But that also means that explaining to the person that rational people don’t get negatively polarized
At the very least, this does not sound so trivially true that it can be stated as a premise. If I’m a normal person living in a healthy, happy society, my political views are likely to amount to:
“Make minimal changes only where obvious inefficiency is present. Don’t rock the boat; the cost of losing what we currently have exceeds the likely benefits of experimenting with anything too different.”
Indeed, generations who grew up during a time of world-historic comfort and prosperity tend to be very moderate, in a way that infuriates people of more radical inclinations. However, if you grow up during a time of turmoil and uncertainty, and you identify the cause of this turmoil/uncertainty to be a certain political group, then your views are likely to amount to:
“Do whatever it takes to remove this group from power, and prevent it from regaining power. A more moderate society failed on the basis that it allowed them to ruin it.”
This generally involves embracing a slate of policies that they dislike, simply on the basis that people generally dislike policies that disenfranchise them. Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that the fact-finding of our subject was correct, and the group that negatively polarized them genuinely is responsible for social decline, then adjusting one’s politics from don’t-rock-the-boat centrism to reaction meant to steel society against the people who rocked the boat is a rational response. It simply amounts to updating your worldview in response to evidence that your previous slate of preferred policies wouldn’t work.
At the very least, this does not sound so trivially true that it can be stated as a premise. If I’m a normal person living in a healthy, happy society, my political views are likely to amount to:
“Make minimal changes only where obvious inefficiency is present. Don’t rock the boat; the cost of losing what we currently have exceeds the likely benefits of experimenting with anything too different.”
Indeed, generations who grew up during a time of world-historic comfort and prosperity tend to be very moderate, in a way that infuriates people of more radical inclinations. However, if you grow up during a time of turmoil and uncertainty, and you identify the cause of this turmoil/uncertainty to be a certain political group, then your views are likely to amount to:
“Do whatever it takes to remove this group from power, and prevent it from regaining power. A more moderate society failed on the basis that it allowed them to ruin it.”
This generally involves embracing a slate of policies that they dislike, simply on the basis that people generally dislike policies that disenfranchise them. Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that the fact-finding of our subject was correct, and the group that negatively polarized them genuinely is responsible for social decline, then adjusting one’s politics from don’t-rock-the-boat centrism to reaction meant to steel society against the people who rocked the boat is a rational response. It simply amounts to updating your worldview in response to evidence that your previous slate of preferred policies wouldn’t work.