Older folk who've fallen into the cognitive trap of certainty, in many cases, have done so only recently.... since the lockdowns. These were people who beforehand showed some curiosity.
This has been on my thoughts for a while now... the Nonsense as a metaphysical inversion. Suddenly the Christians were the sceptics and those who professed to be buttressed against illusions proved immensely prone to reckless faith and superstition. For those of us who witnessed this horror story unfolding, it was a revelation. No doubt many will take their unwisely acquired new dogmas to their graves, but even so this was a turning point.
Always interesting to hear a generalization from a statistic of one about a large diverse population. In any case you wrote well about your personal life experiences.
The characterization of the US polity as a Red-Blue divide misses how dynamic are these coalitions and how they both change dramatically over time. A major driving force in US voter choices is Fear which often overwhelms self interest, whether Red or Blue. Of similar magnitude is Anger over something.
As long as the population is able to vote freely, there will always be hope.
From ChatGPT
"Fear and anger significantly influence voter behavior in the United States, often shaping political attitudes, decision-making, and turnout. Here's how these emotions can overwhelm voter behavior:
1. Heightened Partisanship
Fear: Fear of societal changes, economic downturns, or perceived threats (e.g., crime, immigration) can lead voters to align more strongly with political parties that promise protection or stability.
Anger: Anger towards opposing parties, political figures, or perceived injustices can drive voters to adopt more rigid partisan positions, reducing willingness to compromise or consider alternative viewpoints.
2. Increased Voter Turnout
Fear and anger both serve as powerful motivators. Fear can compel people to vote defensively, while anger can energize voters to participate in elections to express dissatisfaction. For example, voter turnout surged in the 2018 and 2020 U.S. elections, driven in part by polarized issues and strong emotional responses to political leadership.
3. Influence on Issue Salience
Fear: When political campaigns emphasize fear, such as concerns over national security or economic instability, voters tend to prioritize those issues over others.
Anger: Campaigns that invoke anger about corruption, inequality, or social injustice can shift focus toward reform-oriented policies and candidates.
4. Susceptibility to Political Messaging
Negative Campaigning: Fear and anger are often exploited through negative ads and rhetoric, reinforcing distrust of opponents and amplifying emotional responses. Research shows that negative ads tend to be more memorable and impactful than positive ones.
Echo Chambers: Social media and partisan news outlets can amplify fear and anger by reinforcing preexisting beliefs, leading voters to perceive opposing views as existential threats.
5. Polarization and Division
These emotions contribute to a more divided electorate, reducing common ground between different political ideologies. Fear of the "other side" winning often motivates defensive voting, where voters choose a candidate not out of support, but to prevent the opposing side from gaining power.
6. Cognitive Bias and Decision-Making
Fear: Can lead to risk-averse decision-making, causing voters to favor conservative or status quo policies.
Anger: Can lead to more impulsive decisions, with voters favoring candidates who promise bold, immediate change.
In summary, fear and anger can overwhelm rational decision-making processes, driving voters to react emotionally rather than critically, thereby influencing the overall direction of elections and political discourse."
Thinking that *either* team could pursue any individual citizen's self-interest might be deemed fairly naïve at this point! Here's a generalisation at least as bald as any I have made in this letter! 😁
But as you say, fear and anger are certainly two of the most powerful forces in electoral politics, and not just in the United States. Your decision to state this as 'fear overwhelming self-interest', however, might betray your interpretative preference in this regard.
Although I went with the red-blue divide in this letter, since it suited the theme, I personally prefer to view this as the urban-rural divide, which is much less dynamic than the political coalitions.
"As long as the population is able to vote freely, there will always be hope."
While ~80% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas, Rural areas make up about 97% of the total land area. For Census purposes an Urban area is 5,000 people or 2,000 housing units. 1,889 of 3144 Counties are Rural with a population of ~66 million.
With regard to Urban-Rural divide, the US system is skewed to give significant power to Rural Areas. 11 states have a population of less than 1.5million. The U.S. House of Representatives has 435 members, so each district has a population of about 770,000 but due to the Method of Equal Proportions, not all seats represent the same population. Each state has 2 Senators irrespective of population.
"Today, some 56% of the world’s population – 4.4 billion inhabitants – live in cities."
It's true, the population of the planet is concentrated in cities, which is hardly surprising since we've basically taken over every landmass, and population density is higher in cities. But of course, cities are not autonomous regions at all, but are dependent upon the countryside around them (or, increasingly, on distant farmlands and infrastructure to deliver). There is a symbiosis between the cities and the countryside that has persisted in one form or another for several millennia, although there are many times when the cities become parasitic on the countryside. To some extent, this is the theme of the Robin Hood tales.
"With regard to Urban-Rural divide, the US system is skewed to give significant power to Rural Areas."
As I understand the framers intentions, the US system is set up as a federalism of States, in the hope of avoiding a 'tyranny of the majority' that would result from a strictly numeric voting arrangement.
I personally like the US system (at least in broad strokes) more than the UK system of the House of Commons (Congress equivalent) and House of Lords (Senate equivalent, but seats are not voted upon), although I absolutely oppose plans to turn the UK into a Republic and have an elected President. We've all seen the risks of accumulating excessive executive power - it serves the British Isles better to have executive power 'on the side' of the electoral system. I feel improvements could be made, but nobody has yet made a suggestion I consider sensible.
Some solid points here, Chris. My focus on paradigms these past few years has led me to the conclusion that my trouble with the Libs is that I simply don't agree with their definition of oppression and equality. I find the focus on gender and intersectionality too narrow and ultimately divisive and harmful. As you point out, it has led to its own forms of hate, while it leverages the term "hate" for its own purposes. Recently, I have felt a lot of hatred coming from the Libs. At what point does one look at oneself and think, "Sheesh, how did I get here? Why do I say such awful things to people and about those who beg to differ? Why do I want to yell and shout all the time at folks I disagree with? Why do I not care what they think? Why am I not even curious?" Until folks start to question themselves along these lines, the present trend will just get worse. I think what we need to dismantle is the sense of certainty people have. And I've suggested that since "the medium is the message," we might help folks dislodge from this frankly barbaric notion of knowledge with a new way of presenting information.
Thanks for this thoughtful comment, Asa! I first started to point a finger at 'intolerant tolerance' in Chaos Ethics back in 2014, and the situation has not improved since then.
"I think what we need to dismantle is the sense of certainty people have."
Premature certainty is one of the great dangers of our time. And it can cause so much more harm, so much more swiftly, than ever before. The young, perhaps, have always been prone to this vice, but those who purport to possess the wisdom of age who recklessly opt to stir this pot ought to be ashamed.
I am optimistic that we can find ways to move into a more ambiguous world, or perhaps I should say into more ambiguous worlds. Some of the later letters this month may touch upon this theme (I haven't written them all yet).
Older folk who've fallen into the cognitive trap of certainty, in many cases, have done so only recently.... since the lockdowns. These were people who beforehand showed some curiosity.
This has been on my thoughts for a while now... the Nonsense as a metaphysical inversion. Suddenly the Christians were the sceptics and those who professed to be buttressed against illusions proved immensely prone to reckless faith and superstition. For those of us who witnessed this horror story unfolding, it was a revelation. No doubt many will take their unwisely acquired new dogmas to their graves, but even so this was a turning point.
Thanks for continuing our conversation,
Chris.
Always interesting to hear a generalization from a statistic of one about a large diverse population. In any case you wrote well about your personal life experiences.
The characterization of the US polity as a Red-Blue divide misses how dynamic are these coalitions and how they both change dramatically over time. A major driving force in US voter choices is Fear which often overwhelms self interest, whether Red or Blue. Of similar magnitude is Anger over something.
As long as the population is able to vote freely, there will always be hope.
From ChatGPT
"Fear and anger significantly influence voter behavior in the United States, often shaping political attitudes, decision-making, and turnout. Here's how these emotions can overwhelm voter behavior:
1. Heightened Partisanship
Fear: Fear of societal changes, economic downturns, or perceived threats (e.g., crime, immigration) can lead voters to align more strongly with political parties that promise protection or stability.
Anger: Anger towards opposing parties, political figures, or perceived injustices can drive voters to adopt more rigid partisan positions, reducing willingness to compromise or consider alternative viewpoints.
2. Increased Voter Turnout
Fear and anger both serve as powerful motivators. Fear can compel people to vote defensively, while anger can energize voters to participate in elections to express dissatisfaction. For example, voter turnout surged in the 2018 and 2020 U.S. elections, driven in part by polarized issues and strong emotional responses to political leadership.
3. Influence on Issue Salience
Fear: When political campaigns emphasize fear, such as concerns over national security or economic instability, voters tend to prioritize those issues over others.
Anger: Campaigns that invoke anger about corruption, inequality, or social injustice can shift focus toward reform-oriented policies and candidates.
4. Susceptibility to Political Messaging
Negative Campaigning: Fear and anger are often exploited through negative ads and rhetoric, reinforcing distrust of opponents and amplifying emotional responses. Research shows that negative ads tend to be more memorable and impactful than positive ones.
Echo Chambers: Social media and partisan news outlets can amplify fear and anger by reinforcing preexisting beliefs, leading voters to perceive opposing views as existential threats.
5. Polarization and Division
These emotions contribute to a more divided electorate, reducing common ground between different political ideologies. Fear of the "other side" winning often motivates defensive voting, where voters choose a candidate not out of support, but to prevent the opposing side from gaining power.
6. Cognitive Bias and Decision-Making
Fear: Can lead to risk-averse decision-making, causing voters to favor conservative or status quo policies.
Anger: Can lead to more impulsive decisions, with voters favoring candidates who promise bold, immediate change.
In summary, fear and anger can overwhelm rational decision-making processes, driving voters to react emotionally rather than critically, thereby influencing the overall direction of elections and political discourse."
Great to hear from you, Bob!
Thinking that *either* team could pursue any individual citizen's self-interest might be deemed fairly naïve at this point! Here's a generalisation at least as bald as any I have made in this letter! 😁
But as you say, fear and anger are certainly two of the most powerful forces in electoral politics, and not just in the United States. Your decision to state this as 'fear overwhelming self-interest', however, might betray your interpretative preference in this regard.
Although I went with the red-blue divide in this letter, since it suited the theme, I personally prefer to view this as the urban-rural divide, which is much less dynamic than the political coalitions.
"As long as the population is able to vote freely, there will always be hope."
Well said!
With unlimited love,
Chris.
With regard to urban-rural divide
"Today, some 56% of the world’s population – 4.4 billion inhabitants – live in cities.
from https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/overview
While ~80% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas, Rural areas make up about 97% of the total land area. For Census purposes an Urban area is 5,000 people or 2,000 housing units. 1,889 of 3144 Counties are Rural with a population of ~66 million.
With regard to Urban-Rural divide, the US system is skewed to give significant power to Rural Areas. 11 states have a population of less than 1.5million. The U.S. House of Representatives has 435 members, so each district has a population of about 770,000 but due to the Method of Equal Proportions, not all seats represent the same population. Each state has 2 Senators irrespective of population.
Thanks for continuing our conversation Bob!
"Today, some 56% of the world’s population – 4.4 billion inhabitants – live in cities."
It's true, the population of the planet is concentrated in cities, which is hardly surprising since we've basically taken over every landmass, and population density is higher in cities. But of course, cities are not autonomous regions at all, but are dependent upon the countryside around them (or, increasingly, on distant farmlands and infrastructure to deliver). There is a symbiosis between the cities and the countryside that has persisted in one form or another for several millennia, although there are many times when the cities become parasitic on the countryside. To some extent, this is the theme of the Robin Hood tales.
"With regard to Urban-Rural divide, the US system is skewed to give significant power to Rural Areas."
As I understand the framers intentions, the US system is set up as a federalism of States, in the hope of avoiding a 'tyranny of the majority' that would result from a strictly numeric voting arrangement.
I personally like the US system (at least in broad strokes) more than the UK system of the House of Commons (Congress equivalent) and House of Lords (Senate equivalent, but seats are not voted upon), although I absolutely oppose plans to turn the UK into a Republic and have an elected President. We've all seen the risks of accumulating excessive executive power - it serves the British Isles better to have executive power 'on the side' of the electoral system. I feel improvements could be made, but nobody has yet made a suggestion I consider sensible.
All the best,
Chris.
Some solid points here, Chris. My focus on paradigms these past few years has led me to the conclusion that my trouble with the Libs is that I simply don't agree with their definition of oppression and equality. I find the focus on gender and intersectionality too narrow and ultimately divisive and harmful. As you point out, it has led to its own forms of hate, while it leverages the term "hate" for its own purposes. Recently, I have felt a lot of hatred coming from the Libs. At what point does one look at oneself and think, "Sheesh, how did I get here? Why do I say such awful things to people and about those who beg to differ? Why do I want to yell and shout all the time at folks I disagree with? Why do I not care what they think? Why am I not even curious?" Until folks start to question themselves along these lines, the present trend will just get worse. I think what we need to dismantle is the sense of certainty people have. And I've suggested that since "the medium is the message," we might help folks dislodge from this frankly barbaric notion of knowledge with a new way of presenting information.
Thanks for this thoughtful comment, Asa! I first started to point a finger at 'intolerant tolerance' in Chaos Ethics back in 2014, and the situation has not improved since then.
"I think what we need to dismantle is the sense of certainty people have."
Premature certainty is one of the great dangers of our time. And it can cause so much more harm, so much more swiftly, than ever before. The young, perhaps, have always been prone to this vice, but those who purport to possess the wisdom of age who recklessly opt to stir this pot ought to be ashamed.
I am optimistic that we can find ways to move into a more ambiguous world, or perhaps I should say into more ambiguous worlds. Some of the later letters this month may touch upon this theme (I haven't written them all yet).
With unlimited love,
Chris.