In far mode we emphasize basic values a lot more, relative to practical constraints; in near mode we do the opposite. … This certainly fits my more detailed opinions on large scale policy and the future. You have to pay attention to an awful lot of detail in order to figure out which policies are best, or what is likely to actually happen in the distant future. But most people seem to quickly form opinions on such topics using simple value associations. When they can identify a clear value association, people seem pretty willing to form opinions, which seems to me a vastly overconfident attitude. (
“Expressing values helps them to signal loyalty to like-minded folks, and a commitment to norms their community holds dear. Discussing compromise, in contrast, risks your seeming a traitor to your allies, and lacking firm value principles.”
That is, unless compromise is one of those norms your community holds dear. Compromise is sometimes seen as a virtue, after all.
This is more a comment on the referenced posting: It seems to me that the near/far difference (in weighting of values vs. practicality) is due in significant part to: 1) aggressive discounting of future utility ("early to rise" is a great value, but the payoff is long term; whereas hitting that snooze button pays off now), 2) the sheer difficulty of grappling with the complexities of far-mode practical constraints.
"To wit, there are better places to argue than the senate."
Actual policy is mostly discussed in congressional (or parliamentary, depending on your country) committees, cabinet meetings and the offices of high ranking civil servants. That doesn't mean public debates are useless: you need a lot of theater and value signalling to make sure millions of people keep paying their taxes and see themselves as citizens of your nation. It would actually be a bad thing if politics were entirely about policy, though that doesn't mean a little more policy and a little less signalling would be bad at this point.
Correct. Politics is mostly about signaling values through symbolic interaction and there are much better ways to do that than constantly threatening your audience with force. To wit, there are better places to argue than the senate.
I think politics is (largely) about rehearsing personal values--rather than merely signaling them. (See A habit theory of civil morality -- http://juridicalcoherence.b... )
Politics is about policy. It's just not optimally targeted on that subject, because human beings are not perfect. Having people discuss the hypothetical policies they'd do if they ruled the world is much more about policy than other potential conversation topics are. If people were optimizing for status, as you imply, they would not talk about politics so often.
There are reasons for talking mostly about goals that you fail to consider. For one thing, talking about negotiating strategies in public is a bad idea for anyone who seriously cares about what they're trying to achieve. It makes bluffing and deception impossible. For another, it's difficult to talk about negotiation when you're without actual power and unable to communicate with relevant actors. Negotiation isn't a subject that can be discussed so much as a process that must be enacted. There are generalizations that can be made about negotiation, but they're often rather broad and shallow ones, they'll never tell you in detail what to do because that always depends on the particulars of the situation.
Political discussions are not motivated out of pure altruism or objectivity, of course. But to say "politics is not about policy" is hyperbole.
Most of the time people complain about policy like they complain about the weather, and for the same reasons too: to let off steam or to have something to talk about at all. Still, yeah, there's plenty of people for whom it's true that policy is about signalling values (sometimes not even political values but stuff like "see, I care a lot, I'm not selfish, I have all these cliché talking points that 80 percent of people won't see through and I hope you're part of that 80 percent").
It may be more a Venus and Mars situation here in which you understand like minded people fairly well, and unlike minded people little, the latter leading to assertions if one side supports something, the other must be against it, or argue in terms of what is important to you assuming commonality that isn't there, or using a few stylized values that they may favor but without knowing whether they would be persuaded or value sufficiently to compromise others or what those others are worth to them. Not just a difference in values, but knowledge as to their relative importance or what respects them. This would explain so many of the bad arguments I constantly hear.
There are a number of recurring themes in your blog posts - have you considered writing them up into neat, long-for essays? Like one long post that compiles the arguments and evidence that 'Politics isn't about Policy'?
“Expressing values helps them to signal loyalty to like-minded folks, and a commitment to norms their community holds dear. Discussing compromise, in contrast, risks your seeming a traitor to your allies, and lacking firm value principles.”
That is, unless compromise is one of those norms your community holds dear. Compromise is sometimes seen as a virtue, after all.
This is more a comment on the referenced posting: It seems to me that the near/far difference (in weighting of values vs. practicality) is due in significant part to: 1) aggressive discounting of future utility ("early to rise" is a great value, but the payoff is long term; whereas hitting that snooze button pays off now), 2) the sheer difficulty of grappling with the complexities of far-mode practical constraints.
"To wit, there are better places to argue than the senate."
Actual policy is mostly discussed in congressional (or parliamentary, depending on your country) committees, cabinet meetings and the offices of high ranking civil servants. That doesn't mean public debates are useless: you need a lot of theater and value signalling to make sure millions of people keep paying their taxes and see themselves as citizens of your nation. It would actually be a bad thing if politics were entirely about policy, though that doesn't mean a little more policy and a little less signalling would be bad at this point.
Correct. Politics is mostly about signaling values through symbolic interaction and there are much better ways to do that than constantly threatening your audience with force. To wit, there are better places to argue than the senate.
I think politics is (largely) about rehearsing personal values--rather than merely signaling them. (See A habit theory of civil morality -- http://juridicalcoherence.b... )
Politics is about policy. It's just not optimally targeted on that subject, because human beings are not perfect. Having people discuss the hypothetical policies they'd do if they ruled the world is much more about policy than other potential conversation topics are. If people were optimizing for status, as you imply, they would not talk about politics so often.
There are reasons for talking mostly about goals that you fail to consider. For one thing, talking about negotiating strategies in public is a bad idea for anyone who seriously cares about what they're trying to achieve. It makes bluffing and deception impossible. For another, it's difficult to talk about negotiation when you're without actual power and unable to communicate with relevant actors. Negotiation isn't a subject that can be discussed so much as a process that must be enacted. There are generalizations that can be made about negotiation, but they're often rather broad and shallow ones, they'll never tell you in detail what to do because that always depends on the particulars of the situation.
Political discussions are not motivated out of pure altruism or objectivity, of course. But to say "politics is not about policy" is hyperbole.
Most of the time people complain about policy like they complain about the weather, and for the same reasons too: to let off steam or to have something to talk about at all. Still, yeah, there's plenty of people for whom it's true that policy is about signalling values (sometimes not even political values but stuff like "see, I care a lot, I'm not selfish, I have all these cliché talking points that 80 percent of people won't see through and I hope you're part of that 80 percent").
It may be more a Venus and Mars situation here in which you understand like minded people fairly well, and unlike minded people little, the latter leading to assertions if one side supports something, the other must be against it, or argue in terms of what is important to you assuming commonality that isn't there, or using a few stylized values that they may favor but without knowing whether they would be persuaded or value sufficiently to compromise others or what those others are worth to them. Not just a difference in values, but knowledge as to their relative importance or what respects them. This would explain so many of the bad arguments I constantly hear.
There are a number of recurring themes in your blog posts - have you considered writing them up into neat, long-for essays? Like one long post that compiles the arguments and evidence that 'Politics isn't about Policy'?