Please keep it. Politics is the mind killer mostly comes into play when debating which side is morally right, not when trying to figure out why one side won.
It comes into play quite a bit when talking about why one side won as well, since you keep seeing people say, “We didn’t win because we weren’t faithful enough to our principles,” when it is obvious from the beginning that political parties will tend to lose because they are too faithful to their principles, i.e. not centrist enough.
That may be “obvious from the beginning” but it’s far from clear to me that it’s correct. Here are some reasons why.
The appeal of a political party to a given voter is not simply a matter of computing some measure of similarity between its principles and the voter’s. Some of the other things it depends on—e.g., how trustworthy the party’s people seem, whether the party succeeds in arousing enthusiasm rather than mere consent, whether the party’s statements are clear and vivid enough to get through to the voter—mat well favour more extreme positions.
To win elections, a party must not only get voters on side but also get them out of their houses and into the polling stations on election day. Again, this is a matter of enthusiasm as well as consent, and may favour more extreme positions.
In many countries, political success is not a matter of a simple nation-wide majority vote. There are constituencies and electoral colleges and the like. This means that political success may depend on identifying particular spatially-correlated groups of people and appealing to them, and there is no guarantee that this looks anything like appealing to the nationwide median voter.
When there are more than two candidates, or more than two parties, you can win by appealing to a reasonably-sized minority, and their preferences may be some way away from the “centre”.
When multiple issues are at play, you can’t just arrange parties on a linear scale and ask where the centre is. Aiming for the centre on every issue may result in every voter finding your party mediocre and preferring another party that’s extreme according to their highest-priority issue, and success may depend on finding a bunch of specific issues and adopting specific (perhaps “extreme”) positions on them.
It may be worth noting that one of Cummings’s claims is exactly that looking at everything on a left/right axis and aiming for the centre is a big mistake and misunderstands what issues people are actually concerned about, and that many positions widely regarded as “extreme” in very different directions actually coexist in the minds of a large fraction of the electorate.
To test this, go to a hyper-partisan news service that holds political views you disagree with but which also is trying to appeal to high IQ people. (The Weekly Standard if you are on the left would work.) You will find the website’s policy analysis difficult to take, but will probably agree with, or at least find reasonable its analysis of why one side won or lost a particular political battle.
I am extremely uneasy about that being your basis for moderation if you act. The fine article is explicitly about applying rationalist knowledge to effect real world change. If that is not on topic, what are we doing here? Internet philosophy hour?
Thanks for clarifying. It was easy for me to forget that as well as being a moderator, you’re also just another user with a stake in what happens to LW.
Politics is not a mindkiller: people are usually mindkilled by politics. But if politics is discussed by people who are not mindkilled, why not keeping it?
I am uneasy about this link being here because Brexit was politics. I am not removing it yet.
Please keep it. Politics is the mind killer mostly comes into play when debating which side is morally right, not when trying to figure out why one side won.
It comes into play quite a bit when talking about why one side won as well, since you keep seeing people say, “We didn’t win because we weren’t faithful enough to our principles,” when it is obvious from the beginning that political parties will tend to lose because they are too faithful to their principles, i.e. not centrist enough.
That may be “obvious from the beginning” but it’s far from clear to me that it’s correct. Here are some reasons why.
The appeal of a political party to a given voter is not simply a matter of computing some measure of similarity between its principles and the voter’s. Some of the other things it depends on—e.g., how trustworthy the party’s people seem, whether the party succeeds in arousing enthusiasm rather than mere consent, whether the party’s statements are clear and vivid enough to get through to the voter—mat well favour more extreme positions.
To win elections, a party must not only get voters on side but also get them out of their houses and into the polling stations on election day. Again, this is a matter of enthusiasm as well as consent, and may favour more extreme positions.
In many countries, political success is not a matter of a simple nation-wide majority vote. There are constituencies and electoral colleges and the like. This means that political success may depend on identifying particular spatially-correlated groups of people and appealing to them, and there is no guarantee that this looks anything like appealing to the nationwide median voter.
When there are more than two candidates, or more than two parties, you can win by appealing to a reasonably-sized minority, and their preferences may be some way away from the “centre”.
When multiple issues are at play, you can’t just arrange parties on a linear scale and ask where the centre is. Aiming for the centre on every issue may result in every voter finding your party mediocre and preferring another party that’s extreme according to their highest-priority issue, and success may depend on finding a bunch of specific issues and adopting specific (perhaps “extreme”) positions on them.
It may be worth noting that one of Cummings’s claims is exactly that looking at everything on a left/right axis and aiming for the centre is a big mistake and misunderstands what issues people are actually concerned about, and that many positions widely regarded as “extreme” in very different directions actually coexist in the minds of a large fraction of the electorate.
To test this, go to a hyper-partisan news service that holds political views you disagree with but which also is trying to appeal to high IQ people. (The Weekly Standard if you are on the left would work.) You will find the website’s policy analysis difficult to take, but will probably agree with, or at least find reasonable its analysis of why one side won or lost a particular political battle.
I feel that there is more than enough rationality-specific content that this link is appropriate. He talks about Superforecasters!
I am extremely uneasy about that being your basis for moderation if you act. The fine article is explicitly about applying rationalist knowledge to effect real world change. If that is not on topic, what are we doing here? Internet philosophy hour?
Genuine question: Did the Apolitical Guideline become an Apolitical Rule? Or have I always been mistaken about it being a guideline?
Always a guideline. I am still uneasy about the link being here, and would prefer to make it clear, rather than be silent.
Thanks for clarifying. It was easy for me to forget that as well as being a moderator, you’re also just another user with a stake in what happens to LW.
Politics is not a mindkiller: people are usually mindkilled by politics. But if politics is discussed by people who are not mindkilled, why not keeping it?