Those damn other guys! A bunch of brainwashed sheep blindly listening to anything Otherside News tells them, never checking the actual facts. Nothing but traitors trying to ruin our country, those other guys. The silent majority in our country sees through their hateful lies. Our-guys wave incoming!
Then someone makes a sound argument why side x is wrong on issue a, and side x is in denial. Then someone makes a sound argument why why side y is wrong on issue b, and side y is in denial. Then a sane person recognizes that while one side may be worse then another, they are both terrible. Then they realize, that the political system is, so rigged that side z, even though it is right on 90% of the issues has very low chance of winning. Then they realize that there's no point to this completely terrible excuse of a political system, saves up their money retires at the age 35, builds their energy efficient home, grows their own food, enjoys their life, and wait for the political system to destroy society, or reform. Some say the sane person is enjoying life this very minute.
@@niensaddestofthesad8151 uh no! You noughts started it, damn you bribed the referee didnt you? That's why he jet giving us fouls, we never started a brawl, jack just fell on James he did, it not that jack found his wife with James so he felt like he had to beat up James, its not like that at all, James is in the hospital for his own clumsiness, the referee should've never given you that penalty, we would've won if you foul creatures of the night hadn't cheated.
It's true. I like football and i am arsenal fans. When Arsenal have foul, i think it's not foul. Even though it's clearly a foul. But it's five year ago and now i know that is bias 😁
@@littlerooky When its Messi and Ronaldo, Messi fans bring up ballon d'or to prove he is GOAT and Ronalo fans bring up UCL and both fanbases become toxic with Pessi and Penaldo comments but there are people who appreciate both
Something I've always said. Don't identity with a political group or ideology. Just describe your beliefs as they are or use terms that fit in with your beliefs exactly.
"If you are emotionally attached to your tribe, religion or political leaning to the point that truth and justice become secondary considerations, your education and exposure is useless. If you cannot reason beyond petty sentiments, you are a liability to mankind." - Chuba Okadigbo
@@hammer12482 That's a wrong question. Genocide is never moral no matter who you choose to save on the other hand. Being cautious of them and prevent such people from assimilating when they show no signs of assimilation into the pluralistic society is not immoral. People get what they deserve, casting yourself out of their company or casting them out of yours cannot be immoral since you did try to give them an olive twig at first.
“Every group holds things sacred. Every group values the truth. And when truth and the sacred conflict, every group throws truth under the bus.” - Jonathan Haidt Haidt wrote an entire book on this concept called "The Righteous Mind" and has done a few TED Talks himself.
The main problem is that sometimes, information is purposely with withheld from the general public. Whether for our own good, national defence, etc. But it causes the people to be unable to be objective as they literally do not have enough information. Another problem is the stifling of scientific studies in disputed areas because "they don't matter". Identifying political bias is easy. Explaining it without facts is hard. Scrutinizing it without data is even harder.
A degree of trust in your elected delegate is required. It is not physically possible to look after your own affairs and be up to date on what your government is doing. That's why we elect representatives who are supposed to do this for us. Problems arise when the voting public will happily support terrible decisions because those decisions were marketed to them through cunning election campaigns and tribalism.
Love Orwell but this is BS. Power corrupts people AFTER they've obtained it. Think about it, when you're poor and powerless why would anybody care to bribe you or tempt you with a reward for wrongdoing? Once you're rich and powerful EVERYBODY will try to win you over and the temptation to accept the invitations is overwhelming, beyond normal human limits. Not being corrupt while being in power is really an extraordinary feat and vastly underappreciated.
What is "good", "correct", "justice", and the "moral thing to do" will always be subjective depending on the person. It's when people fail to see the subjectiveness of these things do we get conflict.
@Christian Kroemer Of course I'm referring to more moral grey area things but even murder is subjective to some but due to the obvious harms it does to one party while giving little to no benefit, it's more so objectively wrong (but it goes to show that even something so wrong can be subjectively okay to some). Subjective does not mean acceptable, subjectivity is the reason for one's actions, but it is not a justification of the action. I'm just trying to say that under morally grey circumstances, understanding one another is much better than jumping to conclusions.
I mean I guess good things would be to benefit others. Things like murder and other vile crimes hurt one party so that's I guess a sort of objective definition. Other things that are in a moral grey area require rigorous thought.
This was such a thought provoking video. I am having my finals of the semester this month , but after I am done with them I would really like to further research this topic!
indians need to see and ponder this right now before the real damage is irrversible...our politicians are making us more divisive and contradictory. as ted ed signified the result may get catastrophic when bot te parties thinks 2+2= 13 where both are wrong in reality. our present leader is trying its best to mmake us beleive the same just to stay in power and will potentially damage us i9rreversibly. living together in spite of all the difference is beautiful but can get catastrophic if they start to find the contradictions within them
Not really.... India is pretty non biased now... The current ruling dispensation has very less ideologically inclined voters... That's why it took more than 50 years for RW to win for the first time in India... Everyone was basically voting in the name of ideology... In 2014, people realized that "screw ideology, vote for the guy which delivers... " That day all arithmetic stopped mattering... Even today, left cries about EVM tampering (blaming the referee for losing 😂)... But I get their frustration... They actually have a larger number of ideologically inclined voters... The current government literally cruises to victory on the basis of it's non-corrupt implementation of policies...
Good thing I gave up partisanship a long time ago. I have seemed to be tainted by perspectivism as I think both others as well as myself will never be correct on anything.
If partisanship can significantly affect thinking on objective questions like mathematics, imagine its effect on people’s gullibility to fake news and exaggerated claims.
What you are saying, then, is that you are applying the label "fake news and exaggerated claims" to situations that have no objective answers. That makes you a biased censor. You get to decide? No, not if there's no objective answer.
YES. The answer is YES. And, I agree about the bias thing. Calling out people for being biased in favor of something you DISAGREE with is EASY. Acknowledging you OWN biases, on the other hand...
It's sad that recognition of this occurrence doesn't lead to people's reviewing it within themselves; rather, they employ it to criticise their counterparts, stating that they're the ones who're manipulating the facts. Admittedly, even I do it, I think, although I do try not to do it.
Jonathan Haidt wrote a fantastic book about this exact topic. "The righteous mind". It's all about the origins of partisan thinking, bias and dogmatic behavior. Great read.
They won't cause than people will vote less with their emotions and begin to weigh the pros and cons that policy implementation can cause. If that is done than a certain party of bleeding hearts wont have a voting base and even though I like winning there still needs to be a ballance of power jist in case my party of hard life decisions goes off the deep end somehow.
Question EVERYTHING. Be critical. Most of all be especially critical of any groups or ideas you subscribe to. If you can call all the BS on your opponents side but none of your own you're part of the problem.
I think that a good way to solve this "partisanship crisis in politics" might be by changing how our political system work, I mean going to a system with more participation and, in a way, more similar to a direct democracy. In a few words, a system that points to be more pragmatic than dogmatic... Please to anyone who read this, I want him to acknowledge that this is only a possible solution, not an absolute truth...
Yes. Religion and politics are very similar. Religion is an ideology, same like ideology in politics. You have leader, you have a goal, and you have tendency to protect your comerade when the other religion attacks. And vice versa.
It can apply to any group of people actually, political party, religion, favorite sports team, fandom, any group which a person identifies themselves as being a part of
I heard this was how PETA started? A vet put down animals and felt bad, so she convinced herself loving animals meant killing them because pets were "contaminated"
I remember being in a pub with fellow supporters of by sports team when one of the was sent off. Around the table I was sat cries of “Never!” “I cant believe the ref did that!” I turned to them and said “Of course it is. You’d want that decision if it was the other way.” It’s like the opposite of “Do what you would advise your friend to do.” “What if your opponent said that?”
This is an interesting reminder of the effects of group think. Its entirely individual perspective means that it fails to factor in the deliberate manipulation of thought as well illustrated in the - fictional- 1984, or the - factual- activities of eg Cambridge Analytica
Correlation doesn't mean casuation. The second question provocates this behavior. It is excluding the fact how to measure gun control in numbers (which units) and what are the groups (different countries, different time frames) and control groups. Crime rate for all crimes or for some types of crime (I wander if frauds and pickpockets are included).
Exactly whats happing in India right now!! Although people know that the policies the current government is trying to imply is ethically wrong, still they tend to unsee it. Partisanship can be toxic when it challenges moral values.
Abandon ideology. Stop thinking you have to have a concrete view on every single controversial topic - you don't. Accept that you are probably wrong about a lot more than you realize, and so is everyone else. Be skeptical of anyone who is trying to incite fear or anger in you who has the motivation of power or wealth. Be willing to change your views, even if only slightly. Start off your expressions of views with statements such as "at the risk of being wrong" or "given the limited information I've been exposed to, my current thought on this is...". Have ideas, not beliefs. Realize that you have no more authority to declare something as objectively true as anyone else. Look for the good and positive in the people you disagree with. Learn to articulate yourself as precisely as you can. Practice being able to articulate other people's perspectives as well as you can your own.
The only thing I disliked about this video was the use of a circle and a cross. To me it makes it seem like there's a right and wrong side, that there are two teams that are at odds against each other. Politics, tribalism, and partisanship in modern day society doesn't have to be like that. Just because someone sees the world differently than you do doesn't mean that they are necessarily wrong about everything. I would have preferred a square and triangle: showing that different ideas and parties can have differing ideas but also work together. Overall it's a minor complaint to an otherwise amazing video. Thank you TED-Ed for always putting out quality content.
Part 2 of this is that when you set out to “be more analytical” with your intuition, those analytical processes might be more driven by your biases than you’d like to admit. And that one’s much harder to solve.
I like to think that someday fundamentalists will recognize the scientific relationship between the greenhouse effect and global warming and that secularists will appreciate the spiritual reasons for not using abortion as birth control. Thus, the effects of reducing carbon emissions and of increasing contraceptive practices would enhance the quality of life on Earth and help ensure our survival as a species.
You can't get rid of partisanship. It's rooted pretty deeply in our primate relatives. Thus it is more than likely also deeply rooted in us. The fundamental principle is simply Us and Them. See Dr. Robert Sapolsky's lectures from Stanford University. They can be found on youtube.
"Political scientists traditionally have analyzed the effect of politics on subjective well-being (SWB) at the collective level, finding that more liberal countries report greater SWB. Conversely, psychologists have focused primarily on SWB at the individual level and shown that being more conservative corresponds in greater SWB. We integrate the theoretical foundations of these two literatures (e.g., livability and system justification theories) to compare and contrast the effects of country- and individual-level political orientation on SWB simultaneously. Using a panel of 16 West European countries representative of 1,134,384 individuals from 1970 to 2002, we demonstrated this SWB political paradox: more liberal countries and more conservative individuals had higher levels of SWB. More importantly, we explored measurement as a moderator of the political orientation-SWB relationship to shed some light on why this paradox exists. When orientation is measured in terms of enacted values (i.e., what the government actually does), liberalism corresponds in higher SWB, but when politics is measured in terms of espoused values (i.e., what individuals believe), greater conservatism (whether at the individual or country level) coincided in higher SWB." (The Subjective Well-Being Political Paradox: Happy Welfare States and Unhappy Liberals ) www.researchgate.net/publication/263889192_The_Subjective_Well-Being_Political_Paradox_Happy_Welfare_States_and_Unhappy_Liberals
I think another thing that exacerbates political partisanship is the end of the Cold War. When we had the Soviet Union to worry about, people in the US and UK could put aside political differences and be united against the Soviets, but when the Soviet Union ended, everyone needed to find another "other" against whom to differentiate themselves, and so they turned to rival political parties within their own countries.
Human is tribal species so they act like wolf or monkey in nature. Because of that, we seeks the alpha and conflict to lessen your boredom. It give you the adrenaline rush of excitement that you are part of something bigger. Many of them believe they are God messenger and only them see the truth, not only thing that they want to hear to feel good of themselves. There is no greater truth that we will born and die one day no matter what political beliefs we held. Time is constant. That is the ultimate truth of this universe. Everything decay, countries and ideals could be morph into different cultures that we could not recognize anymore.
