
People make incorrect assumptions about their opposing political party - hirundo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/youre-probably-making-incorrect-assumptions-about-your-opposing-political-party/2019/07/26/9f888f0a-a995-11e9-86dd-d7f0e60391e9_story.html
======
Ididntdothis
I really wish people would stop associating themselves with parties and
instead care more about issues. I see it quite often that somebody thinks an
issue is good but as soon as “their” party comes out against it they are
suddenly fiercely against it too. Party allegiance pretty much stops people
from thinking about issues. Instead of doing the right thing it becomes all
about winning and defeating the “other”.

I bet on a lot of issues it would be really easy to find large national
agreements if the parties didn’t sabotage them for tactical reasons.

~~~
_underfl0w_
> Party allegiance pretty much stops people from thinking about issues

I think you hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, explicitly _not thinking_
seems to be the end goal for a lot of people, based on my own (potentially
circumstantial) experience. A large percentage of people don't seem to find
joy in thinking or thinking about thinking. It seems to be viewed as work,
which is to be avoided when possible. Optimizing for the lest amount of mental
work, basically, which your amygdala will graciously step in to provide
emotional reactions that "feel right".

May at least explain _why_ or _how_ things seem to err in that direction.

~~~
repolfx
Thinking _is_ work, isn't it? The brain is an organ, it needs energy in order
to work efficiently. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the brain had
properties somewhat like a muscle, and deep reasoning for prolonged periods
burned a lot of energy.

I'm not sure if there's any biological evidence to support what I just said,
but I do get the strong impression that critical thinking is like exercise:
some people do it more, and it gets easier for them, so they do it more, and
so on. But for most people it's just a drag and they don't like it, they'd
rather do other things.

WRT people changing their perspective because of party ... I suspect this is
just a mental shortcut. The left and right exist because they summarise deeply
held intuitions about human nature. The positions held by each side _do_
follow logically from those intuitions, but sometimes it needs thought to see
why, and it's of the rather subtle often semi-sub-conscious type of thinking
that most would rather not do. So it may make perfect sense to change opinion
if you learn your party has changed its opinion - if you think that your party
of choice has got basically the right idea about the world in broad strokes,
then it's a nice time-saving assumption that they thought more about any
individual issue than you did, and you'd probably agree with them if you
thought harder.

~~~
deogeo
> The left and right exist because they summarise deeply held intuitions about
> human nature. The positions held by each side do follow logically from those
> intuitions

I really don't think so. For example (all of these apply to the supporters of
the left/right, and not the people actually in power, because who know what
they actually believe/support, vs. what is just political dealings), "how can
you be against the death penalty, but pro-abortion" \- but then, the opposite
stance makes just as little sense. For another example, the US left used to be
anti-globalization, but now they are banging the free-trade drum, while the US
right is flirting with protectionism. Or compare LGBT support on the left
today, with their persecution under most communist governments in the past.
Then there is the Christian US right that mostly ignores Jesus' rather
socialist teachings, while the mostly non-Christian left is in a hurry to
bring them up. Unions used to be (still are?) anti-immigration, and kind of a
left-wing thing?, while the left is pro-immigration. Environmentalism and
animal welfare were right-wing positions in Nazi Germany
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany)),
while now they're left-wing ones, and the right tends to ignore/oppose them.

If I knew more about politics in Asia, Africa, or South America, I bet I could
come up with lots of other examples where the positions of their local
left/right differ from those in the US/Europe.

Point is, the positions are driven group affiliation, not logic -
historically, it was far more important to be in the right group, than to be
correct.

~~~
leereeves
> "how can you be against the death penalty, but pro-abortion" \- but then,
> the opposite stance makes just as little sense.

Where's the inconsistency in the opposite stance, supporting death for
murderers and opposing it for the innocent unborn?

That's not my personal position but it seems perfectly reasonable to treat
those two groups differently.

~~~
falcor84
> "how can you be against the death penalty, but pro-abortion"

I personally don't see an inconsistency with this original belief either, when
you include the belief that a soul/conciousness is only created later on, e.g.
during birth.

------
daenz
>The authors of a 2017 study in the Journal of Politics revealed that the
average Democrat believes that more than 40 percent of Republicans earn more
than $250,000 per year. Meanwhile, Republicans believe that nearly 40 percent
of Democrats are LGBTQ. How close are these estimates to reality? Not very.
Just 2 percent of Republicans are doing that well financially, and just 6
percent of Democrats are LGBTQ.

I think the authors of the study and the author of this article are measuring
something completely different than what they think they're measuring.
Although the questions are geared towards measuring specific traits (wealthy
repub, or LGBTQ dem), I think what the study participants are actually
estimating are the support network "power" for those ideals. I would bet if
you rephrased the questions to:

>"What percentage of Republicans would go along with wealthy Republican
leadership decisions?"

and

>"What percentage of Democrats would go along with LGBTQ leadership
decisions?"

...you would get similar percentages to the original questions. I would argue
that the participants are naturally estimating the social power of the ideals
in question, because it's a more useful metric, and I would make the argument
that humans (on average) are really good at estimating that particular thing
because it's what we've been optimizing for for the last few thousand years
with investments, fashion, war, and innovation.

~~~
happytoexplain
I agree that something is fishy, but I think it's not quite as simple as that.
I'm pretty confident those questions would return way over 40% from the
opposite parties.

------
JKCalhoun
> The authors of a 2017 study in the Journal of Politics revealed that the
> average Democrat believes that more than 40 percent of Republicans earn more
> than $250,000 per year.

Wow, really? I'm not your average Democrat.

How about this though: Do you believe that of people making more than $250,000
most are Republican?

And: Do you believe that among those that identify as LGBQT most are Democrat?

~~~
whatshisface
Here are the answers at the back of the book:

For income, you have this graph, partitioned into <$20,000/y,
$39,000-$62,000/y, and >$102,000/y.

[https://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/09/pm-repsndems/gr-
pm...](https://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/09/pm-repsndems/gr-pm-
repsndems-462.gif)

For LGB you have: [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/25/lesbian-
gay...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/25/lesbian-gay-and-
bisexual-voters-remain-a-solidly-democratic-bloc/)

Neither one lines up exactly with the parent's questions but this should give
you an idea.

------
deogeo
> Motive attribution asymmetry makes us unwilling to cooperate. When we hate
> our neighbors, we lower our defenses against the virtual invaders who detest
> the United States’ pluralist and classically liberal values.

Mentioning motive attribution asymmetry, and committing it in the very next
sentence - hilarious. I dare say those people don't detest 'classically
liberal values', but US foreign policy and influence (such as imposing seed
patent law on invaded countries).

Of course this policy isn't driven by the US people as a whole, but by a
handful of special interests. But it is very convenient for them to use the US
as a shield, and remain discreet themselves.

That said, I can't really disagree with the rest of the article.

------
svat
Direct link to what this article reports on:
[https://perceptiongap.us](https://perceptiongap.us)

~~~
jl2718
> Democrats’ understanding of Republicans actually gets worse with every
> additional degree they earn. This effect is so strong that Democrats without
> a high school diploma are three times more accurate than those with a
> postgraduate degree.

Wow.

~~~
repolfx
And also, the more news you read, the higher the perception gap.

The problematic effects of education don't surprise me at all though. I've
felt for a while that more education seemed to make people somehow less
intelligent in some strange, hard to define way.

I think it's partly that people's defences are down - they think "I have a PhD
so I couldn't possibly be manipulated or misled, unlike the plebs who left
school at 16".

It may also be due to people with higher education being more willing to
uncritically accept anything said by 'experts' (i.e. their academic peers),
without being willing to double check it against common sense or man-on-the-
street reasoning. I've noticed that people with less education - we probably
shouldn't call it worse education, given these findings - are much more
willing to reject statements by academics if they're counterintuitive or seem
to contradict lived experience. Whereas people with doctorates almost never
do, regardless of how bizarre or absurd the claims being made are. Journalists
likewise seem to be more likely to fall for bad science than they once were
and I wonder if that's due to journalists always having degrees, these days.

This is perhaps one of the problems leading to the replication crisis.

~~~
bassman9000
_And also, the more news you read, the higher the perception gap._

If readers are educated, isn't then that news are shit?

~~~
18pfsmt
One should understand the concept of "yellow journalism:"

-scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news

\- lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings

-use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts

-emphasis on full-color Sunday supplements, usually with comic strips

-dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism)

It emerged with discussing collectivism vs. individualism. We know who lost
(i.e. 1989). Some people want to forget and rehash this stupidity. It's not
clear if they understand that these ideas mean "war." When I retire in ~15
years I just want to catch fish with barb-less hooks, but the lunatics are
making that prospect unlikely.

------
whatshisface
> _As America slouches toward the 2020 presidential election_

That twenty centuries of stony sleep

Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

Slouches towards the 2020 presidential election?

~~~
JKCalhoun
I guessed William Blake — happy I wasn't too far off.

~~~
benjaminbrodie
You're just bragging lol. Stop it (said flirtatiously)

------
Mikeb85
It's strange watching American politics as an outsider. Trump was basically
elected by the flyover states because he acknowledged that blue-collar
America's economic situation was sub-par. And while he probably hasn't helped
out their plight as much as hoped, the US economy overall certainly isn't
hurting. Yet the democrats seem completely oblivious to the reasons Trump came
to power in the first place, and somehow are poised to completely blow the
next election despite the media machine railing against Trump and his supposed
unpopularity.

All the talk about Trump's racism, Nazi immigration officials, etc..., just
makes the democrats look desperate considering his policies aren't much
different than Clinton's in the 90's. His economic policies would have been
considered orthodox in the 70's and 80's. The Democrats wasted years trying to
come up with some sort of Russian link which they haven't proven and which
frankly, I don't think anyone cares about.

And it's all quite ridiculous considering Obama continued most of Bush's
policies. He extended the Patriot Act, didn't shut down Guantanamo, killed
people abroad with drones, detained and deported migrants. The absurd angle
the democrats are taking with Trump is going to lead them to another defeat,
as they're diluting their message by being so extreme. Trump makes everything
about himself, the Democrats reinforce it, and it's impossible to see anyone
from the Dem side challenging him.

~~~
8innovate
I don't agree with all of this but I am absolutely flabbergasted that
Democrats seem to be falling into the exact same trap as they did during the
previous election...

I'm an American living abroad and was as shocked as anyone when Trump was
elected. The racism/xenophobia and pseudo-intellectual far-right rhetoric is
more vocal than it has ever been before and that does have a lot to do with
Trump. It should be making it painfully easy to get Trump out of office in the
coming election and yet somehow the Democrats seem to think we should continue
down the weird neoliberal path of the past. Just start speaking in a language
that blue collar workers can understand... that's it. Nothing fancy. But for
some reason it's just not happening.

------
RickJWagner
Good article with a good message. I hope lots of people hear and understand
that we truly are 'More alike than different'.

------
xhkkffbf
Impossible!

I'm 100% certain that they suck. I don't even need to listen to them or read
their documents. It's just axiomatic.

------
jakelazaroff
Non-paywalled link: [https://outline.com/ycP9Y5](https://outline.com/ycP9Y5)

------
hedora
I wonder how well the questions distinguish between opinions about other
voters’ opinions, and the actions of people that are elected.

For instance, with recent gerrymandering decisions from the Supreme Court, and
Mitch McConnell’s blocking of bipartisan election security funding, it is easy
to infer that a majority of Republican representatives in many elected bodies
are against fair elections.

I doubt that many voters are against the right to have their votes counted
fairly.

~~~
cgearhart
Have you looked at primary sources (statements from McConnell, his office, or
Congress) for more about why they blocked that funding? Your inference sounds
like it’s based on one-sided reporting and the asymmetry described in the OP
article. There may be another explanation that doesn’t assume the worst.

(I’ve been complaining about election security for twenty years, but this
issue has become a political game since 2016.)

~~~
scruple
> I’ve been complaining about election security for twenty years

Or longer. For me, personally, it was the "hanging chads" in 2000 that forced
me to consider how insecure our elections are.

------
jchanimal
I learned that some of my family with Trump stickers are basically socialists,
they just don’t realize it. When you start talking to them about the things
they’re happy their local government does, it’s all safety net and arts.

~~~
whatshisface
I know some Democrats who are basically anarcho-capitalists, who aren't
socialist at all but just don't like Republican family values candidates.

