The question still is, why THIS kind of partisanship? The cult isn't primarily made up of what I call simple "legacy Republicanism"--the "good enough for dad good enough for me" syndrome. A lot of those folks are actually dissenting. After all, when a poll says "80% of Republicans believe" something really stupid, there are 20%--the famo…
The question still is, why THIS kind of partisanship? The cult isn't primarily made up of what I call simple "legacy Republicanism"--the "good enough for dad good enough for me" syndrome. A lot of those folks are actually dissenting. After all, when a poll says "80% of Republicans believe" something really stupid, there are 20%--the famous 1 in 5--that don't.
My Facebook group is having an interesting discussion of "operant conditioning"--the power of positive reinforcement. Though this is no longer the be-all and end-all of psychology it was when I was an undergrad, it truly does work. And I suspect that this is as much a secret of the "echo chamber" as any evolutionary bent towards tribalism.
Everyone is subject to this, right or left. Everyone can be swayed by positive reinforcement. But as one watches all those Man in a Diner in Ohio interviews, the difference seems to be that those on the left can articulate what they find attractive in their echo chamber, explain reasons, cite specifics. The right seems more to react with labels, summing everything up with things like "he's a maverick"(true) or "he's a good businessman" (not true). That makes propaganda much more effective on the right, since propaganda pretty much depends on not relying on facts or reasons, and everyone who finds it easy and attractive gets a little thrill of "positivity" every time trump or their echo chamber mates repeats is.
Psychologists way better trained than I will be contemplating this far into whatever future there is.
So, I'm leery of arguments based on some sort of innate psychological difference on the left vs. the right.
Partisanship is a really strong force for everyone; it's the main driver of election choices. That's not a good or bad thing; it's just how it works. Most people don't pay close attention to politics, and tend to make voting choices based on input from leaders and media they trust and with which they identify.
Once Trump became the GOP candidate and then the president, it became extremely difficult for Rs to defy him. Parties are focused on winning; discrediting or abandoning your own candidate is a sure way to lose. There's just huge incentives not to lose. Trump's been good at exploiting that.
I'm not really talking about "innate" differences (like the bit about the size of amygdalas.) It's more how different people react to psychological mechanisms common to us all. And the tendency to rely on labels is actually true of something we don't really pay attention to but have vaguely heard about.
Me and the Superbowl--or any sports--for example. I doubt I can say anything at all intelligent about any sport. So if I read somewhere that such and such a coach is corrupt, I just go "yep, probably" and pass it by without checking the facts.
So I think that consideration of how labels are used actually fits your analysis of most people not paying attention to politics. The problem is where the label comes from. Propaganda in in the business of making people think in terms of labels.
The question still is, why THIS kind of partisanship? The cult isn't primarily made up of what I call simple "legacy Republicanism"--the "good enough for dad good enough for me" syndrome. A lot of those folks are actually dissenting. After all, when a poll says "80% of Republicans believe" something really stupid, there are 20%--the famous 1 in 5--that don't.
My Facebook group is having an interesting discussion of "operant conditioning"--the power of positive reinforcement. Though this is no longer the be-all and end-all of psychology it was when I was an undergrad, it truly does work. And I suspect that this is as much a secret of the "echo chamber" as any evolutionary bent towards tribalism.
Everyone is subject to this, right or left. Everyone can be swayed by positive reinforcement. But as one watches all those Man in a Diner in Ohio interviews, the difference seems to be that those on the left can articulate what they find attractive in their echo chamber, explain reasons, cite specifics. The right seems more to react with labels, summing everything up with things like "he's a maverick"(true) or "he's a good businessman" (not true). That makes propaganda much more effective on the right, since propaganda pretty much depends on not relying on facts or reasons, and everyone who finds it easy and attractive gets a little thrill of "positivity" every time trump or their echo chamber mates repeats is.
Psychologists way better trained than I will be contemplating this far into whatever future there is.
So, I'm leery of arguments based on some sort of innate psychological difference on the left vs. the right.
Partisanship is a really strong force for everyone; it's the main driver of election choices. That's not a good or bad thing; it's just how it works. Most people don't pay close attention to politics, and tend to make voting choices based on input from leaders and media they trust and with which they identify.
Once Trump became the GOP candidate and then the president, it became extremely difficult for Rs to defy him. Parties are focused on winning; discrediting or abandoning your own candidate is a sure way to lose. There's just huge incentives not to lose. Trump's been good at exploiting that.
I'm not really talking about "innate" differences (like the bit about the size of amygdalas.) It's more how different people react to psychological mechanisms common to us all. And the tendency to rely on labels is actually true of something we don't really pay attention to but have vaguely heard about.
Me and the Superbowl--or any sports--for example. I doubt I can say anything at all intelligent about any sport. So if I read somewhere that such and such a coach is corrupt, I just go "yep, probably" and pass it by without checking the facts.
So I think that consideration of how labels are used actually fits your analysis of most people not paying attention to politics. The problem is where the label comes from. Propaganda in in the business of making people think in terms of labels.
Right wing media is a big part of the story; it's completely disconnected from reality, and so it's audience is also.
It's the equivalent of teaching your dog a trick. You have to reward them with a simple treat that can be gobbled down in one bite,
Excellent comment