posted that had more than 151k views?"

 

She didn't reply after that lol

 

hahaha

5 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 3601

I've read that yes we are designed to be religious. Primitive tribes that didn't believe in an afterlife or some all powerful being judging their actions wouldn't behave as well to their fellow tribe which would lesson group cohesion which would give the tribe less a chance to prosper than the tribe beside it that blindly accepted a god figure.
Also .... studies on identical twins raised separately are hard to come by & have a small sample size (obviously) but the little evidence they give us is compelling.
It suggests that ones proclivity towards a religious life is significantly inborn.
Obviously it's largely environmental as well but it's strange to consider that it's now all learned behavior.
Studies even on sublimes raised apart show that if one sibling is highly religious that the sibling that this one never met has a better than random chance of also being religious.
Don't ask me to cite this cause it was from books I read in the 90's. Don't even know what books. And it wasn't conclusive but all kinds of studies that are available suggest that things like ones energy level and sexual habits are indeed at least half born into us.
Seems logical that a tendency towards religion would also be.
In my personal opinion religion doenst play a huge roll in the behavior of the intelligent.
But I've known savage criminal growing up how I did and they tended to be extremely unintelligent. And I've known many harmless studios people who tend more towards religion.
I think criminals are criminals because they don't dwell on the future.
They'd rather enjoy now and worry about next week when it comes.
Or one could see they lack the ability to delay gratification.
The best way to keep the stupid from behaving badly seems to be to teach them that god is always watching.
Now that no one is still reading this I'll conclude-
So I think religion helps keep the less intelligent on track. And so it's to our evolutionary benefit to tend towards believing in god.
Plus it probably helps many from going crazy by dwelling on the pointlessness of existence given that in a century we will all be dead and that in 200 years none of our names will ever be said again and that we really don't matter at all of u think about it.
We are all just pointlessly spinning about a whirling cesspool of despair soon to be fade into oblivion.

5 days ago
12/2/02
Posts: 34264
Pilgor the goat - 
shen - The Founding Fathers were actually quite AGAINST the idea of political parties, because they saw what effect they had in England.

In groups & out groups. Tribalism. It's a problem that has been around forever.

Those fuckers were some smart dudes. Like Steve Urkel genius level smart. It really is amazing how they saw all the bullshit that had happened and figured out a document that protected against it and predicted future issues at once. I’m not even American and I’ve long maintained that the US constitution is the greatest document human beings have ever created. 


I agree. Almost every problem we have now regarding politics was forseen by the Founding Fathers. Incredibly smart people.

Sticking up for your political party is very much like staying with your NFL or MLB team when they suck. You still are a fan and cheer for them and stick up for them.

Politics shouldn't be like that, but it is.

5 days ago
12/2/02
Posts: 34265
CaptainWoody - 
Hippias12345 - I realized that I have not heard ONE person who was pro-Trump before the pandemic say that he has really handled the situation badly.

And I have not heard ONE person who was anti-Trump before the pandemic say that he has really handled the situation well.

Something about that really depressed me. It seems like proof of something I've always suspected, but never had such clear evidence for.

I have heard one

And it wasn't from the side I'd suspect. A major Trump hater made a FB post, something like "Just take what Trump says initially and ignore it, his actions have actually been responsible" or something to that affect.

I was shocked


LOL, that pretty much sums up what I think of Trump (as a supporter). Just stop listening to him speak and watch what he does instead.

5 days ago
6/24/08
Posts: 484
Bill Mahoney - 

I've read that yes we are designed to be religious. Primitive tribes that didn't believe in an afterlife or some all powerful being judging their actions wouldn't behave as well to their fellow tribe which would lesson group cohesion which would give the tribe less a chance to prosper than the tribe beside it that blindly accepted a god figure.
Also .... studies on identical twins raised separately are hard to come by & have a small sample size (obviously) but the little evidence they give us is compelling.
It suggests that ones proclivity towards a religious life is significantly inborn.
Obviously it's largely environmental as well but it's strange to consider that it's now all learned behavior.
Studies even on sublimes raised apart show that if one sibling is highly religious that the sibling that this one never met has a better than random chance of also being religious.
Don't ask me to cite this cause it was from books I read in the 90's. Don't even know what books. And it wasn't conclusive but all kinds of studies that are available suggest that things like ones energy level and sexual habits are indeed at least half born into us.
Seems logical that a tendency towards religion would also be.
In my personal opinion religion doenst play a huge roll in the behavior of the intelligent.
But I've known savage criminal growing up how I did and they tended to be extremely unintelligent. And I've known many harmless studios people who tend more towards religion.
I think criminals are criminals because they don't dwell on the future.
They'd rather enjoy now and worry about next week when it comes.
Or one could see they lack the ability to delay gratification.
The best way to keep the stupid from behaving badly seems to be to teach them that god is always watching.
Now that no one is still reading this I'll conclude-
So I think religion helps keep the less intelligent on track. And so it's to our evolutionary benefit to tend towards believing in god.
Plus it probably helps many from going crazy by dwelling on the pointlessness of existence given that in a century we will all be dead and that in 200 years none of our names will ever be said again and that we really don't matter at all of u think about it.
We are all just pointlessly spinning about a whirling cesspool of despair soon to be fade into oblivion.


I actually finished it.

I’m not so sure that we are born with a need for religion, I think it’s more tribal and team driven, and religion has been evolved to play on those things. It has definitely been used to keep people in line, and seems to be pushed in prisons, aaa, etc.

Looking at these forms particularly in the early days of mma you would see people proclaiming their style the best when someone from that style won a big fight, if Couture won all the wrestlers won’t be out in force and so on. You still see people who support certain fighters that in their eyes can do no wrong no matter what bad stuff they do, and others that will hate on them no matter what good they do.

I’ve often been at fights where after the decision coaches tell their guy after being totally out classed “you were robbed”. Shitty reffing, shitty judging, etc. I used to think they were just trying to make their guy feel a little better (no real problem with that} but then I realized they were serious. They were part of that team and couldn’t be objective. I was in a bar with a bunch of Irish people watching the Mcgregor v Mayweather fight, a lot of people were asking who I thought would win, I said I’d like Mcgregor to win but it wasn’t going to happen. It was like telling a kid Santa wasn’t real.

It would be quite interesting to see which parts of a person’s own party agenda they would be willing to comprise on and which parts of the other party they would be willing to adapt.