Engaging in politics leads to mindkilling, pretty much by definition. Discussing politics may not, but is it really that interesting?
It’s possible to have a civil, rational, productive, non-mindkilled discussion about e.g. global warming, or evolution, or gender, or any other issue that is often politicized. But that would be a discussion about ecology, biology, psychology, etc. It wouldn’t be a discussion about politics, and it wouldn’t be political in itself, unless it goes wrong. And we can and do have all of these, except maybe the ones about gender, which tended to blow up.
It’s also possible to have a discussion about politics. This would be a discussion of the tactics used by various politicians, the rhetoric, the campaigns, the alliances, all the ways in which people do politics. Is this what you’d like? Personally I find it uninteresting, but that’s no reason for you not to talk about it.
If ‘rational’ means ‘effective’ or ‘optimized’, then that is true, almost tautologically. And it’s also true that you can, and often rationally should, use politics as a tool or instrumental goal.
However, the actual process of politics is mostly about convincing people, making impressions, et cetera. And it seems that politicians never conduct epistemically fair or honest debates. They sway people by lying, taking advantage of their biases, appealing to emotions, using rhetorical tricks, and so on. It just seems to be an empirical fact(1) that it’s much harder to convince people(2) of some truth by rational argument, than it is to sway them by other means.
As a result, political discourse is almost always antagonistic and tribal. It doesn’t help that elections and allocations of funds are inherently zero-sum games.
Many people believe that when someone makes a claim consistently and publicly, an important claim which becomes part of their (political or personal) identity, then even if originally it started as a lie or half-truth or evasion, they will eventually come to subjectively believe in that claim. This is (said to be) an evolutionary adaptation: a human won’t be good at arguing for something, won’t come up with clever arguments and rationalizations, won’t sound honest, unless he believes what he’s saying. Humans just aren’t that good at pretending(3).
So to put it all together, a successful politician will be dishonest, will come to believe their own lies, will try to manipulate others instead of convincing them, and will be antagonistic instead of truth-seeking in debate. And a rational politician may choose to behave like that to be successful.
If someone doesn’t do any of that, they may be engaging in a political process, but they aren’t engaging in primate politics in the sociological sense of the word. That’s why I said politics is mindkilling by definition. Of course it’s pointless to disagree over definitions, and maybe other people don’t use the word as I perceived.
Notes:
(1) It is obvious that politicians’ public behavior is mainly concerned with signalling. But even beyond that, I believe that there is very weak correlation, at best, between political success and politicians’ public beliefs or predictions about almost any factual question. Predictions made by the proponents of new policies are rarely tested a few years later to see who was right. Politicians tend to be praised for good things, and blamed for bad things, that occurred during their stay in power, regardless of whether their policies caused those things.
(2) Apart from some small and unrepresentative communities like rationalists, people with domain knowledge, etc. Political discourse naturally aims at the typical citizen.
the actual process of politics is mostly about convincing people, making impressions, et cetera.
We may have different things in mind. What you described I would call “electioneering in a democracy”. The actual politics I would define as “acquisition and exercise of power in a society”.
a successful politician will be dishonest, will come to believe their own lies, will try to manipulate others instead of convincing them, and will be antagonistic instead of truth-seeking in debate.
I kinda agree, but would like to point out that being a cynical manipulator is likely to make you a more successful politician.
If someone doesn’t do any of that, they may be engaging in a political process, but they aren’t engaging in primate politics in the sociological sense of the word.
That looks awfully similar to a No True Scotsman argument :-/
What you described I would call “electioneering in a democracy”. The actual politics I would define as “acquisition and exercise of power in a society”.
That’s true, I described things involved in convincing or performing for non-politicians. Private negotiations between politicians are different. But still manipulative, dishonest, and performative.
being a cynical manipulator is likely to make you a more successful politician.
Yes it does: I listed ‘manipulation instead of [honest] convincing’ as one of the four characteristics of politicians.
That looks awfully similar to a No True Scotsman argument
No, it’s merely stressing the narrow meaning of ‘politics’ I was using. Like I said, let’s not argue over definitions.
Sam Harris has argued that the physical and biologic facts of the human species can serve as an objective basis for a universal, scientifically-sound ethical system. I agree. The next step is the extrapolation of interpersonal ethics to large group ethics, which is politics. Again, the objective facts of humanity should also serve as a basis for the design of public policies that could be applicable to all humans. That’s what I’d like to see discussed.
Sam Harris has argued that the physical and biologic facts of the human species can serve as an objective basis for a universal, scientifically-sound ethical system
Only after certain values like “happiness” or “optimal functioning” or “health” are nailed down.
For example one thing that trips me up is that I see ethics as “what I respect” and that is mainly aesthethical. I like acts of heroism, they are beautiful. Therefore I consider courage a moral virtue. It is irrelevant if it was necessary or not. If in a certain future everything risky is done by machines and humans would become extremely timid as a perfectly rational strategy, I would want to prevent that future, because that is ugly, disrespectable, repulsive, disgusting.
I know that it is all an evolved bias, a heuristic that makes me respect those virtues that used to be useful in an ancestral environment. Still. Why cannot I still make things we find instinctively beautiful and respectable into terminal values? Why should only happiness, functioning or health be terminal values?
I thought the word politics was used to mean not the design of ethics or policies, but the process of making other humans agree with the policies you have already selected.
Engaging in politics leads to mindkilling, pretty much by definition. Discussing politics may not, but is it really that interesting?
It’s possible to have a civil, rational, productive, non-mindkilled discussion about e.g. global warming, or evolution, or gender, or any other issue that is often politicized. But that would be a discussion about ecology, biology, psychology, etc. It wouldn’t be a discussion about politics, and it wouldn’t be political in itself, unless it goes wrong. And we can and do have all of these, except maybe the ones about gender, which tended to blow up.
It’s also possible to have a discussion about politics. This would be a discussion of the tactics used by various politicians, the rhetoric, the campaigns, the alliances, all the ways in which people do politics. Is this what you’d like? Personally I find it uninteresting, but that’s no reason for you not to talk about it.
Why?
I don’t see why you can’t engage in politics in a rational (albeit cynical) way.
If ‘rational’ means ‘effective’ or ‘optimized’, then that is true, almost tautologically. And it’s also true that you can, and often rationally should, use politics as a tool or instrumental goal.
However, the actual process of politics is mostly about convincing people, making impressions, et cetera. And it seems that politicians never conduct epistemically fair or honest debates. They sway people by lying, taking advantage of their biases, appealing to emotions, using rhetorical tricks, and so on. It just seems to be an empirical fact(1) that it’s much harder to convince people(2) of some truth by rational argument, than it is to sway them by other means.
As a result, political discourse is almost always antagonistic and tribal. It doesn’t help that elections and allocations of funds are inherently zero-sum games.
Many people believe that when someone makes a claim consistently and publicly, an important claim which becomes part of their (political or personal) identity, then even if originally it started as a lie or half-truth or evasion, they will eventually come to subjectively believe in that claim. This is (said to be) an evolutionary adaptation: a human won’t be good at arguing for something, won’t come up with clever arguments and rationalizations, won’t sound honest, unless he believes what he’s saying. Humans just aren’t that good at pretending(3).
So to put it all together, a successful politician will be dishonest, will come to believe their own lies, will try to manipulate others instead of convincing them, and will be antagonistic instead of truth-seeking in debate. And a rational politician may choose to behave like that to be successful.
If someone doesn’t do any of that, they may be engaging in a political process, but they aren’t engaging in primate politics in the sociological sense of the word. That’s why I said politics is mindkilling by definition. Of course it’s pointless to disagree over definitions, and maybe other people don’t use the word as I perceived.
Notes:
(1) It is obvious that politicians’ public behavior is mainly concerned with signalling. But even beyond that, I believe that there is very weak correlation, at best, between political success and politicians’ public beliefs or predictions about almost any factual question. Predictions made by the proponents of new policies are rarely tested a few years later to see who was right. Politicians tend to be praised for good things, and blamed for bad things, that occurred during their stay in power, regardless of whether their policies caused those things.
(2) Apart from some small and unrepresentative communities like rationalists, people with domain knowledge, etc. Political discourse naturally aims at the typical citizen.
(3) Except Tom Riddle.
We may have different things in mind. What you described I would call “electioneering in a democracy”. The actual politics I would define as “acquisition and exercise of power in a society”.
I kinda agree, but would like to point out that being a cynical manipulator is likely to make you a more successful politician.
That looks awfully similar to a No True Scotsman argument :-/
That’s true, I described things involved in convincing or performing for non-politicians. Private negotiations between politicians are different. But still manipulative, dishonest, and performative.
Yes it does: I listed ‘manipulation instead of [honest] convincing’ as one of the four characteristics of politicians.
No, it’s merely stressing the narrow meaning of ‘politics’ I was using. Like I said, let’s not argue over definitions.
Sam Harris has argued that the physical and biologic facts of the human species can serve as an objective basis for a universal, scientifically-sound ethical system. I agree. The next step is the extrapolation of interpersonal ethics to large group ethics, which is politics. Again, the objective facts of humanity should also serve as a basis for the design of public policies that could be applicable to all humans. That’s what I’d like to see discussed.
Only after certain values like “happiness” or “optimal functioning” or “health” are nailed down.
For example one thing that trips me up is that I see ethics as “what I respect” and that is mainly aesthethical. I like acts of heroism, they are beautiful. Therefore I consider courage a moral virtue. It is irrelevant if it was necessary or not. If in a certain future everything risky is done by machines and humans would become extremely timid as a perfectly rational strategy, I would want to prevent that future, because that is ugly, disrespectable, repulsive, disgusting.
I know that it is all an evolved bias, a heuristic that makes me respect those virtues that used to be useful in an ancestral environment. Still. Why cannot I still make things we find instinctively beautiful and respectable into terminal values? Why should only happiness, functioning or health be terminal values?
I thought the word politics was used to mean not the design of ethics or policies, but the process of making other humans agree with the policies you have already selected.