Good players in general are trying strengthen political coalitions in the form of political parties, special interest groups, political movements, etc. So, there’s a natural push to grow each of these groups, that is, to fill them with people who will receive orders and carry them out in the form of reciting the groups talking points.
Then, the talkings come top-down, and are designed to use those groups, and the order-following, talking points-reciting pawns that make them up as vehicles to carry their vision, ie, the perception of the world that is warped to benefit them in some way.
As such, I wasn’t really thinking about how to make humans into adults that follow the “orders” of their tribe; it’s my impression that human are naturally tribe’s-order-followers, so, no need to make the schools produce them or anything like that. The effort is focused on getting those humans into your tribe rather than into one of your competitors.
The problem is that your argument seems to be theoretical in nature instead based on the empiric observations of the actors in question.
I have knowledge about how politics works where I live that comes from in person conversations and my knowledge of what I know about US politics comes from reading about it but I find it unlikely that even US politics is going to work the way you present it to work.
It seems like you equate the skill to convince a friend that to repeat Democratic or Republican talking points as being about political coalition building in the sense you need to become a politician. It isn’t. The way most people interact with politics is like watching football. They are fans or one party but they aren’t politically active. When you get to people who are actually politically active they have a lot of other concerns. They have personal stakes and there career depend on it. They also know a lot more boring details about the actual issues that are involved.
I’m not quite sure how I’ve managed to give this impression. The rank-and-file, order-repeating members of most coalitions don’t necessarily have any skills at all. Naturally, some do; some are personable and charming and creative and so on, but that’s not my point at all. Their ability to get others to join their coalition is probably just about being good representatives of their coalition, seeming nice and powerful, while also offering status to joining members, I suppose. I think of them them as completely different from the people who decide what talking points they want the group to adopt and why, who are also probably more aware of PR needs and stuff. Those are the people who actually have to know how politics works, while most people just need to know how social interaction works and then repeat what they’re told to.
Thank you for the link; I’ll check it out. Writing about this stuff has garnered a great many fascinating links :)
I probably should have been clearer.
Good players in general are trying strengthen political coalitions in the form of political parties, special interest groups, political movements, etc. So, there’s a natural push to grow each of these groups, that is, to fill them with people who will receive orders and carry them out in the form of reciting the groups talking points.
Then, the talkings come top-down, and are designed to use those groups, and the order-following, talking points-reciting pawns that make them up as vehicles to carry their vision, ie, the perception of the world that is warped to benefit them in some way.
As such, I wasn’t really thinking about how to make humans into adults that follow the “orders” of their tribe; it’s my impression that human are naturally tribe’s-order-followers, so, no need to make the schools produce them or anything like that. The effort is focused on getting those humans into your tribe rather than into one of your competitors.
The problem is that your argument seems to be theoretical in nature instead based on the empiric observations of the actors in question.
I have knowledge about how politics works where I live that comes from in person conversations and my knowledge of what I know about US politics comes from reading about it but I find it unlikely that even US politics is going to work the way you present it to work.
It seems like you equate the skill to convince a friend that to repeat Democratic or Republican talking points as being about political coalition building in the sense you need to become a politician. It isn’t. The way most people interact with politics is like watching football. They are fans or one party but they aren’t politically active. When you get to people who are actually politically active they have a lot of other concerns. They have personal stakes and there career depend on it. They also know a lot more boring details about the actual issues that are involved.
If you want a post on coalition building Raemon wrote based on his own experience https://www.lesserwrong.com/posts/mL7PJKu3NEkHLZ9vP/melting-gold-and-organizational-capacity . The post doesn’t advocate getting blind followers to recite talking points but shows a lot more practical concerns in getting people involved.
I’m not quite sure how I’ve managed to give this impression. The rank-and-file, order-repeating members of most coalitions don’t necessarily have any skills at all. Naturally, some do; some are personable and charming and creative and so on, but that’s not my point at all. Their ability to get others to join their coalition is probably just about being good representatives of their coalition, seeming nice and powerful, while also offering status to joining members, I suppose. I think of them them as completely different from the people who decide what talking points they want the group to adopt and why, who are also probably more aware of PR needs and stuff. Those are the people who actually have to know how politics works, while most people just need to know how social interaction works and then repeat what they’re told to.
Thank you for the link; I’ll check it out. Writing about this stuff has garnered a great many fascinating links :)