It seems to me that some people really are stuck in a “survival mode” and some people are stuck in an “exploratory mode”, and that this influences many of their life choice. The former will approach possible changes by saying: “This is far too dangerous. The life is not perfect as it is now, but we can manage.” The latter will approach possible changes by saying: “Change is exciting. What could possibly go wrong? You’re a chicken!”
This is probably a consequence of some evolutionary algorithm: “When in danger, play it safe, when in abundance, explore new possibilities.” Except that one does not update immediately on their current situation, it takes more time, and perhaps the situation at some specific age has a long-lasting impact. For humans, their setting influences how they perceive the world, so even if the original situation is gone, they can filter their inputs to make themselves believe the situation remains.
Another, independent part is how these modes map to political opinions. Seems to me this is not completely straightforward, and may be just a consequence of a specific political system, or a specific history of political alliances in the past. -- E.g. it happened a hundred years ago, for random reasons, that many Blues adopted a “survival mode” agenda and many Greens adopted an “exploratory mode” agenda. This created a positive feedback loop, because young people preferring the “survival mode” were more attracted to the Blue politics, and young people preferring the “exploratory mode” were more attracted to the Green politics, and in turn they made the agenda of the parties more extremely “pro-survival” or “pro-exploration”.
The specific mapping of “right: survival; left: exploration” may be correct for USA, but it cannot be generalized for the whole world. Which suggests that the mapping is either arbitrary, or shaped by some US-specific factors.
For example, in Slovakia the communists recently won the election using the slogan: “People deserve certainties.” (google translate). On the other hand, decriminalization of marijuana and homosexual marriage are considered right-wing topics in Slovakia (more precisely, they are topics of one specific right-wing party; all other parties avoid these topics completely). So to me it seems that the political left is fully “survival mode” here (Communists, Slovak Nationalists), and the political right is divided into “survival mode” (Catholics, Hungarian Nationalists) and “exploratory mode” (Libertarians). I am using the words “left” and “right” here to reflect how those parties identify themselves or who are their typical coalition partners.
Why is it so? Well, we had a history of communist rule here, that’s the difference. Seems to me that the “survival mode” people are scared of the present, and attracted to some part of history which they idealize. So if a country did not have a communist history, communism will be attractive only to “exploratory mode” people; but if a country had a communist history, “survival mode” people will be attracted to it, simply because it is a history. They remember the mandatory First May parades with red flags, strong rule of The Party, mandatory employment, newspapers without scandals… and they want it all back. (In a different country, the same type of people would want mandatory prayers, strong rule of The Church, church-approved materials without scandals, etc.) On the other hand, the whole “free market” concept is an exciting new thing here, which attracts the “exploratory mode” people. Free markets, freedom for homosexuals, freedom to use marijuana… all these things appeal to the “exploratory mode” people, so they get groupped politically together.
Which leads me to conclusion, that there is a difference between “survival mode” people and “exploratory mode” people, and this difference is reflected in the structure of political parties. However, the connection between a specific mode and a specific party seems to be mostly a historical coincidence (either “we already tried this, but never tried that” or “hundred years ago, our enemies joined the Blues, so we had to join the Greens”).
It seems to me that some people really are stuck in a “survival mode” and some people are stuck in an “exploratory mode”, and that this influences many of their life choice. The former will approach possible changes by saying: “This is far too dangerous. The life is not perfect as it is now, but we can manage.” The latter will approach possible changes by saying: “Change is exciting. What could possibly go wrong? You’re a chicken!”
This is probably a consequence of some evolutionary algorithm: “When in danger, play it safe, when in abundance, explore new possibilities.” Except that one does not update immediately on their current situation, it takes more time, and perhaps the situation at some specific age has a long-lasting impact. For humans, their setting influences how they perceive the world, so even if the original situation is gone, they can filter their inputs to make themselves believe the situation remains.
Another, independent part is how these modes map to political opinions. Seems to me this is not completely straightforward, and may be just a consequence of a specific political system, or a specific history of political alliances in the past. -- E.g. it happened a hundred years ago, for random reasons, that many Blues adopted a “survival mode” agenda and many Greens adopted an “exploratory mode” agenda. This created a positive feedback loop, because young people preferring the “survival mode” were more attracted to the Blue politics, and young people preferring the “exploratory mode” were more attracted to the Green politics, and in turn they made the agenda of the parties more extremely “pro-survival” or “pro-exploration”.
The specific mapping of “right: survival; left: exploration” may be correct for USA, but it cannot be generalized for the whole world. Which suggests that the mapping is either arbitrary, or shaped by some US-specific factors.
For example, in Slovakia the communists recently won the election using the slogan: “People deserve certainties.” (google translate). On the other hand, decriminalization of marijuana and homosexual marriage are considered right-wing topics in Slovakia (more precisely, they are topics of one specific right-wing party; all other parties avoid these topics completely). So to me it seems that the political left is fully “survival mode” here (Communists, Slovak Nationalists), and the political right is divided into “survival mode” (Catholics, Hungarian Nationalists) and “exploratory mode” (Libertarians). I am using the words “left” and “right” here to reflect how those parties identify themselves or who are their typical coalition partners.
Why is it so? Well, we had a history of communist rule here, that’s the difference. Seems to me that the “survival mode” people are scared of the present, and attracted to some part of history which they idealize. So if a country did not have a communist history, communism will be attractive only to “exploratory mode” people; but if a country had a communist history, “survival mode” people will be attracted to it, simply because it is a history. They remember the mandatory First May parades with red flags, strong rule of The Party, mandatory employment, newspapers without scandals… and they want it all back. (In a different country, the same type of people would want mandatory prayers, strong rule of The Church, church-approved materials without scandals, etc.) On the other hand, the whole “free market” concept is an exciting new thing here, which attracts the “exploratory mode” people. Free markets, freedom for homosexuals, freedom to use marijuana… all these things appeal to the “exploratory mode” people, so they get groupped politically together.
Which leads me to conclusion, that there is a difference between “survival mode” people and “exploratory mode” people, and this difference is reflected in the structure of political parties. However, the connection between a specific mode and a specific party seems to be mostly a historical coincidence (either “we already tried this, but never tried that” or “hundred years ago, our enemies joined the Blues, so we had to join the Greens”).