Conversely, if you’re not in a position to actually influence policy, you’re better off optimizing your political statements and beliefs by their social usefulness. Embracing the mindkill, in other words. If making fun of George W. Bush helps you be more popular in San Francisco or NYC, or making fun of Obama makes you more popular in %small_town, then why not?
It may encourage sloppy thinking habits that make you less effective in other ways. It may make you popular with people you’d probably have got on well with anyway, while losing some (maybe more valuable) opportunities to interact positively with a more diverse set of people. It may risk having your insincerity noticed by exceptionally insightful people, who might have been good friends or useful contacts. It may lead you to behave in ways that harm you or the world in an attempt to signal your political affiliation.
optimizing your political statements and beliefs by their social usefulness
Ideas constructed in this manner are not “beliefs” in the sense that they are not evidence about the world that is useful for navigating it. It’s deception/self-deception to pass such ideas for beliefs, and it might be hard for them to turn into actual anticipation-controlling beliefs, so perhaps it’s somewhat misleading to call them “beliefs”.
Well, as psychological studies have shown, if there is groupthink around a specific issue, having one person be seen to visibly disagree with the group can make it easier for other people to disagree, which improves the whole group’s decision making process.
If you actually think that politician X is doing a decent job, and you are willing to say so in an environment where others may disagree with you, then that frees other people to think and act in a more independent way, improving the whole group’s ability to make rational decisions about politics.
Conversely, if you’re not in a position to actually influence policy, you’re better off optimizing your political statements and beliefs by their social usefulness. Embracing the mindkill, in other words. If making fun of George W. Bush helps you be more popular in San Francisco or NYC, or making fun of Obama makes you more popular in %small_town, then why not?
It may encourage sloppy thinking habits that make you less effective in other ways. It may make you popular with people you’d probably have got on well with anyway, while losing some (maybe more valuable) opportunities to interact positively with a more diverse set of people. It may risk having your insincerity noticed by exceptionally insightful people, who might have been good friends or useful contacts. It may lead you to behave in ways that harm you or the world in an attempt to signal your political affiliation.
Ideas constructed in this manner are not “beliefs” in the sense that they are not evidence about the world that is useful for navigating it. It’s deception/self-deception to pass such ideas for beliefs, and it might be hard for them to turn into actual anticipation-controlling beliefs, so perhaps it’s somewhat misleading to call them “beliefs”.
Well, as psychological studies have shown, if there is groupthink around a specific issue, having one person be seen to visibly disagree with the group can make it easier for other people to disagree, which improves the whole group’s decision making process.
If you actually think that politician X is doing a decent job, and you are willing to say so in an environment where others may disagree with you, then that frees other people to think and act in a more independent way, improving the whole group’s ability to make rational decisions about politics.