[Greysuit]

Politics is a notoriously divisive subject. People are known to hold to the same political positions and ideologies over long periods of time, and to reflect absolute certainty therein. Of course, the political spectrum is sufficiently broad that, logically, most people are absolutely wrong. Notably, if a person follows rational procedures for evaluating the reliability of their beliefs, the case of being both wrong and very certain about something should happen rarely. This implies that most people are largely incapable of evaluating matters of politics.

People who's job it is to generate knowledge of things (scientists) exercise reserved certainty that comes from evidence through controlled experimentation. Meanwhile, people's political beliefs are supported, at best, by insufficient evidence and most often by mere 'common sense' (which cannot actually be common, since it is not shared between most people). In my experience, partisans will often claim that the cognitive processes of their political rivals are flawed or biased, and, along that line, many might agree with the idea that the rationals for most peoples' political beliefs are flawed, but exclude themselves from that criticism. That would not be surprising, given that most people readily recognize cognitive biases in other people, but consider themselves to be less biased than average.

So, how certain are you of your political ideology, and how can you be so certain?

[Daktoria]

You're presuming politics is a rational subject.

Many people look at politics on the basis of power, and only advocate self-interested positions. They don't care if they're irrational. Heck, they deliberately expect the rational to make excuses for them, or burn the rational at the stake for appearing to be an egotistical threat to society.

[mikema63]

Politics is very rational in the sense that people use rationality to construct post hoc rationalizations for their beliefs and opinions.

[Daktoria]

Politics is very rational in the sense that people use rationality to construct post hoc rationalizations for their beliefs and opinions.

...but rationalizations aren't rational. :-P

[mikema63]

Human rationality was built for rationalizations not rationality.

[Rei Murasame]

So, how certain are you of your political ideology, and how can you be so certain?

I'm fairly certain that my ideology can be made to work in the way that it was intended to work.

However, the reason I said 'fairly certain', is because there a lot of pitfalls which can prevent it from working out, and there is a possibility that those pitfalls can befall it even though we know what they are.

Another thing that makes me 'fairly certain' rather than 'absolutely certain', is that social science is an evolving thing and we have to continually adapt to changing circumstances and new observations. We have to also be self-critical and accept that there are some biases which are extremely difficult to overcome, or even impossible to overcome.

Being 'absolutely certain' would be a prelude to destruction, it better to hold just a little doubt so that you'll be kept on your toes.

[Daktoria]

I'm fairly certain that my ideology can be made to work in the way that it was intended to work.

You mean unfairly certain, right?

However, the reason I said 'fairly certain', is because there a lot of pitfalls which can prevent it from working out, and there is a possibility that those pitfalls can befall it even though we know what they are.

...so you said "fairly" certain because you're trying to intimidate pitfalls from happening?

Another thing that makes me 'fairly certain' rather than 'absolutely certain', is that social science is an evolving thing and we have to continually adapt to changing circumstances and new observations. We have to also be self-critical and accept that there are some biases which are extremely difficult to overcome, or even impossible to overcome.

Being 'absolutely certain' would be a prelude to destruction, it better to hold just a little doubt so that you'll be kept on your toes.

In other words, social science is actually static, but you need people to believe that it's dynamic in order to keep you around.

When others "hold just a little doubt so that [they're] kept on [their] toes" it opens an opportunity for you to exploit them.

On the other hand, if others were "absolutely certain" then there would be nothing left for you to stand on.

[onemalehuman]

So, how certain are you of your political ideology, and how can you be so certain?

Politics is a methodology and that is manmade invention to control the thoughts of the average person. Now that leaves room for those that believe they are above being just another ancestor of ancestry. The stage gets constructed in metaphors and symbolism changing this one planet into two world orders. Spiritual and political.

theology vs theory now isn't permanently this moment between was and does exist becoming the two means of social justification to deny the self evident through rule of law within the common codes of communication within each tribal ideology character matters.

So I don't believe in politics anymore since I understand it's purpose. The same way I do not worship spirit. I understand center balance of eternity creating eternal details within fixed universal locations being self contained, in this present current set of events.

But, reality is no body of character is willing to challenge their faith and hope reality is real and their entire ancestry wasn't played as fools.

Pride comes before the downfall.

[benpenguin]

Absolutely uncertain. Everytime I came close to believing in something I got my face smashed in really quickly.

I suppose I can roughly call myself market socialist? (The most boring ideology around)

[Greysuit]

Many people look at politics on the basis of power, and only advocate self-interested positions. They don't care if they're irrational. Heck, they deliberately expect the rational to make excuses for them, or burn the rational at the stake for appearing to be an egotistical threat to society.

Anyone who has an actual real-world goal cares to be rational (or should at least), regardless of whether their goal is self-interested or not. Of course, the justifications that a person provides to others for their policies may not hold up to rational analysis, but that is a separate issue.

If we are talking about the tiny minority of people who have the power to bring about policy that directly furthers their own interests, then the burden on rational capacity is much lighter, because the problem of furthering the interests of a few people is exponentially simpler than the problem of engineering a society that will maximize the benefit of all (or even a large portion of) citizens. Since most of us don't have the level of power needed to bring about highly personalized policy, we have to at least settle for policy aimed at a large group of which we are a member (I tend to think that the best solutions happen to help all of society, but that's just me) and that means tackling highly complex social and economic problems.

I'm fairly certain that my ideology can be made to work in the way that it was intended to work.

When you say 'fairly' certain, can you put a number on that? And more importantly, what evidence makes you favor your ideology? You mentioned some reasons to be skeptical of your beliefs, but what reasons do you have to hold those beliefs?

Absolutely uncertain. Everytime I came close to believing in something I got my face smashed in really quickly.

I would say that your uncertainty is appropriate. I suspect that a person can probably do somewhat better than absolutely uncertain (of course, we are being loose with our definition of 'absolute') but skepticism is generally appropriate, so long as it is not used as a form of rationalization.

[Daktoria]

Anyone who has an actual real-world goal cares to be rational (or should at least),

This... is a complicated statement.

Real world goals are empirical, not rational. Even if you're using the common sense interpretation of "rational", real world goals boil down to what's physical, and that means a denial of the fact-value dichotomy such that physicality is intrinsically valuable.

Ergo, rational thought goes out the window because people fulfill what they feel to be environmentally obvious. Even if we're talking about global warming, pollution, or ozone decay, it all depends on what people feel is an appropriate ecosystem. Similarly, in an urban environment, real world goals depend on what people feel is appropriate social cohesion. Infrastructural functionalism only matters if function serves form. Otherwise, we're just biological robots that engineer infrastructure for the sake of engineering.

regardless of whether their goal is self-interested or not.

This is another complicated statement.

1) If rational actors aren't self-interested, then they're self-destructive.
2) If rational actors sacrifice themselves for the real world, it begs to know why their rationale deserves remembrance other than manipulators setting an example for future martyrs.
3) Rational actors could support identity politics, but that proves how multiculturalism and environmentalism are incompatible. Multiculturalism advocates diversity. Environmentalism advocates uniformity. Even a non-self-interested rational actor would have to choose between supporting multicultural tolerance, or environmental dominance.

Of course, the justifications that a person provides to others for their policies may not hold up to rational analysis, but that is a separate issue.

Exactly. People can give misinformation on purpose.

If we are talking about the tiny minority of people who have the power to bring about policy that directly furthers their own interests, then the burden on rational capacity is much lighter, because the problem of furthering the interests of a few people is exponentially simpler than the problem of engineering a society that will maximize the benefit of all (or even a large portion of) citizens. Since most of us don't have the level of power needed to bring about highly personalized policy, we have to at least settle for policy aimed at a large group of which we are a member (I tend to think that the best solutions happen to help all of society, but that's just me) and that means tackling highly complex social and economic problems.

That tiny minority of people seems to be the key to reconciling multiculturalism with environmentalism. They engage in universal utility analysis of appropriate lifestyles, and quantify utility analysis for everyone else to calculate their personal lives around.

Why would it be a good idea to dispute their rational capacity?

[Godstud]

I am definitely and absolutely uncertain of my political beliefs. I could change them if presented with proper argumentation.

[Greysuit]

Real world goals are empirical, not rational. Even if you're using the common sense interpretation of "rational", real world goals boil down to what's physical, and that means a denial of the fact-value dichotomy such that physicality is intrinsically valuable.

I'm not referring to whether the goals themselves are rational, but rather to whether the means chosen for obtaining them are rational. Terminal values (end goals) are not chosen, and thus cannot be rational or irrational. Intermediate values serve terminal values, and are always either rational or irrational.

Ergo, rational thought goes out the window because people fulfill what they feel to be environmentally obvious. Even if we're talking about global warming, pollution, or ozone decay, it all depends on what people feel is an appropriate ecosystem. Similarly, in an urban environment, real world goals depend on what people feel is appropriate social cohesion. Infrastructural functionalism only matters if function serves form. Otherwise, we're just biological robots that engineer infrastructure for the sake of engineering.

I don't think that disagreements over climate change policy hinge on whether or not people 'feel' like a wasteland would be a nice 'ecosystem' to live in. Yes, some people make political decisions based on what they feel and then rationalize after the fact. However, I doubt that anyone that bothers to discuss politics on this forum would acknowledge to themselves or to others that their political beliefs are based primarily on feelings. My question was not "why do most people believe what they believe?", but rather "why do you believe what you believe?".

This is another complicated statement.

1) If rational actors aren't self-interested, then they're self-destructive.
2) If rational actors sacrifice themselves for the real world, it begs to know why their rationale deserves remembrance other than manipulators setting an example for future martyrs.
3) Rational actors could support identity politics, but that proves how multiculturalism and environmentalism are incompatible. Multiculturalism advocates diversity. Environmentalism advocates uniformity. Even a non-self-interested rational actor would have to choose between supporting multicultural tolerance, or environmental dominance.

These points are irrelevant. My assertion holds, as I said, whether or not the actors are self-interested. Since you want to specify whether the actors are self-interested (I suspect we would agree that virtually all are, including those who behave altruistically) I wonder why you don't direct this list at your self.

Exactly. People can give misinformation on purpose.

We agree, but I'm not sure what your point is.

That tiny minority of people seems to be the key to reconciling multiculturalism with environmentalism. They engage in universal utility analysis of appropriate lifestyles, and quantify utility analysis for everyone else to calculate their personal lives around.

Why would it be a good idea to dispute their rational capacity?

Firstly, I'm not sure what your saying in the first two sentences, and I doubt that I agree. Secondly, who's questioning their rational capacity? I do, generally, question their goals though.

[onemalehuman]

I could change them if presented with proper argumentation.

Do you comprehend what this statement reflects? You aren't looking to answer anything for yourself. I was 8 years old when "Self Evident" registered in my growing curiousty of society not adding up to everything in plain sight.

But since I couldn't put the pieces together again then, I never stopped watching for clues of the alleged self evident things.

I was 52 years old when things started falling into physical absolutes that apply equally to everything including myself. I was 54 when societal engineers decided to use my sister as a public example that common folk better never question the authority of authorities.

That was when I finally got mad enough to start putting it completely together and since around Thanksgiving of 2006 I started using an idea that if nobody knows what real is, use cyberspace where no body physically exists and since the Internet is world wide start giving away understanding the physical absolutes that are self evident and those looking to find can see and those hell bent on saving humanity can do that as well. Again cyberspace destroys time relativity the same way telegraph, telephones, radio, television, satellite technology did. But, the internet places everything to a one on one field of ideas where people can be face to face if they wish through the monitors.

Politics is existential ideologies and that translates to 2 dimensional imagery not 4 dimensional views. So when politics and other rations of thinking work separately where rules of communication demand the conversations be contained to single topics and single issues restricted to subjectivity, objectivity, and relativity with each being either/or and neither/nor choices to character definitions of symbolic values in priori of God/spirit, country/state of mind, community/tribal ideology, and family while living a selfless servitude to humanity's greater good intentions.

Now, return to "If it sounds to good to be real" but true by popular acceptance that reality is greater than real and genders don't have the equal rights of character roles assumed in good faith hypotheses and hypotheticals are better leaders than understanding the substance of self containment, will politics save the human population from tipping themselves to extinction without a clue how to reverse what they did to create the situation generations prior to it occurring now being relatively here all the time.

I have found believers in reality will not tolerate anyone discussing self evident physical absolutes in any theater of political views, spiritual convictions, or economic policies that create class envy arguing which mental state is first and third world orders of societal evolution, not genetic continuation only taking place in the current moment.

So I understand real, but humanity says nobody can know that inside out with everything being educated from an outside in perception.

So I am certain politics will lead to human self destruction as fast as the other means to define character matters and genders don't count being religion, spirituality, politics, education, enetertainment/arts, and economic policies where symbolism replaces substance understood completely.

Self fulfillling prophecy done on purpose to make sure reality rules real ancestors to play society's child each generation. I always had a problem with the born again concept where a gender chooses to deny their own ancestry to join a social collective making denial a virtue.

[Eran]

The OP makes an implicit assumption that, like science, there is a single right answer in politics.

An alternative is to view politics as more akin to aesthetics. Many people can have different views regarding which is the most beautiful painting in the world, without any of them being strictly "wrong" in any absolute sense.

Politics tends to be the arena in which we project our emotional attachments and ethical preferences into the public sphere of discourse and action. We wrap our subjective views in rational-sounding sentences, just as an art critic might cloak his personal taste with intellectual-sounding statements. We do so to enable discussion.

Rationality in the scientific sense is tangential to politics. It comes in where politics ends, and technocracy starts. It comes in when the really difficult discussion over values terminates, and the issue becomes one of identifying the most effective means of accomplishing agreed-upon goals (from within an agreed-upon range of legitimate options).

What makes things even trickier is that the transition is always obfuscated, with value-based statements mascaraing as rational / scientific ones.

[grassroots1]

I kind of agree with Eran.

There are certain political beliefs I am certain of. I would like to see an end to war, pointless conflicts between nations, the existence of extreme poverty and misery, racial hatred, sexism, oppression of certain human tendencies like homosexuality, etc., however the means by which we can achieve these changes are where I am mainly in disagreement with others. And I am perfectly willing to discuss those differences and if I find sufficient evidence that one approach is superior to another, I am willing to make that change. Above all I am pragmatic in wanting to achieve those particular goals.

However I am also fairly certain, barring some particular extenuating circumstances, that democracy is my final goal, and I am certain in that respect. But again the devil is in the details: whether I would be in favor of this or that model of democratic system is an interesting question, to what extent the federal should be prioritized over the local or vice versa, to what extent elected officials should be allowed control and what extent they shouldn't, etc. These are all important questions that deserve discussion and I don't claim to know their answers.

I am confident that we can come to a rational conclusion through discourse of difficult issues that many are entirely entrenched in. It is a problem that people are so firmly entrenched and one thing people in this culture and society must learn is how to listen to the opinions of others and assess them rationally, and I include myself in that statement.

[Eran]

However I am also fairly certain, barring some particular extenuating circumstances, that democracy is my final goal, and I am certain in that respect.

So in your mind, democracy is more important than an end to war, pointless conflicts between nations, the existence of extreme poverty and misery, racial hatred, sexism, oppression of certain human tendencies like homosexuality, etc.?

If you could be persuaded (long change, I know) that an end to war, pointless conflicts between nations, the existence of extreme poverty and misery, racial hatred, sexism, oppression of certain human tendencies like homosexuality, etc. could best be achieved by abandoning democracy (in favour of enlightened dictatorship or anarchy, for example), would you support it?

[Daktoria]

I'm not referring to whether the goals themselves are rational, but rather to whether the means chosen for obtaining them are rational. Terminal values (end goals) are not chosen, and thus cannot be rational or irrational. Intermediate values serve terminal values, and are always either rational or irrational.

Yes, the means justify the ends because the means create the ends.

I don't think that disagreements over climate change policy hinge on whether or not people 'feel' like a wasteland would be a nice 'ecosystem' to live in.

What do you think disagreements hinge on?

Yes, some people make political decisions based on what they feel and then rationalize after the fact. However, I doubt that anyone that bothers to discuss politics on this forum would acknowledge to themselves or to others that their political beliefs are based primarily on feelings. My question was not "why do most people believe what they believe?", but rather "why do you believe what you believe?".

I'm not sure if you understand politics then.

It's impossible to know in advance of experience whether or not someone else is a selfish psychopath. Therefore, it's rational to be paranoid in pursuing policies which strictly advocate self-interest. Anyone who refuses to pursue strict self-interest is interpreted as deserving to be trampled over for not understanding this and expecting others to make themselves vulnerable against psychopaths. In turn, everyone earns respect for participating in political conflict as a worthy adversary. Besides, no champion wants to risk falling through the cracks back down to the populace, so the political establishment cooperates on both sides to keep itself afloat above previous opponents.

Furthermore, when everyone's a psychopath, everyone has the same feelings, so feelings become valuable insight in determining appropriate policy.

I'm not saying this is healthy (if anything, responsible government would prohibit this), but I am saying this is how politics work.

These points are irrelevant. My assertion holds, as I said, whether or not the actors are self-interested. Since you want to specify whether the actors are self-interested (I suspect we would agree that virtually all are, including those who behave altruistically) I wonder why you don't direct this list at your self.

Can you explain how altruism is self-interested?

We agree, but I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is irrationality isn't as separate as you think.

When everyone's irrational, adhering to the irrational becomes rational. It's like the operation of a religious cult. If you don't follow mystical lies, then you become a social outcast.

In politics, these lies correspond with psychopathy as previously described.

Firstly, I'm not sure what your saying in the first two sentences, and I doubt that I agree.

I'm talking about how international finance mediates multiculturalism with environmentalism by calculating the operation of supply chains around the world.

Secondly, who's questioning their rational capacity? I do, generally, question their goals though.

International finance's goals are mediated by consumer sovereignty. Nike can't sell sneakers for $1,000 a pair because nobody would buy them.

[onemalehuman]

The OP makes an implicit assumption that, like science, there is a single right answer in politics.

like science, Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions have one God as a right answers in principal as well as Tao, Hindu, Buddhism reflect around Karma. Languages are a coded system of describing the same objects in different terms. But most governances work 3 dimensions from a 4th perspective principle. That is a constant in instinctive behavior thoughout our species all describing the same moment differently. Doesn't make them completely correct or entirely in error which comes to degrees of separating the same thing separately. Just like lifetimes are sole individuals to the one species. Dimensions within a self containing moment always present tense to adding details.
Newton's universal physical constants.

[/quote="Eran"]An alternative is to view politics as more akin to aesthetics. Many people can have different views regarding which is the most beautiful painting in the world, without any of them being strictly "wrong" in any absolute sense.[/quote]

This metaphor has a little problem, a painting of the world is two dimensional/flat earth and regardless it's beauty only represents speculation as it reflects the surface image, not the content of each part. Incomplete as it is observing from the outside in and stationary. Live is perpetually moving all the time even as objects sit still as the whole planet is moleculary changing with expanding and contracting forces that create the energy to change details in self contained individual objects of the same planetary content.

[/quote="Eran"]Politics tends to be the arena in which we project our emotional attachments and ethical preferences into the public sphere of discourse and action. We wrap our subjective views in rational-sounding sentences, just as an art critic might cloak his personal taste with intellectual-sounding statements. We do so to enable discussion.[/quote]

Why are debates won and lost? ideas aren't a sphere, vocabulary didn't exist until it was invented and educated to each generation after birth. Details not physical results of conceptions but concepts created after existing in compounding continuations of the same results never staying the same details between conception and death. Words direct thought as well as just discuss things.
One can follow a standard or become a standard followed in character with each lifetime having their own characteristic reactions to actions. Think as an individual sharing the same instincts with every other lifetime within the species.

[/quote="Eran]Rationality in the scientific sense is tangential to politics. It comes in where politics ends, and technocracy starts. It comes in when the really difficult discussion over values terminates, and the issue becomes one of identifying the most effective means of accomplishing agreed-upon goals (from within an agreed-upon range of legitimate options).[/quote]

this is assuming time changes every detail not every result never staying the same in the moment always present. Technology is a curtain of inventive concepts re-engineering matter naturally present, not conceived lifetimes.

[/quote="Eran"]What makes things even trickier is that the transition is always obfuscated, with value-based statements mascaraing as rational / scientific ones.[/quote]

Social justification created by arbitrary means of symbolic values used as a standardize way to share ideas still comes with the lack of comprehending specific randoms as being random chaos, not natural balnce stationary to the present tense additions to self containment being self maintaining within expanding and contracting forces generating energy that cannot be recreated or destroyed while everything forming and shaping what details are here shape and form how and why results work the same way throughout a food chain isolated to one planet's periodic table of content and 118 recognized individual elements. making the shape and form of the lifetimes presently here creating their own ancestors with conceptions of another total sum result never duplicated as before or since added.

So, how does one balance their surrounding to fit what they wish were true? Create realities or adapt to an ever present changing real situation universally located here individually exactly as conceived and as science says evolved into a child, and adult, 1 of two parents, 1 of 4 grandparents(leaving out the incest varible that reduced the body count but not the number of conceptions) 1 of 6 great grandparents and the titles continue only when the last generation conceived makes another conception within this adapt or become extinct universal moment?

Life like eletricity must flow through a complete circuit named ancestry for a species to remain part in the food chain side of perpetual molecular balancing done universally. one physical absolute both theory/science and theology/spirituality ignore in their individual philosophies governing what ancestors can discuss openly as society's child.
Reality is real because real people play societal evolutionary roles obeying the law of the land written by humans controlling what the population speaking the same language listen to as a path to so called enlightenment or beliefs real doesn't exist within a self contained moment and time changes everything psycologically as defined in the arts of syllables painting mental pictures that are two dimensional memories defined by sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch added to memories as all 5 senses work simultainiously, not existentially like consciouness operates linearly.

Subconsiouness is parallel to AC current waves and consciousness works like DC or electromagnetic spikes. 6 degrees of separation around 8 corners of contracting triangulation of combining gaseous, liquid, and mineral molecules adding together all the time presently.

Understand universal physical absolutes before selling your sole to adopt another person's idea of eternal soul. Free advice to lifetimes of free will at the instinctive level intellect and intellignece educate each generation to ignore politically, religiously, and economically.

morals, legalities, and ethics create 6 other ways to define right an wrong ways to adapt or become extinct now.

Again I describe what contains me as well as everything else universally positioned in this moment.
Humanity's realities don't, WHY, because I don't see it, realities, reflecting what needs done to balance within the same moment each generation passing through where a few can rule what everyone Else is subject to believe objectively relative to each ideology collective converting indiviudal characteristics into characters playing society's children? that is on purpose to fit a cause that effects every body living now each generation of random ancestors conceived by specific ancestry's random sexual activity.

I detest mindgames and contest their authority to define what I am at anytime I exist as one male human. I am civil at heart not civic in minding made up scenarios of no win situations.

Real doesn't matter the accuracy of physical absolutes discussed vs theory and theology set as precedence in reality, and I am opaque in ponderations to political, spiritual, and economic activists saving humanity from being just human.

[grassroots1]

So in your mind, democracy is more important than an end to war, pointless conflicts between nations, the existence of extreme poverty and misery, racial hatred, sexism, oppression of certain human tendencies like homosexuality, etc.?

If you could be persuaded (long change, I know) that an end to war, pointless conflicts between nations, the existence of extreme poverty and misery, racial hatred, sexism, oppression of certain human tendencies like homosexuality, etc. could best be achieved by abandoning democracy (in favour of enlightened dictatorship or anarchy, for example), would you support it?

I don't believe I could be persuaded that enlightened dictatorship could accomplish those goals for a number of reasons, and it would depend what the "anarchy" you are referring to would look like. I think genuine democratic systems are the best possible form of social organization from a practical and moral perspective.