Originally posted by chithappens
Seriously though, how do you get the masses to not be swallowed up by the "halo effect?"It is not apathy, it is ignorance and blind, loyal support to the paradigm of the masses around you. That is the problem.
I'll admit it wouldn't be perfect but It would be preferrable to what we have now.
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
What a very linear and arrogant way of thinking. This is what the elite want people to think and it seems you buy right into it.
LOL
aside from it being a logical fallacy, and a good ol paranoia reference to "them", thats just ridiculous.
My opinion on human nature and belief comes not from some ideological commitment to how smart people are, but in fact comes from being exposed to a very signifigant body of research that describes how and why people come to believe certain things and how this relates to their behaviour in the political forum. One of my favorite journals, Political Psychology (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/pops) talks specifically about these issues and does so with the experimental method. Human belief and ideology is entirely corrupt and is swayed much more by emotion than reasonable assessment of fact.
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
People are smarter than you give them credit for.
1) You have no idea how much credit I give people or why.
2) Can you even remotely back up your statement?
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
The only real danger to participatory democracy is apathy but that's pretty much what we have now.
the ONLY real danger? So, thats ridiculous ideological commitment, akin to communism and anarchy.
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
But maybe you're onto something. It seems that trusting our politicians has been good for us. That's why we now have a quagmire in Iraq. A national debt that is only beginning to catch up to us. A healthcare debacle, an immigration nightmare, massive outsourcing of the better paying jobs, etc, etc. Yep, politicians do seem to know what's best for us.
And here is the evidence that proves your idiocy. My argument has been very much that people can be swayed by politicians and that is a core issue with democracy. So, the fact that you leap to this conclusion shows how ideologically primed your biases are cognitively. Someone cannot disagree with any part of your worldview without being instantly labeled as one of "them" and thus sharing in a specific worldview.
Another point, my avatar says that I am from Canada, and I have posted about recent Ontario elections. To then throw American politics at me, especially when I have earlier clarified my stance on that issue, as if it is proof against my argument is so retarded. My assumption is that you are young, which excuses the cognitive priming issue (you will get over it when you experience the real world), but not the fact that you didn't take the time to read what I am saying.
Originally posted by inimalistMy opinion on human nature and belief comes not from some ideological commitment to how smart people are, but in fact comes from being exposed to a very signifigant body of research that describes how and why people come to believe certain things and how this relates to their behaviour in the political forum. One of my favorite journals, Political Psychology (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/loi/pops) talks specifically about these issues and does so with the experimental method. Human belief and ideology is entirely corrupt and is swayed much more by emotion than reasonable assessment of fact.
Yes I know people respond emotionally to issues. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong. Politicians often do the same thing
1) You have no idea how much credit I give people or why.
Your statement that " people aren't educated enough to directly handle the reigns of power" does indeed show how much (or lack of) credit you give most people
the ONLY real danger? So, thats ridiculous ideological commitment, akin to communism and anarchy.
So now I'm a communist? Democracy may indeed be mob rule but as long as people are active participants then they have a say both in their lives and in their society
And here is the evidence that proves your idiocy. My argument has been very much that people can be swayed by politicians and that is a core issue with democracy.
Yes they can, but with participatory democracy politicians can be held accountable BEFORE the fact
So, the fact that you leap to this conclusion shows how ideologically primed your biases are cognitively. Someone cannot disagree with any part of your worldview without being instantly labeled as one of "them" and thus sharing in a specific worldview.
WOW! Look who's talking! You're the one who thinks people are too stupid to be directly involved in the political process yet you think anyone who disagrees with you has a "cognative impairment".
Another point, my avatar says that I am from Canada, and I have posted about recent Ontario elections. To then throw American politics at me, especially when I have earlier clarified my stance on that issue, as if it is proof against my argument is so retarded.
You were the one who initially responded to my post. I'm glad you are from Canada, good for you
My assumption is that you are young, which excuses the cognitive priming issue (you will get over it when you experience the real world), but not the fact that you didn't take the time to read what I am saying.
I'm 44 and I've been a business owner for 15 years, I have a bacholers degree and have traveled extensively throughout Europe, South and Central America, not to mention the US and Canada,
I might know a little more about the real world than you think. I am not the one who is arrogantly spouting about people being too emotional and uneducated to have a direct say in their lives or their society. Participatory democracy is an idea who's time has come. But that would put limits on the power of the wealthy elite who manipulate both government and money and who increasingly owe no allegiance to their country or to it's people.[/B]
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
Yes I know people respond emotionally to issues. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong. Politicians often do the same thing
Well, when research shows that people are more likely to vote for someone who they deem as nice and similar to them on non-political dimensions than for someone who appears to know what they are talking about...
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
Your statement that " people aren't educated enough to directly handle the reigns of power" does indeed show how much (or lack of) credit you give most people
That is actually a statement about the education system, and rampant consumerism pandered to children as entertainment.
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
So now I'm a communist? Democracy may indeed be mob rule but as long as people are active participants then they have a say both in their lives and in their society
read what I said. You are as ideologically commited to democracy as one must be to be a communist or an anarchist. I may believe in technocracy and liberitarianism, but I can give you a list of problems with each. If the only problem you see with democracy is apathy, you need to look at it a little closer, or take off the rose coloured glasses.
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
Yes they can, but with participatory democracy politicians can be held accountable BEFORE the fact
Back that statement up. This is our main point of contention.
I might agree with you if the solution includes a massive restructuring of education, but thats another topic...
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
WOW! Look who's talking! You're the one who thinks people are too stupid to be directly involved in the political process yet you think anyone who disagrees with you has a "cognative impairment".
ah, ok, let me explain that part of my argument to you. You took what I said about people and jumped to the idea that I support a theocratic Christian regieme in America that is at war in the middle east. This shows that the "you support Bush" response has been "primed" in your "subconscious". Being primed means that it is way more likely to be your reply when you are in a scenario that requires a political response.
So, when I disagree with you about the knowledge of political minutia that the general public has, you assume that this also means I disagree with you about all political issues. That is a result of the prime being the most accessable response. This is also a very clear sign of out-group generalization, a well researched psychological phenomenon.
Priming is not a cognitive imparement, I didn't use that term, go look it up, first year psych.
Also, I don't believe your critiscism of me being primed against you is accurate. I have only assumed that you were younger than you were, because of how quick you were to outgroup me (I'm sorry for expecting adults to be more mature than that). While I might like to throw a jab into my points, I certainly have not been arguing against points you aren't making. I take back the comment about you being young.
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
You were the one who initially responded to my post. I'm glad you are from Canada, good for you
Ah, see, I mentioned that I was from Canada because you threw the crap that your president has done at me, as if my not voting in Canadian Provincial elections were somehow responsible for the mess you and the rest of your nation allowed yourselves to get into.
See, again, you need to read what I say, and then take the time to put together what the words mean and what I am actually trying to say to you.
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
I'm 44 and I've been a business owner for 15 years, I have a bacholers degree and have traveled extensively throughout Europe, South and Central America, not to mention the US and Canada, I might know a little more about the real world than you think.
Cool, whats your bacholers in?
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
I am not the one who is arrogantly spouting about people being too emotional and uneducated to have a direct say in their lives or their society.
I don't think anyone said that. I have said that people are too uneducated to be involved in the finer points of political life. I have said in no uncertain words, in this thread, that a government must be accountable to the people.
If you want my ideological answer to this, it would be that in fact, the government has no right to pass laws that infringe on the lives of the individual, so the idea of people voting for those things is moot.
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
Participatory democracy is an idea who's time has come. But that would put limits on the power of the wealthy elite who manipulate both government and money and who increasingly owe no allegiance to their country or to it's people.
See, the funny thing is, I agree with your stance on corruption. I can't imagine that MORE of the same is going to fix it. Or, representitive democracy doesn't work, well, lets open it up to the people who we never tought the first thing about economics or foreign policy to.