We’ve Hit Peak Denial. Here’s Why We Can’t Turn Away From Reality

I don't see a necessary difference. We're ultimately talking about preference. Having more or less bike lanes isn't based on an objective truth (there's no objectively right answer), it's based on preference. Same for the other things. Even if you take something like pollution; while the measurable result may be objectively true, the related impacts on behavior are all preference-based. That is to say "I'm ok with more pollution because I don't want to give up..." vs. "I'd prefer less pollution and I think people should sacrifice..." The concrete things at stake are still driven by preference more than facts.

Nobody pushes for anything that is against their self-interest (where is Burke?). The mere notion of pushing for something IS a reflection of self-interest. It's a mental form of exercise; the work done has realized value, so how can it be considered outside the context of "self-interest?"

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

I think the basic effect of party politics is to discipline people with softly held views on a variety of issues that dont impact them all that much personally, but impact coalition members materially. But ultimately there is a reason those people are in the coalition, in that there are ways where material interests align with party leadership on more firmly held views. Perhaps the jet ski dealership owner doesnt give a shit about climate change and less water makes his business less viable long run, but he probably doesn't want his workforce unionizing and he likes his big truck.

 

Being part of a winning coalition is in someone's material self-interest, because that coalition gets to govern. Its really kind of simple if we are going to stick to our winner take all politics. After every election there are any number of disaffected voters who sort of realize winning isn't necessarily making their material conditions better. All of this seems completely normal to me in terms of cause/effect, and would totally explain why less informed people might go from voting Obama, to Trump to Biden. Maybe even back to Trump? People more invested in politics have probably been better disciplined in the big picture, that's all. Some people will always just kind of align with whoever seems like the apparent winner or the change agent.

 

Another snide, BS comment

 

Lol. Those are weird choices to make your point. Your search history must be a hoot.

But you painted with a very narrow brush saying only EMTs etc contribute to community.

I think most honest ("normal") professions contribute to society. Heck you mentioned fast food, but if that pays someones way through school, then it helps society.

 

I'm just saying you can easily convince me of how someone that takes less money to teach, respond to medical emergencies or be a firefighter is serving their community, because they actually do serve the community vs. just making money and buying things "supporting the community." One involves actual acts of service, the other is just telling me that having a job and using money to buy a hamburger or video game is building a community. I don't think individual consumption is really a 'communal' experience lol. And please don't tell me that getting paid to do someone taxes is an "act of service." It may be useful, but it seems cheap to me to frame it that way. And of course corporations do frame it that way as part of their PR. People want community, so its just another thing corporations try to commodify and cheapen.

 

Communal experience and community benefit arent the same thing though.

I benefit from my SUV being built to properly, but I did not literally experience installing the sunroof or mounting the engine block.

I agree that certain jobs are not mutually experienced in a way that teaching is, but most do have a profound ripple and benefit.

 

Well part of the ripple of working for a corporation is that maybe you use your money to donate to the theater and the guy getting rich from your labor is donating to a politician to defund the public library and the arts because he can buy whatever he wants and doesnt want to pay taxes. Its not even a wash, because the big money is nuking community or making it something people have to buy to have. Perhaps if we lived in some kind of social democracy it would be easier for me to talk me into it, but this aint it.

 

But that identity is based on material interests. Maybe you aren't a CEO yourself, but you imagine yourself being the boss one day, and aligning with their interests is the way to do that. And certainly there are people who risk not being accepted in groups they are part of when they align with political groups. I think people want to wrap a really neat bow around this, when its much more complicated. I'm not sure what is to be gained from this "group loyalty" approach other than coming to the conclusion that politics is largely pointless? If we are just 'tribe' members, lets just all check out, because what's the point of anything?

 

I think this can make sense for the jet ski dealer with climate change, but what about his views on abortion or immigration, which can predict with some confidence from his anti-climate change stance? And what about the right leaning cops and engineers, why should it be in their self interest to be skeptical or climate change? And further, why would it be self interested to accept the particular explanations on this, such as it’s a Chinese hoax?

It seems tough to me to imagine that 10s of millions of people all have the same self interest on dozens of issues but have almost no overlap with the other 10s of millions who have almost perfect overlap amongst themselves among all these issues.

We also have direct evidence of people changing their policy views based on who they understood those views to be shared with. E.g. This study showed the preferences of voters on welfare programs to be stronger for those that come from their preferred party compared to those that align with their ideology. Though of course the participants denied the influence of party ownership.

https://ed.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/party_over_policy.pdf

 

Lets be clear I said "material" interests here, not "self-interest" though obviously there are some overlaps between those things. Men (especially white ones) have more power in the economy, and supporting things that disempower women, minorities, etc. is not counter to their material interests. None of the issues you mentioned are outside of the economic sphere, pretty much every political issue has a material component. There's a reason country club conservatives courted the religious, people who are not inclined to subvert existing social hierarchies, at home or in the work place. Interests aligning!

 

Ok, maybe I am seeing a different angle to your critique here. When I wrote that the influence of social identity “is under-appreciated”, it seems you may have read “is all powerful”. I do agree that we can’t boil everything down to this one element. Certainly, if my social group all believed that my kid should drink cyanide, my narrow self-interest would overcome my desire to remain in good standing with the group. I do believe that social status is an oft-overlooked yet important aspect (in addition to genes, experience, randomness, and self interest) in influencing our political preferences.

 

100 middle class folks giving and 1 gazzionaire taking. I'll take the 100 middle class folks impact all day.

 

I don’t know. If we can argue that the owner of a jet ski dealership can increase his material interests by reducing the national abortion rate, we are using a pretty loose definition of material interests. Not to mention, one would think that less immigration would more likely decrease his material wealth, as it would increase cost of labor. This model seems better suited to explain past behavior than the explain future behavior.

 

You’re actually defending public schools ???