Partisan Psychology: Why Do People Choose Political Loyalties Over Facts? : It’s All Politics : NPR
Ladies and gentlemen I present to you some proof of the concept i put forth in my profile at LGF. I am an anti partisan thinker and voter. Belonging to a party is great. right up to the point you lie to yourself. Then you become a part of the problem.
My loyalty is to the facts, not a party.
Please use the link and read the whole thing.
When pollsters ask Republicans and Democrats whether the president can do anything about high gas prices, the answers reflect the usual partisan divisions in the country. About two-thirds of Republicans say the president can do something about high gas prices, and about two-thirds of Democrats say he can’t.
But six years ago, with a Republican president in the White House, the numbers were reversed: Three-fourths of Democrats said President Bush could do something about high gas prices, while the majority of Republicans said gas prices were clearly outside the president’s control.
The flipped perceptions on gas prices isn’t an aberration, said Dartmouth College political scientist Brendan Nyhan. On a range of issues, partisans seem partial to their political loyalties over the facts. When those loyalties demand changing their views of the facts, he said, partisans seem willing to throw even consistency overboard.
Sometimes Charles will promote a Page into the main topic. In that spirit, I’m “promoting” a comment to the Page itself. I can’t remove the original comment from below.
Researchok thanks much for the time you took.
That reality is built into political realities (there is a reason do many psychologists are paid large sums by political entities and campaigns).
Under normal circumstances, when you come to an ‘AHA!’ moment, you are excited and grateful. You are no longer wedded to wrong or false ideas. You have elevated yourself.
When you come to an AHA!’ political moment, you become resentful- because you have to admit everything you believed was wrong or false- and you risk becoming alienated from the ‘tribe’ and shameful excoriation from the orthodoxy.
To be clear- you can be original and independent on either side of the spectrum, but that is a rare thing because independents and original thinkers are more alike than they are at odds, usually differing not so much on goals but in how we get there.
This is anathema to the extremes on either side. If we are more alike and share the same values, they are of lesser importance and thus of lesser influence. In addition, their ability to raise money is highly impacted.
Money in politics isn’t only about campaigns- it is also about groups who adopt a cause and raise money off that cause. If we are more alike than different, there are a lot of people who need to earn a real living.
Think about this:
We don’t care if your are a Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu. You are free to worship as you believe. You are free not to worship or believe. We don’t care. In fact, that is the last thing we worry about. America and free nations have long ago dispensed with the notion that what you believe how you believe, is relevant to peaceful existence. Notwithstanding the religious voices or anti religious voices from the pulpits and the media, America has learned to live and let live.
We don’t care who you vote for, really. None of our business. We want you to be a good neighbor and an honest business person. We want to know that you’ll make sure to keep a watchful eye on your kids and ours, in the neighborhood we live in. We don’t really care how you dress (any more than you care how we dress) and we don’t care what language you speak in your home. We don’t care which newspapers you read or which TV news broadcast you watch. In fact, you are free to change the channel.
Let’s repeat that- you are free to change the channel, read another newspaper or listen to another radio channel.
If you don’t like offensive cartoons (and we don’t blame you!), you are free not to buy that paper or cancel your subscription. You are free to boycott advertisers and write scathing letters to the editor.
You are not free to react violently or to threaten those you disagree with. Western democracies are just that- free societies and we do not operate under the ‘laws of the jungle.’ If we did, we would not take kindly to even the first display of offensive behavior. Your dissent is a right. But it is also a privilege, contained in the same way a painting is contained in a frame. You are free to paint the canvas as you please- as long as you stay within the borders of what is deemed acceptable behavior- that is, behavior that is non violent or destructive.
Just as clearly, we are free to ignore your protests or disagree with your expressions. That is our right- to ignore you- and there is nothing you can do to change that. Your protests are not a mandate of recognition or credibility.
Unfortunately, we live in age where in many ways, the free marketplace of ideas has become a blood sport arena.