This is why I am worried about what social media is doing to us. We are all encouraged to join those exclusive pages, subs, etc. and do so without thinking that we are isolating ourselves and creating a more polarized environment.
This leaves out corporate influence unfortunately. What we have is one party that is right of center economically and another that is further right of center economically.
Just discovered you and I find your videos amazing man :) I am glad that you couple the discussion of very - honestly - depressing traits of our psychology with some optimistic tips on how we could embark on an endeavor to limit the eventual harm that might come from it. I personally use the second and the third method you mention by the end of the video very profusely whenever debates flare up about anything (which has started to become the norm here in Europe). I believe those are perfect means for attaining not only good measure of co-existence, but also to cultivate an honest wish to do other people good and to gain something in the process, knowledge-wise.
I’m glad that you added that this doesn’t work for Canada. The Canadian federal system has consistently worked by a different dynamic. When I was in my teens, there were always four parties in the Commons. There were the two main parties and two peripheral parties. The members of the peripheral parties to the left and right tended to be more principled than the two centrist parties. The four parties gave way to four sets of party preferences. People tended to vote according to their preferences. That changed in the early 1990s. The breakdown of the Meech Lake Accord gave rise to a separatist Quebec Party, the Bloc Québécois. Because the Bloc only ran in Quebec, it could never form a government. The centre right party, the Progressive Conservatives was eclipsed by a newly-formed further right party, Reform. Eventually, the Reform Party took over the Progressive Conservatives. Both the Reformers and the Bloc were driven by issues of principle and were not concerned with winning. At one time, the Bloc became the Loyal Opposition. The Reform Party eventually took over the Progressive Conservatives. On the left, the New Democratic Party had a long history of attracting principled voters who were indifferent as to the party’s ability to form a government. After the 2011 election, the concept of strategic voting occurred. The two drivers of the strategic vote were (1), the marginality of the riding and (2) the degree of repellancy of a party leader to the opposition. Marginal ridings were defined by the closeness of the previous result. In 2011, my riding was decided by eleven votes. I supported the NDP and, in my riding, the NDP got a record share of the vote. In supporting the NDP, I elected a Conservative. If I and ten other NDP supporters had voted Liberal, the Liberals would have taken the riding. And so, in 2015, I held my nose and voted Liberal to prevent the Conservative from getting elected. Likewise, in the 2021 election, many New Democrats voted NDP because they felt that they had nothing to fear from Erin O’Toole. The word on the street now is that Pierre Poilevre is going to drive the NDP support into the Liberal camp. These sorts of patterns tend only to appear in marginal ridings. Ridings with solid majorities for a candidate tend not to see much strategic voting. Anyways, that’s one Canadian’s view.
I've been wondering how much this relates to our current state of politics and the fall of the USSR. For decades we had a very concrete enemy for the American public to turn to and coalesce around, effectively creating an "in group" for Americans (and the EU states) to band together to fight said enemy. Now that enemy is gone, it at least appears to me that we've seen more infighting among groups that would set aside their relatively minor differences to team up against the larger enemy. I don't have any real data to back this position and it's only something I suspect since I also wasn't around for very long during the Cold War.
I see Duverger's (aka divergers?) as a specific sort of the general categorical bias. I like that you highlighted the scarcity mindset that promotes polarization. It's been said that there are two kinds of people: those that divide people into two kinds, and those that don't.
Just discovered your channel. Binge watching everything now at work while preserving DVDs. Your show really keeps my mind from turning to mush doing menial tasks like this.
Now how about a follow-up video on Canada? How come Canada is able to support at least three major political parties while using first past the post? It is particularly interesting in light of the current governments promise to end first past the post elections.
I think somebody said that what happens there is that in any given riding, two parties predominate, but from one riding to another, it might be a different two parties. And similarly for the UK. So, all the diversity is coming from regional diversity.
Probably the most disturbing thing is how far each side takes this. I mean the way we always characterize the opposition as, like, inherently evil or unamerican is hazardous to our democracy, besides being untrue.
Maybe a google anonymizer was used, but the use of the google suggestions image at 0:17 seems a bit ironic given that the suggestions are tailored to the individual as estimated by google tracking. Given that the suggestions are presumably pulled from data aggregated from others and somehow sorted to suit you personally, it's sort of like saying "a group of people biased towards interests similar to my own said..."
Canada still has its problems. We may have an official third party, but nobody likes them, and they are used as a protest vote. Its very muddled, but the fact is it still looks a lot like the American standard of Liberal Vs Conservative, except our conservative is America's Democrat, and our Liberal is America's Bernie Sanders. Right wing politics have to be very moderate and appeal to the center as well as the extreme righties. Recently we are trying to move towards electoral reform and a better representative government, so I feel a lot better about it.
I think somebody said that what happens there is that in any given riding, two parties predominate, but from one riding to another, it might be a different two parties. And similarly for the UK. So, all the diversity is coming from regional diversity.
I started studying psychology recently and this video was very interesting ! In Canada, in Quebec where I live, in-group bias is very present.People from Quebec tend to view themselves as a different culture from the rest of Canada and be extremely protective of their culture, this leads to negative attitudes towards immigrants and viewing the whole of English Canada as one culture, despite the differing lifestyles and beliefs of the different provinces, which falls right into the view of out groups as homogeneous. The very protectiveness towards the french language can be seen as in-group favoritism, as it is solely on it being part of their culture/identity and not on any real utilitarian grounds.
As Thunk said, In Group Bias is a finding that has been repeatedly documented and consistently displayed in numerous studies. Nothing dogmatic or authoritarian about recognizing this and it certainly does not appear to be "bullshit".It also shows your lack of understanding of social psychology if you legitimately think it mentions people like Karl Marx. I'm also not sure what you mean by most social science is bullshit. If you mean there is difficulty in replication of social psychology , yes , that is true, but you would have to hold similar statements about how "bullshit" medical science( largely considered hard science) due to it's similar difficulty in replication. Otherwise, I am not sure how you could prove this empirically "The social sciences have a record of pumping our indoctrinated authoritarians" Yes, because it's not as if old ideas regarding biology had contributed to noxious doctrines *cough* eugenics*cough* social darwinism*cough* craniology* cough*.
"What a beefy strawman. Nothing I say has validity to it" I never said that nothing you said had validity just that you lack understanding of the field which is a very different thing. "No. This is another straw man. Faggot. Medical science has a far better track record for replication of experiments," Researchers at pharmaceutical companies have reported that their attempts to replicate the conclusions of peer-reviewed papers fail at rates upwards of 75%. An estimation of the greater body of biomedical research had estimation of around 53 % in terms of reproduction. In cancer research, a study found that 47 out of 53 experiments could not be replicated in other words about 90%. Amongst psychology, around 39% of research out of a hundred could be replicated with a 50% reproducibility rate in the sub-field of cognitive psychology and 25% in the sub- field of social psychology. www.nature.com/news/irreproducible-biology-research-costs-put-at-28-billion-per-year-1.17711 www.reuters.com/article/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328 www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248 Also, this is not a strawman. "Replace lack of substance with fallacious appeals." So when you make claims about social science and the noxious ideology it may lead to, you're just making a point , but when I point out the same can be said for "hard science", in this case biology, I am making fallacious arguments with no substance ? "Faggot" You're a waste of time.
First-past-the-post tends to create a two party system, and as Canada uses that method, the same result should be expected. Usually the governing party is either the Liberal or the Conservative party but in the last years the New Democratic Party has gained a lot of support. In 2011 they became the largest opposition party with 30% of the votes surpassing the liberals that got 19% percent. Even though they lost a lot of that support in the last election, some scholars talk about the emergence of a three party system. The Bloc Québécois also plays a role. Despite being only a regional party, they had enough support in the past to become the Loyal Opposition too.
I think somebody said that what happens there is that in any given riding, two parties predominate, but from one riding to another, it might be a different two parties. And similarly for the UK. So (if what I remember is correct about what "someone said" and if they were speaking correctly when they said it), all the diversity is coming from regional diversity.
Man, wouldn't instant runoff elections be nice? I think CGP Grey's videos on voting (especially on STV) already cover anything I might say about different election methods. tl;dr - plurality is broken, and we really really ought to use something less broken.
I generally start with a Wikipedia binge, then chase down some websites or books that cover the subject in a little more depth. If I can wrangle one of my (super-smart) friends into chatting with me about their field of expertise, I do that & take copious notes. If they're feeling generous, I run the script by them to make sure I'm not saying anything absurd.
outsideclock You're the one that makes accusations based on your preconceived notion of a person that has a different point of view, different education and a different set of knowledge, wisdom and experiences based solely on a short text message. You're the one that comes off as an ape, merely reacting to whatever stimuli you happen to stumble upon for a chance to underline your own little opinion. You call yourself logical, or at least consider your messages logical but they lack any actual content, so sure - they can be logical if you want, but you haven't said anything. The world is illogical, it has no sense. We only categorise things into little logical boxes so we can communicate those ideas to others. None of your (or my) opinions are "true", they are only those you accepted for yourself. So keep them to yourself because you're the only one to whom they make any logical sense.
I think that people who talk about their political views on RU-vid promote this, especially if a person only watches their videos for political insight. I try to not fall into this trap by subscribing to people with different beliefs, even if I disagree completely.
Except that every other western country uses basically the same "first past the post" system, and all of them have successful third parties with representation in national government.
the idea that my group is awsome in the other team sucks was a logical position thousands of years ago when people lived in tribes because other groups of people were likely to be deemed as a threat because they could attack you or steal resources ect. So this caveman like thinking persists today because whether your a Republican or a Democrat the "other team" can pose a threat to your livelihood. Maybe not a life and death threats but they can hinder the quality of your life so people have this caveman like reaction to people from "the other team". Just another example that no matter logical people try to be you can't escape basic inherent evolutionary instincts.
i think you have the first part backwards. This bias is present in most animals, so it was around before apes or humans existed. It is only logical because it was already present.
+Orpheus yes I think your right. I just wanted to point out that some instincts present in both animals and humans can still effect our thinking and behavior.
