consistency among political groups

[Slartibartfast]

This is one thing that has bothered me for a while and I cannot come up with a good explanation (or really any explanation at all).

The question is why do members of political ideologies tend to display a high amount of consistency in unrelated opinions.

For example, someone who believes in global warming is more than likely to be socially liberal and is more than likely to be more accepting of government involvement in societal pursuits?

Alternatively, someone who does not believe in evolution is more than likely to be a strong believer in free markets.

There seems to be a high correlation, but what is the root cause of these consistencies? Why are people not more varied in their opinions in unrelated subjects? For example evolution and free markets have nothing to do with each other, but again, correlation tends to be high.

 

[samsmart]

This is one thing that has bothered me for a while and I cannot come up with a good explanation (or really any explanation at all).

The question is why do members of political ideologies tend to display a high amount of consistency in unrelated opinions.

For example, someone who believes in global warming is more than likely to be socially liberal and is more than likely to be more accepting of government involvement in societal pursuits?

Alternatively, someone who does not believe in evolution is more than likely to be a strong believer in free markets.

There seems to be a high correlation, but what is the root cause of these consistencies? Why are people not more varied in their opinions in unrelated subjects? For example evolution and free markets have nothing to do with each other, but again, correlation tends to be high.

The root cause of these inconsistencies is that we live in a two-party political system that is forced upon us because we have winner-take-all elections and so disparate groups must join together in order to form political majorities and in order to rationalize voting for one party over another we try to negotiate disparate philosophies of economic policy, environmental policy, social policy, along other types of policies into one whole so our heads don't explode on those rare occasions when we stop and actually think about why we vote for Democrats or Republicans.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The root cause of these inconsistencies is that we live in a two-party political system that is forced upon us because we have winner-take-all elections and so disparate groups must join together in order to form political majorities and in order to rationalize voting for one party over another we try to negotiate disparate philosophies of economic policy, environmental policy, social policy, along other types of policies into one whole so our heads don't explode on those rare occasions when we stop and actually think about why we vote for Democrats or Republicans.

So in other words, people are intellectually lazy?

 

[samsmart]

So in other words, people are intellectually lazy?

It's not that people are intellectually lazy.

It's that we need to implement reforms to allow multiple parties so people with more nuanced and internally coherent political philosophies can have political leaders that have them as well.

Until then, our political leaders will lead people using these mish-mash ideologies, and so people will follow them.

 

[belyay]

It's due to the chronological emergence of these thoughts. Humans are naturally stolid when it comes to new ideas, our minds are more moldable in childhood than n adulthood. That's why if you except one idea of the time, it's likely you'll accept another idea of the time.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

This is one thing that has bothered me for a while and I cannot come up with a good explanation (or really any explanation at all).

The question is why do members of political ideologies tend to display a high amount of consistency in unrelated opinions.

For example, someone who believes in global warming is more than likely to be socially liberal and is more than likely to be more accepting of government involvement in societal pursuits?

Alternatively, someone who does not believe in evolution is more than likely to be a strong believer in free markets.

There seems to be a high correlation, but what is the root cause of these consistencies? Why are people not more varied in their opinions in unrelated subjects? For example evolution and free markets have nothing to do with each other, but again, correlation tends to be high.

I think your conclusion that certain topics are unrelated may be inaccurate. For example, someone who does not believe in evolution holds a view that is contrary to what the government advocates and requires to be instructed in its schools. Because of that, the "non-believer" is automatically at odds with the government and is, therefore, more likely to support non-government solutions to problems which leads them to be in favor of a "more free" market and less government regulation.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I think your conclusion that certain topics are unrelated may be inaccurate. For example, someone who does not believe in evolution holds a view that is contrary to what the government advocates and requires to be instructed in its schools. Because of that, the "non-believer" is automatically at odds with the government and is, therefore, more likely to support non-government solutions to problems which leads them to be in favor of a "more free" market and less government regulation.

So factually unrelated, but perhaps emotionally and in terms of general impressions, related. Is that a good summary of your point?

 

[ThePlayDrive]

So factually unrelated, but perhaps emotionally and in terms of general impressions, related. Is that a good summary of your point?

I think that's fair enough. Although I would describe such as ideas more as "indirectly, but not directly related." Ultimately, there's usually some logic that leads the person to connect ideas together so that they relate, at the very least, in their minds. It's just a matter of figuring out what that logic is.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I think that's fair enough. Although I would describe such as ideas more as "indirectly, but not directly related." Ultimately, there's usually some logic that leads the person to connect ideas together so that they relate, at the very least, in their minds. It's just a matter of figuring out what that logic is.

Given that I do not believe that man is a rational creature, but is largely driven by instinct and emotion, this would make sense. I made the mistake of approaching this question from a basis of logic instead forgetting this core truth.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

This is one thing that has bothered me for a while and I cannot come up with a good explanation (or really any explanation at all).

The question is why do members of political ideologies tend to display a high amount of consistency in unrelated opinions.

For example, someone who believes in global warming is more than likely to be socially liberal and is more than likely to be more accepting of government involvement in societal pursuits?

Alternatively, someone who does not believe in evolution is more than likely to be a strong believer in free markets.

There seems to be a high correlation, but what is the root cause of these consistencies? Why are people not more varied in their opinions in unrelated subjects? For example evolution and free markets have nothing to do with each other, but again, correlation tends to be high.

Honestly, I think it's a sort of brain washing.
You get to pick from two teams and are primed from birth to be for one or the other.

Regardless of how stupid your team is, your likely to support it, because people don't like being wrong.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

So in other words, people are intellectually lazy?

Bingo!
I easier to accept a prepackaged belief system, that seems to make sense, than to explore the subjects.
The pay off of further educating yourself is very little, except for your own satisfaction.

 

[wolfman24]

I agree somewhat with Play. Its the domino effect in our thinking when we are focused on a particular poltical ideology. One idea leads into another and so on.

It could also be a matter of exposure during our lives or a absolute belief in whatever dogma you hold.

Good question

 

[MarineTpartier]

The root cause of these inconsistencies is that we live in a two-party political system that is forced upon us because we have winner-take-all elections and so disparate groups must join together in order to form political majorities and in order to rationalize voting for one party over another we try to negotiate disparate philosophies of economic policy, environmental policy, social policy, along other types of policies into one whole so our heads don't explode on those rare occasions when we stop and actually think about why we vote for Democrats or Republicans.

Thanks dude. You just ended a a potentially good thread with a prematurely all encompassing post. Now the point is made and can't be made better. This one's over.

 

[Geoist]

The question is why do members of political ideologies tend to display a high amount of consistency in unrelated opinions.

Two causes imo: Political party platforms and think tanks.

Why are people not more varied in their opinions in unrelated subjects?

People tend to read only the news from sources they tend to agree with. If they are generally conservative but originally did not have an opinion of global warming, that opinion is going to be shaped by those they listen to.

 

[Geoist]

So in other words, people are intellectually lazy?

YES! :lol:

 

[Geoist]

The consistencies are most glaring when there are clear contradictions to each side's opinion. For example, Republicans/conservatives will say we need to cut spending on social programs because we cannot afford them. But when you ask about the defense budget and they have no limit to what they're willing to spend. We can reverse that example on Democrats/progressives too. The most outrageous example for the Democrats for me is on bodily rights: Some of them say my body, my life, my choice, but when it comes to certain drugs, foods, soda, etc, they want the government to interfere (again, not all but some).

 

[Andalublue]

The question is why do members of political ideologies tend to display a high amount of consistency in unrelated opinions.

Because nothing is unrelated?

 

[karmin12]

Until then, our political leaders will lead people using these mish-mash ideologies, and so people will follow them.

 

[Myclaugh]

The consistencies I think are based on arbitrary platforms as described from the 2 dominate parties. Yes arbitrary. Unfortunately the power quest blinds most people from what is right / wrong or good / better.

The current platform of the democrats is different than it was 30 years ago - the same for the republicans. Why is that?

Democrats lean left (currently) Republican lean right (currently).

In order for any party to win elections, they need to convince voters to vote for them. Democrats, more so than Republicans align themselves in such a way as to "gain favor" with the electorate. This means they are constantly changing their platform. Ever hear the term "evolving?". How about talking points based on polling data? Attempts to convince the electorate to vote for them (quest for power) - unfortunately does not mean it's the best thing. Lots of people will take the chocolate chip cookie offered to them (from Dems) over the broccoli (from Repubs).

Democrats move their platform - constantly "evolving" based on getting the votes / polling data / what have you. Culture is forced to move. Saturation in school, college, evening news guarantees it. Republicans then are forced to move as well. UNFORTUNATELY - for JQ Public, the movement is based soley on the quest for power - and NOT for what is right / wrong OR good / better! Our culture is shaped - laws are injected into the changes - and onward we go. "Progress" in the current cultural vernacular is more a "public relations" or "advertising" campaign so put forth as to move culture and win elections. (Thereby next enter corruption. I could go on, but would risk going off topic).

 

[choiceone]

The consistencies are most glaring when there are clear contradictions to each side's opinion. For example, Republicans/conservatives will say we need to cut spending on social programs because we cannot afford them. But when you ask about the defense budget and they have no limit to what they're willing to spend. We can reverse that example on Democrats/progressives too. The most outrageous example for the Democrats for me is on bodily rights: Some of them say my body, my life, my choice, but when it comes to certain drugs, foods, soda, etc, they want the government to interfere (again, not all but some).

The glaring problem is that the most prominent soda and food control example is the mayor of NYC, Bloomberg, and he is a Republican.

 

[choiceone]

The consistencies I think are based on arbitrary platforms as described from the 2 dominate parties. Yes arbitrary. Unfortunately the power quest blinds most people from what is right / wrong or good / better.

The current platform of the democrats is different than it was 30 years ago - the same for the republicans. Why is that?

Democrats lean left (currently) Republican lean right (currently).

In order for any party to win elections, they need to convince voters to vote for them. Democrats, more so than Republicans align themselves in such a way as to "gain favor" with the electorate. This means they are constantly changing their platform. Ever hear the term "evolving?". How about talking points based on polling data? Attempts to convince the electorate to vote for them (quest for power) - unfortunately does not mean it's the best thing. Lots of people will take the chocolate chip cookie offered to them (from Dems) over the broccoli (from Repubs).

Democrats move their platform - constantly "evolving" based on getting the votes / polling data / what have you. Culture is forced to move. Saturation in school, college, evening news guarantees it. Republicans then are forced to move as well. UNFORTUNATELY - for JQ Public, the movement is based soley on the quest for power - and NOT for what is right / wrong OR good / better! Our culture is shaped - laws are injected into the changes - and onward we go. "Progress" in the current cultural vernacular is more a "public relations" or "advertising" campaign so put forth as to move culture and win elections. (Thereby next enter corruption. I could go on, but would risk going off topic).

I don't really agree with this because lots of people have a greater commitment on stands regarding some issues than others, and they may trust others more in general if they share these stands on important ones. That is, people may tolerate stands that they disagree with on issues that seem less important because the others share their stands on what they deem important issues. Trust is how we comes to agree with groups rather than stands per se and tolerate disagreement within the groups.

 

[TwEnTY-SiX]

This is one thing that has bothered me for a while and I cannot come up with a good explanation (or really any explanation at all).

The question is why do members of political ideologies tend to display a high amount of consistency in unrelated opinions.

For example, someone who believes in global warming is more than likely to be socially liberal and is more than likely to be more accepting of government involvement in societal pursuits?

Alternatively, someone who does not believe in evolution is more than likely to be a strong believer in free markets.

There seems to be a high correlation, but what is the root cause of these consistencies? Why are people not more varied in their opinions in unrelated subjects? For example evolution and free markets have nothing to do with each other, but again, correlation tends to be high.

Apparently a study done in 2008 found that there was a correlation between an individual's political views and their reflexive response to threatening stimuli. There was no great proof unearthed, but the question raised is that it seems plausible that our politics may be connected our brain's physiology. So those who believe everything you don't may not be utterly irrational and narrow-minded, but instead have a brain that's physiologically different and thus is basically wired to interpret the world differently.

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=poliscifacpub

 

[Fiddytree]

Group think, good sales pitches, and just a solid rationale which does it. I don't entirely disdain this sort of thing. It's reality.

 

[Cyrylek]

This is one thing that has bothered me for a while and I cannot come up with a good explanation (or really any explanation at all).

The question is why do members of political ideologies tend to display a high amount of consistency in unrelated opinions.

For example, someone who believes in global warming is more than likely to be socially liberal and is more than likely to be more accepting of government involvement in societal pursuits?

Alternatively, someone who does not believe in evolution is more than likely to be a strong believer in free markets.

There seems to be a high correlation, but what is the root cause of these consistencies? Why are people not more varied in their opinions in unrelated subjects? For example evolution and free markets have nothing to do with each other, but again, correlation tends to be high.

These are not very good examples: The global warming hysteria captures the minds of the Unthinking Left not because of any scientific content, but because it justifies a major expansion of interventionist government. As for the people on the Right who "don't believe in evolution", they are, actually, not very likely to embrace free markets. They are much more likely to be protectionist, anti-immigrant, prohibitionist, etc. In other words, "religious socialists" aka "social conservatives".

Now, they are, of course, more likely to be Republican - but the GOP is not a uniform ideological bloc (no matter how much energy FOX and MSNBC spend on trying to prove the opposite) - it is an uneasy electoral coalition of (roughly speaking) 3 distinct groups: the classical liberals ("libertarians") - those of them who can stand the smell; the pragmatic (variant: cynical) pro-business types; and - the social conservatives. They are more different from each other, in many ways, than any of them is different from a randomly chosen Democrat.

 

[imagep]

It's not that people are intellectually lazy.

I think they are lazy. It's easy to let a political pundant give you your opinions. Many Rush listeners do nothing but parrot whatever they heard Rush say.