[HN Gopher] Partisan attachment: How politics is changing dating...
___________________________________________________________________
Partisan attachment: How politics is changing dating and
relationships (2020)
Author : Tomte
Score : 53 points
Date : 2021-08-31 10:04 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.aei.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.aei.org)
| mothsonasloth wrote:
| My 2 pennies:
|
| Living in a secular society where religion plays a reduced part
| on the individual, compared with 50 years ago.
|
| People now fill the gaps with other banners to fly and
| differentiate themselves with.
| adrianb wrote:
| I agree, religion offers simple ways to classify actions as
| good or bad. Following the church teachings or priest's
| guidance was enough to make an individual confident they are a
| good person, doing good things.
|
| Meanwhile, in real life, everything is complex, few things are
| clearly good or bad, everything has advantages and
| disadvantages. People need a simple compass to distinguish good
| and bad. It seems the "political beliefs" are taking up that
| space in a secular society.
| snarf21 wrote:
| That is the narrative of the religious but most don't go to
| learn about what they are doing wrong. They go to find out
| what _other people_ are doing wrong so they can feel superior
| and rail against the sin of others. Religion has always been
| a weapon, it is just easier to wield now.
| qsort wrote:
| I'm not religious myself, but it _is_ true that if you 're
| going to treat something other than religion as though it
| were a religion, it's almost always going to be much worse.
|
| Most religious prescriptions are either common sense (thou
| shalt not kill, thou shalt not bear false witness) or
| recipes to avoid social chaos (thou shalt not commit
| adultery).
|
| Of course religion has also been wielded as a weapon, and
| I'm the first in line to cherish western secularization,
| but I don't see it as an inherently socially harmful force.
| seneca wrote:
| > That is the narrative of the religious but most don't go
| to learn about what they are doing wrong. They go to find
| out what other people are doing wrong so they can feel
| superior and rail against the sin of others.
|
| And this is the narrative of the Extremely Online Atheist.
| Of the hundreds of religious people I know (though I'm not
| myself), maybe two fit that description. You are noticing
| outliers and assuming they represent the entire group.
| snarf21 wrote:
| No, I grew up going to church three times a week. I
| believe in God but not religion for the reasons
| mentioned. All my family is religious. They post the most
| hateful judgmental things on FB. My one cousin is gay and
| her direct family won't talk to her because she is a
| "sinner". I don't see the so called Christians acting
| like Christ and when they do it is mostly on spreading
| the word. Even the churches and mission that offer free
| food around here do so only with prayers and sermons as
| part of the experience.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| I think it depends on which Church, which cultural
| groups, what generation etc. I know the "judgemental
| Christian" cliche, but I also know it to be very much an
| American WASP (specifically Evangelical, I think?)
| stereotype.
| snarf21 wrote:
| To be fair, I know nothing about Christianity outside of
| the US. Just speaking of those I've interacted with. I'm
| not sure it is only Evangelicals. Catholics won't even
| let other Christians take communion. You may say that is
| theological but it seems pretty judgmental to me, "you
| are a _real_ Christian unless you are an RC ". I won't
| get into the other institutionalized atrocities wrought
| at the hands of the RC church.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| Catholic Church in Poland does not differ much.
| ShrigmaMale wrote:
| Christianity is pretty clear on pulling out the log in
| one's own eye. Since everybody alive is imperfect we
| shouldn't spend time criticizing others, beyond something
| like a friend offering advice or parent correcting a child,
| or protecting people from others. It also is clear it is
| not our place to judge others. That is the place of the
| Father (if Jewish) or the Son (if Christian).
| crateless wrote:
| Christianity as practiced is a different matter
| altogether. The ideal fails when it comes into contact
| with intrinsic human motivations such as desire for
| power, status, wealth e.t.c
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Christianity as practiced is a different matter
| altogether. The ideal fails when it comes into contact
| with intrinsic human motivations such as desire for
| power, status, wealth e.t.c
|
| No one (sensible) said following it was easy.
| tenpies wrote:
| > I agree, religion offers simple ways to classify actions as
| good or bad. Following the church teachings or priest's
| guidance was enough to make an individual confident they are
| a good person, doing good things.
|
| The unfortunate thing is that this sums up the current state
| of religious education because we've had a generation that
| was poorly taught, who then taught the next generation. Now
| the generation we are raising is not even being taught -
| which might actually be a good thing since those that are
| interested will seek that knowledge for themselves instead of
| being turned off by poor educators.
|
| But for Catholic moral theology for example, it's generally
| quite complex and exceedingly individual for all but the most
| black and white situations. What is a sin for me, may not be
| for you. "Sin" is also in itself a catchall for a whole
| subset of types of sin - and they're almost all relative to
| the individual because it will depend on the extent of your
| free choice, your understanding, and the gravity of the
| situation. People think it's the 10 Commandments, but that's
| really just the one thing someone who was poorly educated
| would remember.
|
| And it's quite tragic because it's actually a whole journey
| that begins with natural law. Then slowly, over generations,
| you get small revelations of what God's moral teaching is
| until you reach a big moment with the revelation of Mosaic
| law (part of which are the 10 Commandments). Then generations
| later, you have Jesus drop by and quite literally say that
| because you were too hard of heart, that was the law revealed
| to you, but that now you are ready for a higher moral
| standard.
|
| Even if one has no interest in Catholicism, it's fascinating
| to watch from the perspective of the evolution of a moral
| code over generations.
|
| And then you have to consider that Catholic moral theology is
| just the foundation for Catholic social teaching, which is
| exactly what is taught to deal with the everyday complex
| issues where it may not even be a question of "is this a
| sin?", but rather, "how should I act?".
| akomtu wrote:
| With a bit more discovery, the Catholic church apoears as
| the probably biggest corporation today with its
| unscrupulous desire for power. There are all sorts of
| people and stuff going on in that organisation: from
| literal saints (in the past) to rather evil types, from
| lithurgy to ceremonial magic and dark rituals. But the
| church is adept at making the illusion of united front. Its
| biggest secret is perhaps the history it had erased but had
| kept records of. So I wouldnt take its moral code any more
| seriously than a corporate policy. The only thing of value
| in that code is the basic rules like "do to others what you
| would do to yourself", but these rules werent invented by
| the church.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| This would be more convincing if Catholics - actually
| religious people in general - were known for exemplary
| morals.
|
| That's very much not the case.
|
| Religion is demonstrably _useless_ when it comes to
| practical morality, because it 's not in any sense a
| coherent and stable moral system.
|
| It's really about crafting individual and tribal
| justifications for arbitrary behaviours supported by
| various power hierarchies. Some may be considered moral,
| while others are clearly damaging, hateful, and abhorrent.
|
| It's impossible to deny this without denying centuries of
| religious history.
|
| There's far more of value in psychological research than
| there is any religious teaching. Even though it's just
| getting started, it's a far more coherent body of knowledge
| than the random mess of conflicting and contradictory
| opinions and justifications that the religious industries
| have generated.
| logicchains wrote:
| > This would be more convincing if Catholics - actually
| religious people in general - were known for exemplary
| morals.
|
| I'm not sure how you'd propose to measure that, but in
| terms of charitable giving at least religious people have
| been found to give significantly more: https://www.washin
| gtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/religious-p...
| klyrs wrote:
| Okay now look at the statistics on rape of children and
| how the church protects those rapists. Does that square
| with "think of the children?" A dude with "free candy"
| painted on his panel van ticks the "charitable giving"
| box, right?
| motioncuty wrote:
| Are they banners or core values and beliefs about the world.
| Values are pretty important things to align with.
| fidesomnes wrote:
| I just met a woman who is convinced about the original sin of
| America and everyone in it. This is a mind boggling corrosive
| influence on young women that should be eradicated like a
| disease instead of a cure.
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| This doesn't make much sense. Especially since 50 years ago,
| your race mattered infinitely more than whatever religion or
| denomination you belonged to.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| There was a lot of all-white communities in the USA back
| then, though. In those, people would search for other ways to
| think less of their neighbors.
|
| AFAIK Kennedy as the first Catholic president was considered
| somewhat of an outsider.
| [deleted]
| rejectedandsad wrote:
| I think I recall your name from Reddit.
|
| But while race definitely mattered (and more), religion
| mattered in-race as well. Same thing for casteism in India.
| Religion matters, but so does caste even within Hinduism.
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| In the white community, I think race matters more
| Protestant vs. Catholic, especially during the 1920s-1950s
| (When Kennedy was elected, folks would say "Put your hope
| in the Pope" because he was Catholic). While in the black
| community, we simply don't have that much of a Catholic or
| Muslim population for such in-group conflicts.
|
| Yes, I'm the same low-agreeableness person from Reddit.
| woodruffw wrote:
| Without taking on the challenge of falsifying your claim (I
| think it'd be pretty hard), I see things a little differently.
|
| A key moment in the development of the current conservative
| mindset was Goldwater's 1964 campaign, nearly 60 years ago by
| now. Goldwater (and every Republican who succeeded him) has
| used the same rhetorical lynchpins: the media cannot be
| trusted, it's the coastal elites against the heartland, &c. An
| entire generation of conservatives grew up with Goldwater
| conservativism as their frame of reference, and cheered when
| the FCC's Fairness Doctrine was undone. The last 30 or so years
| of American conservative politics are on a relatively straight
| track from there: radio politics, the Contract With America, an
| increasing dependency on evangelical voters and a corresponding
| shift towards their social issues, &c.
|
| But note: this _started_ when religion was a much larger part
| of American life. So, at least to my mind, America's
| (relatively modest) secular shift is not the primary mover
| here.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| I can see no reason aside from lazy malevolence to downvote
| your comment woodruffw.
| woodruffw wrote:
| I appreciate that. It's discouraging, but that's life.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Goldwater himself wasn't a fan of the increasing courting of
| religious folks in the 80s, nor their policies, and leaned
| libertarian as the years passed.
| woodruffw wrote:
| Goldwater himself might not have been a fan of courting the
| religious right, but the conservative tradition that began
| with him certainly does! I didn't mean to rest the blame
| solely on him; only to paint a more varied picture than
| "the decline of religion is to blame."
| nostrademons wrote:
| Also don't forget the role of economic growth & opportunity.
| America is a country where millions of immigrants have put
| aside their cultural differences for the pursuit of money.
|
| Note that in areas where there is still a reasonable chance of
| getting rich - coastal California, for example, or NYC - people
| are _still_ willing to put aside their differences to get rich.
| At least among the people who are actually getting rich.
| Chinatown or the Sunset in SF have all sorts of AAPI hate
| crimes, while 50 miles south in Cupertino, Chinese, Indians,
| and white people work side-by-side in cube farms while enjoying
| their Apple stock.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| We work side by side in downtown SF too.
|
| OK, in side by side video windows for now...
| chitowneats wrote:
| "For now"? Judging by the average comment on this message
| board one gets the impression that working downtown at a
| software job is a thing of the past.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "Note that in areas where there is still a reasonable chance
| of getting rich - coastal California, for example, or NYC..."
|
| Where are these opportunities? Do people actually think they
| can get rich and then achieve it in any meaningful numbers?
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >Where are these opportunities
|
| If the stats on where most immigrants from foreign
| countries wind up residing are any indication, not in
| coastal California or NYC.
|
| The people who move to SV or NYC to get rich on tech or
| finance are generally Americans born to parents who are
| college educated or credentialed professionals, and you can
| see this in the demographics of the companies where these
| people are working and getting rich.
| nostrademons wrote:
| Silicon Valley tech companies as a whole are 71% foreign-
| born [1]. Cupertino itself is 57.4% foreign-born [2].
| I've been on teams at Google where I was the only U.S.
| citizen, out of 10 (the others were from Iceland, the UK,
| Vietnam, Taiwan, 2 India, and 3 China). Canada is another
| big contributor as well - out of my immediate
| neighborhood of ~60 coworkers, 5 were Canadian.
|
| The largest groups within SV tech are actually green-card
| holders or naturalized citizens. H-1Bs are only about 8%,
| U.S. citizens about 20-50% depending on company.
|
| [1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/17/h-1b-foreign-
| citizens...
|
| [2] https://datausa.io/profile/geo/cupertino-ca/
| giantg2 wrote:
| I was on a team on the east coast (finance arena) that
| was similar. I think a couple were US citizens, but I was
| the only US born person on the team. I was also the only
| white person on the team.
| nradov wrote:
| Economic mobility is highest in the Mountain West region, not
| coastal California or NYC.
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/income-inequality-upward-
| mob...
| hollerith wrote:
| Economic mobility is not the be-all and end-all of
| statistics: in particular, if everyone's income exactly
| doubles (and prices stay the same), then during that
| interval (the doubling) there was zero economic mobility.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| That has nothing to do with the policies of the region, and
| everything to do with the volume of taxing oil operations
| work that requires limited/no education and can pay 6
| figures.
| abecedarius wrote:
| That largely comes down to out-of-control housing cost,
| which does owe to policy. Can't move up if you can't move
| in to where the economic growth is.
| barbacoa wrote:
| One of the motivation behind NIMBY is to maintain high
| property values and most of all keep out multi family
| housing in order to price out the lower classes. This
| results in huge differences in k-12 educational quality
| and thus opportunity, due to school zoning.
| nradov wrote:
| You're mischaracterizing typical NIMBY motivations. When
| I talk to those people they are mostly long term
| residents who are more concerned with quality of life
| issues like noise and traffic. They don't care as much
| about property values because they aren't planning to
| sell; they expect to die in their current homes. And they
| oppose new development even in cases where it would
| increase their own property values.
| staysafeanon wrote:
| "Where Christianity has left a moral and religious vacuum in
| the wake of its collapse, we are now seeing the construction of
| a new social and moral orthodoxy to fill this void -- in short,
| a new religion.
|
| It's not hard to see why: religious orthodoxy brings with it
| the highly intoxicating and addictive frameworks of
| unambiguously delineated good and evil, right and wrong, us
| versus them, and the equally addictive sense of moral
| righteousness that follows from it. In short, many people have
| a psychological dependence on religion; they need such a
| thing."[0]
|
| [0] The Rise of Newchurch
| (https://www.devever.net/~hl/newchurch)
| irjustin wrote:
| This was me circa 2012-2013. I hadn't realized it yet, but was
| quite liberal minded compared to my fellow church mates.
|
| I tried talking to someone who is rather politically conservative
| (she eventually ran for office). In our conversations, I just
| kept finding myself thinking... that's not how I view that... at
| all.
|
| Nothing became of the relationship, but doubt it would have
| maintained anyway.
|
| For me, it was the first time trying to date across the isle with
| someone who was politically aware and was very eye opening.
| peterburkimsher wrote:
| It's good to have a variety of friends from different
| perspectives, so that the peer pressure can balance a little. I
| agree that for relationship commitments, it's often a more
| enjoyable to find someone with compatible views rather than
| just what one community expects from you. In my case, I decided
| it would be a good learning experience to date a non-Christian
| whose world view and travel experience is more suitable for
| mine. I thought it would be a good learning experience, and it
| is! I didn't expect we'd still be together 4.5 years later, but
| I'd rather stay long-distance with her than be with anyone
| else, or single again. Every day my mind wonders why we're
| still together, and every night we chat online and my heart
| falls madly in love with her all over again.
|
| Side note for church, specifically: my favourite church is
| where the sermon is convicting and the people are encouraging.
| My least favourite church is where the sermon is encouraging
| and the people are convicting.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| Most of those numbers don't seem particularly high.
|
| The only one I thought was really surprising was: "A majority (59
| percent) of Americans say that whether the person shares their
| views on having children is one of the most important or a very
| important consideration.", and that only because 59% seemed low.
| pessimizer wrote:
| This would be a good thing if it were true. Politics is not a
| product where your choice of whether to consume the red, blue, or
| green thing is an irrelevant expression of your personality or
| style. It's always life or death, and that fact is disguised when
| it doesn't mean _your_ life or death.
|
| This survey is also corrupted by self-reporting. People like to
| pretend that they're more tolerant than they are (especially when
| they don't have a comfortable or civil argument for their
| intolerance.) In fact, I bet if you followed up with a bit of a
| Keynesian beauty contest, you'd find that they report that the
| tribe that they belong to is far more tolerant than the enemy
| tribe.
|
| And for a fact pulled out of my ass, I bet if you checked the
| proportion of people who married outside of their race or
| religion 50 years ago, it would be <1% (at least for people who
| claimed a race or religion.) If you checked now, the numbers
| would be 4-6% IIRC. That's an improvement. You might find a
| higher percentage of mixed Democrat/Republican relationships 50
| years ago (maybe), but if that number has dropped, that's also an
| improvement. Material differences in opinions about how the world
| should be run and people should behave _should_ at least be more
| significant than race or (the mystical aspects, not the moral
| codes of) religion. It means that society is becoming more
| supportive of people trying to escape their tribal affiliations.
| 80 years ago, in the US, there were laws actively preventing
| this.
| draw_down wrote:
| In America, politics is indeed a middle class-dominated area
| where people choose their product. When matters do come down to
| life and death, such as in wars, the two teams do not proceed
| materially differently. There is a reason we had 20 years of
| war in Afghanistan for example, and it ain't because only one
| of the teams kept it going.
|
| I agree on your point about people's view of their own
| tolerance.
| reccanti wrote:
| People on this site like to mindlessly parrot the "we've become
| too partisan and divided these days" narrative, but what are
| they actually proposing?
|
| Oh wait...
|
| https://twitter.com/rottenindenmark/status/14326439023229255...
| specialist wrote:
| Hobbs is a gem. I _just_ listened to the episodes on
| Political Correctness (#123) and Cancel Culture (#125). So
| good.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You're_Wrong_About
|
| FWIW, my SO voted for Trump. We just don't talk about
| politics, and somehow manage to make it work.
| reccanti wrote:
| Those episodes were fantastic. It really shows how
| commentators latch on to the optics of the situation rather
| than the actual substance of what's trying to be addressed.
|
| "We agree date rape is bad, but someone threw together a
| kinda-cringy powerpoint when trying to address it, so I
| guess we should do nothing"
| jasonladuke0311 wrote:
| Not picking on you, but...for how little sense this makes to
| me, it's practically an inside joke.
|
| Between not having any idea who the participants are, and the
| horrid experience of reading Twitter (I presume the intended
| reading order is quoted tweet > tweet > text in picture?), I
| have absolutely no idea what the fuck is going on. Nor can I
| be bothered to care for something so irrelevant.
|
| Twitter "discourse" is like a virus, infecting everything it
| touches.
| ecshafer wrote:
| The quoted tweet is... kind of stupid.
|
| I assume the op must just be a fan of this particularly
| person and thinks its related. It basically is an inside
| joke.
| reccanti wrote:
| Twitter can be hard to parse, but it's not impossible to
| understand. If you're having trouble understanding it, you
| could ask or just not comment? This feels like the
| equivalent of replying to an argument with "you're"
| shkkmo wrote:
| That is an offensive, inaccurate and entirely unproductive
| comment.
|
| We are proposing a wide range of changes that would break or
| weaken the hold of the two party system in America. Our
| political system of pure winner takes all regional
| representation in partisanly gerrymandered districts strongly
| encourages negative partisanship and decreases the actual
| voice that voters have in how their country is run.
| reccanti wrote:
| You can do that and also not date people who are against
| LGBT rights?
| specialist wrote:
| Sure, if you think that'll help. Or what you must do for
| your own sanity. I get it. I have friends who are in very
| tough spots who have had to make hard choices. I can't
| and won't judge any one else's life choices. We're all a
| little bit confused, exhausted, anxious, and maybe even a
| bit insane. And just trying to do the best we can. Even
| my crazy uncle who forwards me emails about liberals like
| me destroying real America.
|
| Honestly, the 2016 presidential broke me. Then around
| 2018 I decided my relationships were more important than
| being right. For instance, it was our turn to do
| eldercare (and other family emergencies), so I had to
| cooperate with my family. Because that's what's best for
| our mom. I definitely iced out the more toxic individuals
| (eg "Obama's a Muslim!") who just wanted to fight.
|
| Ask me again in 10 years, after our mom's passed, if I
| made the right choice.
| leetcrew wrote:
| I disagree. I mean sure, it's a good thing (if true) that race
| is less significant than politics in choosing a partner, but
| why should we have to pick one?
|
| unless you're part of a very select group of activists,
| politicians, or wealthy donors, your impact on world issues is
| pretty much negligible. the political opinions of the average
| person are much less significant than they might think. but
| what we can do is have a strong impact on the people who are
| actually in our lives, and that has very little to do with
| politics.
|
| if I change my political positions to please a potential
| partner, that doesn't really change the big picture. if I
| refuse to date someone because of their political views, I
| again have not moved the needle at scale, but I have closed the
| door on a potentially happy partnership.
|
| my parents have had a long and happy marriage despite deep
| disagreements over political issues. the disagreement is so
| strong that they had to agree years ago to simply not have
| those discussions. I guess that's not exactly the model of
| tolerance, but I am glad they found a way around that. if they
| hadn't, either my family would have been ripped in half, or I
| wouldn't have been born at all. and the rest of the world would
| be the same as it is today.
| reccanti wrote:
| BRB changing my gender back so I can date a transphobe. Glad
| I changed my political position!
| leetcrew wrote:
| okay, that's a good counterexample. I wouldn't expect you
| to be able to have a good relationship with someone who
| doesn't agree you should exist and/or your gender identity
| is real.
|
| but take gun control for example, which seems to be pretty
| high on the list. does it really matter whether a potential
| partner is for/against gun control? one person's opinion is
| not going to change the law of the land. I'd think it would
| only matter whether you could come to an agreement on
| whether there would be guns in the home you share.
| reccanti wrote:
| I think the problem is that we lump all these things
| together as "politics." This way, it's easy to bring up
| the specter of "we're too partisan these days," but if
| you look at the individual issues, it's a lot more
| rational.
|
| * If you're a woman who's pro-choice, would you want to
| date someone who might try and stop you from getting an
| abortion? * If you have LGBT friends or family, would you
| want to date someone who might be a jerk to them? * If
| you, a family member, or a friend is an immigrant, would
| you want to date someone who might try to deport them?
|
| In the past, I think a lot of people didn't interact with
| people who weren't like them, so it was easier to put
| aside these differences. Being exposed to more diversity
| makes ignoring these things less of a possiblity.
| klyrs wrote:
| > I'd think it would only matter whether you could come
| to an agreement on whether there would be guns in the
| home you share.
|
| That does sound like a dealbreaker to me. A gun collector
| isn't going to marry somebody who won't tolerate guns in
| the house, right?
| leetcrew wrote:
| you can be against gun control without collecting guns.
| there are also gun collectors who are somewhat in favor
| of gun control (eg, "fudds").
|
| my point is that many (maybe most?) political positions
| have very little to do with how people actually live
| their day-to-day and treat others in their life.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| You are too pessimistic. Inter-racial marriage alone in the US
| went from ~3% in the 1960s to ~17% as of 2015 (Pew Research).
| In some regions of the US, such as the West, it is approaching
| 25% of all new marriages.
|
| That is pretty well-mixed considering many people live in
| locales with few opportunities to date outside their race.
| reccanti wrote:
| These all seem like things that should be dealbreakers
| tristor wrote:
| Counter-intuitively, my parents have stayed happily married for a
| very long time and my dad is significantly more conservative than
| my mom (although my mom has become more "conservative" in the
| current decade in reaction to how extreme rhetoric on the left
| has become in the US). I am about to propose to my long-time
| partner who is significantly more to the left than I am (we are
| both to the left, I'm barely left of center, my partner is barely
| to the right of the the edge of the chart).
|
| There used to be the phrase "opposites attract". I think there
| are value systems which underlie politics that need to match up,
| but those value systems don't necessarily translate into the
| exact same political beliefs. In fact, in the US historically,
| men tended to be more conservative and women more progressive,
| and I don't see that really changing in the current times. Most
| of my male friends are more conservative than their partners,
| even as most of us are left of center. This is true, anecdotally,
| among the people I know across educational attainment and income.
|
| On the flip side, when I was still dating, I always brought up
| politics and religion on the first date because it helped me
| filter people out. I didn't filter people out because we
| disagreed politically, but because of /how/ we disagreed (or
| rather how /they/ disagreed) politically. It was surprising the
| number of people who were exceedingly disagreeable about
| politics, completely unable to have a polite conversation on the
| topic, where any hint of dissent from their view was met with
| vehemence, even in person in a face-to-face conversation. My
| experience up to that point was this was how things worked
| online, but you could have a conversation with someone very
| different from you over a beer and it'd be alright face-to-face.
| Dating changed my outlook on this.
|
| I think this was a good filter, because while politics was the
| topic of discussion, the filter had nothing to do with beliefs
| and everything to do with agreeableness, reasonableness, and
| behavior. In effect, it became a very good way to filter out
| assholes, of which there are many, unfortunately the majority of
| eligible persons in my dating pool. But, no regrets on this
| filter, because my current partner is wonderful and was found
| after many years of searching using this filter.
|
| My parents relationship, the relationships of my friends (most of
| whom are married), and my own relationship are all anecdotal, but
| strong evidence that supports you don't need to politically agree
| to date successfully and have a long-term relationship or
| marriage. But it does require the two people involved to not be
| vehement zealots who dehumanize anyone that disagrees with them,
| which unfortunately is becoming a rarer situation thanks to the
| extremist echo chambers we've created online.
| bboylen wrote:
| Yes this is very true
|
| As long as both people are open minded and try to assume
| positive intention (unless proved otherwise) I think
| differences are just fine.
|
| I don't think I could date someone who could only accept the
| party line, whether D or R. It astonishes me the arrogance of
| people who think they have the world completely figured out and
| know the best solution for everything.
| neverywhere wrote:
| Conservatives currently out reproduce liberals for whatever
| reason, for example:
|
| https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-conservative-fertility-advant...
|
| I wonder if it is purely cultural or is there a genetic
| component? If there is low fertility because of a genetic
| component, that is likely going to targeted hard by evolution
| now.
|
| (Will evolution select against women getting higher education
| like Masters or PhD? Because that is one of the biggest
| predictors of reduced fertility.)
|
| What does this mean for liberal views? Are they destined to
| become more conservative over time if there is a genetic
| component which is being selected against?
|
| So interesting. I wish we could track genetic changes along with
| political changes over time. I bet there is more happening there
| than we think.
|
| EDIT: Here is a large meta analysis paper that seems to indicate
| that genetics influences political ideology:
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038932/pdf/nih...
| woodruffw wrote:
| We cannot afford a mine shaft gap!
|
| But more seriously: the furthest left people I know are the
| ones who grew up around conservatives, particularly in
| privation (usually one of the strongest signals for high birth
| rates). These things have a tendency to balance each other by
| nurture; assuming that people are _genetically_ predestined to
| be conservative (or liberal) is both silly and incompatible
| with our observed history as communal animals.
| neverywhere wrote:
| > assuming that people are genetically predestined to be
| conservative (or liberal) is both silly and incompatible
|
| But there is evidence of that. I linked to some of these
| papers in my previous comments.
| woodruffw wrote:
| > But there is evidence of that. I linked to some of these
| papers in my previous comments.
|
| The IFS is not a credible source. Their previous claim to
| fame was publishing bogus research on same-sex parenting,
| presumably because it doesn't align with their values[1].
|
| The other link is a meta-analysis that shows a correlation
| between family political alignments (quelle surprise!). It
| doesn't support the more ridiculous claim that the arc of
| human reproduction bends towards conservativism.
|
| [1]: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Fa
| mily_S...
| everdrive wrote:
| >(Will evolution select against women getting higher education
| like Masters or PhD? Because that is one of the biggest
| predictors of reduced fertility.)
|
| Generally speaking evolution does not work on these time
| scales. Importantly, there is nothing that would make someone
| "genetically liberal" or "genetically conservative." You might
| be able to point to higher order traits which _may_ indicate
| someone being conservative vs. liberal. ie, openness to
| experience, religiosity, etc. But, it 's not clear that these
| traits are static throughout a lifetime. (eg, "openness to
| experience" is generally much higher in the young than the
| old.) Furthermore, the idea of what it means to be "liberal" or
| "conservative" changes over time as well. Someone describing
| themselves as "liberal" in 1950 wouldn't bear much resemblance
| to someone describing themselves as liberal in 2021. According
| to historians, the conservative movement as we understand it
| really only began in the 1950s, and prior to that people would
| not have described themselves as either "liberal or
| conservative." (and in fact, "liberal" was not previously
| synonymous with "left," and therefore many people on the
| "right" would have previously described themselves as liberal.
|
| The point is that political movements have short life spans.
| Perhaps in the tens or hundreds of years, which is not nearly
| enough for evolution to make any meaningful impact.
| kongin wrote:
| >The point is that political movements have short life spans.
| Perhaps in the tens or hundreds of years, which is not nearly
| enough for evolution to make any meaningful impact.
|
| Evolution can work on any time scale, including instantly.
| Look no further than a large asteroid turning into a
| meteorite, it is evolution done in hours, where everything
| larger than a cat dies.
|
| For politics: the Nazi party for example had a definite
| impact on human evolution in Europe as it murdered rather a
| lot of people who were not blond enough or too blond. The
| same way the British Empire had a rather profound impact on
| evolution in the US, Canada and Australia.
| everdrive wrote:
| >Evolution can work on any time scale, including instantly.
| Look no further than a large asteroid turning into a
| meteorite, it is evolution done in hours, where everything
| larger than a cat dies.
|
| A large asteroid will not make me grow a new sensory organ,
| it will simply kill me. Not all genetic changes take an
| equivalent amount of time, or are equally feasible.
|
| - Growing taller or shorter can happen rapidly because
| genes for these traits already exist and must simply be
| selected from the environment.
|
| - Moving away from a bifurcated body plan is probably
| impossible, as it is too fundamental to many other systems
| in the body.
|
| Obviously there's a wide area in between those two
| examples, but we're discussing whether or not certain
| traits that people have are 1) genetic in origin, and 2)
| liable to drift much over time.
|
| Given that religion has been a constant for all known human
| history (and pre-history, depending on how you interpret
| artifacts) I would suggest that it's likely to be strongly
| wrapped up in the same things which build human psychology
| and human social structure. I want to admit here this is
| just my view on the topic, and I'm not suggesting that this
| established scientific fact. In any case, I'm a firm
| believer in the argument that many who identify as
| "liberal" and definitely-not-Christian nonetheless have
| many beliefs which could otherwise be categorized as
| religious. I want to make it clear I'm not attacking or
| praising these beliefs, but simply suggesting that parts of
| the mind which lead people toward religion are a bit more
| fundamental to humanity, and are not something such as hair
| color which can be easily or capriciously changed.
| nradov wrote:
| Actually there do appear to be some genes that tend to make
| people liberal or conservative. (Obviously genes aren't the
| only factor.)
|
| https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-genes-of-
| left...
| im3w1l wrote:
| Likely the genes don't make you a liberal or conservative
| directly. Rather they do it in an indirect way. For
| instance if someone has a genetic disease that requires
| costly medical care then they will likely vote for
| socialized medical care. And of course having a dark skin
| color will also cause politcal leaning in an indirect way.
| neverywhere wrote:
| Religions have a longer time span and correlate with
| conservatives. Many religions actually shed their members who
| have liberal views. Thus religions tend to conserve
| conservatives leaning individuals.
|
| So if religion was not part of the conservative-liberal
| divide I would buy your argument but it is part of it and it
| is long running.
| everdrive wrote:
| 200 years ago nearly the entire country was Christian, but
| the entire country did not hold the same political beliefs.
| Protestant vs. Catholic may have been a more pressing
| divide back then. And how would your argument fare in say
| ... 2,000-4,000 BC middle east? Each city has its own
| deity, perhaps part of a pantheon, perhaps not? Are the
| followers of Chemosh more or less conservative than the
| followers of Anat? Who are the irreligious liberals in this
| time period?
| nradov wrote:
| I'm pretty sure the followers of Ninkasi (Sumerian
| goddess of beer) knew how to have a good time.
| neverywhere wrote:
| I would argue that time and again liberals have not
| reproduced at the level of conservatives/religious. This
| is why we still have the conservative/religious as the
| backbone of society.
|
| This is why there is probably some genetics underlying
| religious belief:
| https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7147-genes-
| contribute...
|
| It may also explain why so many people are illogical
| about things like Covid in religious/conservative
| circles. They have genetics that incline them towards
| illogical religious beliefs in part because it allows
| them to ensure they reproduce the next generation, and
| some of the downsides of this illogical religious
| inclination is that they believe crap about things and
| are impervious to evidence to the contrary -- e.g. faith.
| everdrive wrote:
| I'd absolutely agree that there is likely a genetic
| component underlying propensity for religious belief. But
| "atheist" is not synonymous with "liberal," I suppose
| that's the crux of what I'm saying.
| kaesar14 wrote:
| Conservatives live in less expensive areas and often have less
| wealth, two things that often drive reproduction rates up
| higher. I feel comfortable Occam's Razoring that up as the
| explanation
| knubie wrote:
| Conservative parents don't necessarily produce conservative
| children.
| neverywhere wrote:
| But papers do indicate that there is a genetic component to
| political ideology: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles
| /PMC4038932/pdf/nih...
|
| Your argument is akin to a global warming denier saying that
| yeah, but some days are still cold. Yes, there will always be
| variation.
| knubie wrote:
| That's not really analogous. I'm just pointing out that
| there is an underlying assumption in your argument that may
| or may not be true.
| gbrown wrote:
| X -> doubt
|
| Education is correlated with both low birth rates and liberal
| political views, and culture surrounding politics and
| reproduction changes a lot faster than population genetics.
| seph-reed wrote:
| I think the people this effects the worst are those who don't
| subscribe to either party, or the idea of a "one-dimensional
| political spectrum" in general. The dominating political "sides"
| are full on ideologies at this point, and if you don't worship
| their sacred cow: you could only ever be the other side in their
| eyes.
|
| So the price for not falling into the two-party trap is that you
| have to just keep your mouth shut in all situations, lest you be
| ousted.
|
| Anecdote: all of my friends who very much aren't falling for this
| two-party nonsense have had a common experience of being called
| Trumpers, Leftists, Anti-fa, Rednecks, and every other slur one
| side throws at the other. I'm not sure if it's a real litmus test
| or not, but I start to worry now when I've been getting too much
| of one and not enough of the other.
| einpoklum wrote:
| The American Enterprise Institute? That's the pro-corporate think
| tank which, among other highlights, has been involved in trying
| to deny climate change, including by paying scientists travel
| stipends to attend anti-IPCC events.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| I agree, but this article is fairly dry. Conservatives today
| see anything that shuts them out of any process as alarming
| because they are traditionally the ones who have held the
| reins, and I suspect this is why it's an AEI article.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| I've been thinking for a while this is really a form of
| speciation. Conservatives and progressives literally have
| different brain structures [1] as well as different world views
| and different psychological triggers.
|
| When those differences lead to extreme aversion, they're going to
| be enhanced by evolution.
|
| I'm not sure I want to speculate what the long-term result is
| likely to be.
|
| [1]https://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.neu..
| .
| jti107 wrote:
| it doesn't just affect the two people dating, it makes things
| awkward for everyone else.
|
| my brother is dating a hardcore Trump supporter and its just
| super awkward during the holidays. i am cordial and respectful
| but it sucks feeling like you are walking on eggshells.
| rmellow wrote:
| The operative keyword there is "hardcore", and it applies for
| either political direction:
|
| I guarantee lots of conservatives also walk on eggshells around
| hardcore leftists for the sake of cordiality, just as cordial
| lefts walk around eggshells near radical conservatives.
|
| Naturally, cordial people's politics are harder to tell,
| especially near a radical.
| [deleted]
| ecshafer wrote:
| Why would it be awkward? I am often in very mixed political
| company, and never share the politics of people I am around. It
| isn't awkward at all. Either, don't talk about politics. Or
| just have fun debates, assuming they are able to hold those
| debates. If you can't talk with people that disagree with you,
| that's an issue.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| I've known a number of folks who were mistreated by people who
| bore strong resemblance to Trump's personality - Trump was an
| ongoing trigger for them.
|
| Dating someone who embraced Trump's personality - that would seem
| to be a terrible experience for those folks.
| giantg2 wrote:
| This isn't surprising. People want to build a life with someone
| who shares their values.
| Claudus wrote:
| My perception of the mindset of the typical liberal in the past
| was that it was more about making change for the benefit of
| everyone in the country (don't worry conservatives , this will
| work out for the best). Now it is more about making change that
| benefits some at the expense of others (screw you conservatives).
| In order to push political agendas like this, political
| opposition needs to be more negatively portrayed and demonized.
| My perception of conservatives is that they are trending in this
| direction too, and the result is more fracturing of our
| societies.
| jdsleppy wrote:
| The big ticket, agreed upon progressive priorities are still
| for the benefit of all: Green New Deal, Medicare for all,
| accessible higher education. I find it more difficult to find
| policies for the common good coming from conservatives these
| days. Does anyone have examples?
| fidesomnes wrote:
| Mandatory sex change for all white males would be good too.
| edgyquant wrote:
| The reason you don't know any is because
|
| >policies for the common good coming
|
| Is a political thing. You disagree with the average
| conservative on what constitutes policies for the common
| good.
| larksimian wrote:
| 'Liberal' and 'conservative' are just labels that no longer
| describe the same ideologies as in the past.
|
| 19th C liberals were sort of like modern day libertarians, but
| in the context of the European monarchies at the time which
| were explicitly oppressive.
|
| 20th century progressives with their universal social programs
| were social democrats.
|
| Modern day liberals are split between 'centrist' neo-liberals
| and more hardcore leftists.
|
| The neo-libs are basically still trying to promote universalish
| improvement, but are not willing to tax their corporate donors
| to do it. So all they're left with is culture war posturing and
| legislation, since that's fiscally free.
|
| The more hardcore leftists, in America, seem to heavily skew
| towards helping particular disadvantaged groups, as opposed to
| the universalizing efforts of early 20th C socialists(be it
| racial or sexual minorities or whatever). And some of these
| groups care more about equality than they do absolute
| improvement for everyone.
|
| As for conservatives, modern day American conservatism is HARD
| reactionary and in no way conservative. The social programs
| they are trying to privatize and dismantle have existed for
| 60-80 years. The conservative position would be to preserve
| things like Social Security and Medicare. If anything the most
| conservative force, when it comes to the role of government, in
| American politics right now are the Centrist Democrats, since
| they're the party of small tweaks.
| andrew_ wrote:
| It's curious that you see a spectrum in the left, but not in
| the right. That might suggest bias, but I'd like to give you
| the benefit of doubt. There is no universal conservative
| position, nor are all conservatives reactionary. Just as
| those far to the left have strayed from classical liberalism,
| those far to the right have strayed from classical
| conservatism. With the rampant labeling and tribalism so
| popular these days, many of us just don't know what political
| camp we fit into anymore.
|
| _Update: If you 're downvoting, please do share why, or
| share a critique or rebuttal. I'd genuinely like to read some
| opposing opinions. I had thought that was a fair reply to the
| parent as the political spectrum in U.S. politics has been
| rather well-documented as diverse both to the left and to the
| right. _
| larksimian wrote:
| > That might suggest bias, but I'd like to give you the
| benefit of doubt.
|
| No need to doubt: I have a more nuanced view of left
| politics because I'm left biased and spend more time
| consuming left content and commentary. This is a politics
| post. Everyone is biased. Politics is the mind killer and
| all that. This includes self-described apolitical, can't we
| all just get along CNN types; they're probably status quo
| biased and 'biased' against the active
| reactionary/revolutionary branches of the parties.
|
| > stray from classical
|
| This is really complicated. They now have different policy
| objectives, but perhaps the same sentiments? I doubt I have
| it clear enough in my head to explain my view on this,
| sadly... OK.
|
| The leftist ideals have tended to be to maximize negative
| and (once you add in socialist views) maximize positive
| liberty for as many people as possible. Don't restrict
| people from doing what they want and make sure as many
| people have the means to do what they want as possible.
| Libertarianism on social issues and at least redistributive
| social democracy on economic issues.
|
| The right wing ideal, in my understanding, is that people
| often times want stupid shit and we shouldn't let them do
| it. Also evening out social outcomes is a bad idea since it
| reduces the incentive to work hard in everyone and
| impoverishes us all as a result. Also why shouldn't the
| best players of the social game have more power than the
| worst? So a mix of Burkean cautious respect for tradition
| and 'competition breeds excellence'.
|
| I don't think the factions have 'strayed' from these ideals
| that much, but the translation of those ideals into policy
| positions has changed massively over time.
|
| Anyway, the right-wing camps, in my outsider view.
|
| Corporatist centrists: similar to the democratic centrists
| but with reversed culture wars allegiance and more tax-
| cutty.
|
| Religious conservatives: culture war reactionaries,
| obviously. And I don't think just because they're losing
| ground in recent times. I'm sure there was opposition to
| liberal divorce laws and whatnot back in the whenever too.
|
| Neo-cons: Republican trotskyists(lol https://old.reddit.com
| /r/askphilosophy/comments/32f1df/is_th...). There are
| horrible regimes in the world, and America should replace
| them with more America. Unrelated, they invest their life
| savings into military contractor and adjacent corporations.
| See also responsibility to protect, Rwanda etc. It honestly
| sounds like such a good idea in theory("Check this out: we
| go to Afghanistan, we give them freedom and in 20 years
| time bam it's Minnesota in Central Asia!"), but it always
| goes so horribly bad in practice.
|
| Libertarians: way more politicians claim to be that than
| actually live it tho, much more focused on economic aspect
| than social aspect. Some cynical corporatists hide under
| this label. I think casual libertarianish attitude
| describes a ton of the voters: don't increase my taxes,
| don't make me do anything I'm not already doing, don't make
| me think about the government just do your job behind the
| scenes.
|
| Alt-right: culture war reactionaries? Straight up
| monarchist reactionary trolls? This is one of those labels
| that just gets painted pretty liberally, so I'm really not
| sure what a quick summary of it is. Trumpists?
|
| Populist types: supposedly meh on the culture war and
| economically left-wing, sort of inspired by European
| Christian Democrat type parties. Hard to really say how
| much they disdain the culture war since american media is
| very culture war biased. Which is understandable since
| clearly everyone would find economic policy conversations
| boring(wink wink nudge nudge keep arguing amongst
| yourselves about pronouns and taboo words, dear proles!).
| andrew_ wrote:
| Thanks for elaborating, really enjoyed that read. The
| Libertarian and Populist takes are particularly
| interesting.
| [deleted]
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| I'm always a bit entertained by people who claim they want
| to express a non-biased view of partisan dynamics, and then
| proceed to express something that is a perfect
| representation of the fundamental attribution error.
|
| Personally I think the primary contention that exists
| between the dogma of the left and the right is just the
| contention between collectivism and individualism. But
| outliers aside, I don't think you end up with substantially
| different policies from one side or the other, regardless
| of the contrast in the dogma. I don't think members of
| either tribe are substantially different in their
| dogmatism, reactionism... or in their proclivity to deeply
| reflect on the views they hold. For any person who finds
| themselves substantially aligned with a mainstream
| political ideology, I think the chance that they've put a
| substantial amount of critical thought into their world
| view is very close to 0.
| andrew_ wrote:
| > is just the contention between collectivism and
| individualism
|
| Yes.
|
| > I'm always a bit entertained by people who claim they
| want to express a non-biased view of partisan dynamics,
| and then proceed to express something that is a perfect
| representation of the fundamental attribution error.
|
| Were you commenting on the parent to my reply, or to my
| reply specifically? Genuine curiosity.
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| Sorry for not being clear, I think the error is in the
| comment above yours. I think your comment is very level
| headed.
| larksimian wrote:
| I guess you got downvoted for both-sidesing it(Upvoted,
| btw :D)? I mean both parties do quite suck, even though I
| still think the GOP is actively harmful, while the
| Democratic party has good ideas that it fails to build
| on.
|
| The actual party policies only really diverge on social
| issues. Economic policy consensus has been corporatist
| since the Reagan years. The main difference is the
| democrats are willing to blast out the occasional one-off
| stimulus and the GOP is also willing to do that but a
| smaller one-off stimulus.
|
| I don't really see collectivism vs individualism as a
| left-right split. The religious conservative wing of the
| right is culturally collectivist, the catholic
| conservatives are also pretty economically collectivist.
| The liberal mainstream is highly culturally
| individualistic(well... within the boundaries of
| acceptable lib behavior). The left can be almost
| culturally atomistic, if you go into the disown your
| racist/homophobic relatives areas of the ideology.
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| I made the distinction between dogma and policy because I
| don't think the two are very strongly connected. I think
| there are localised outliers like California and Texas,
| where the ideological differences are more effectively
| implemented in policy and legislation. But generally
| speaking, I don't think you get a substantially different
| government when one party is elected over the other. The
| dogma however is substantially different. It's just that
| speaking differently doesn't necessarily translate to
| acting differently.
|
| I think the reason I'm downvoted (and that my comments
| would generally meet disapproval in most contexts) is due
| to the nature of tribalist politics. A political
| tribalist believes that we are good and they are bad. If
| our policies fail it's because of reasons other than our
| policies being bad, if their policies fail it's because
| they were intentionally designed to cause harm. They are
| the ones behaving tribalistically, while we are open
| minded and accepting.
|
| A core element of the tribalistic psychology is that you
| and your team aren't the ones perpetuating it. Tribalism
| is bad, and they are the source of it. It is an
| archetypal example of the fundamental attribution error,
| and a tribalistic conservative is just as likely to
| downvote you for suggesting that as a tribalistic liberal
| is.
| rejectedandsad wrote:
| At this point in my life I definitely wouldn't try to date a
| conservative. The cultural gaps between cosmopolitanism and
| (everything else) have become increasingly large, especially for
| a person of color like myself. With that said, nobody's really
| knocking down my door to go out with me either, so I'm mostly
| just a choosing beggar.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-31 23:03 UTC)