Primary Screams

[kpete]

Know what is very funny? The personality changes which happen in some of the most avid supporters during the US Democratic presidential primaries.

I recall the same phenomenon from 2008:

Suddenly usually thoughtful people who enjoy debating stuff become intolerant of anyone who is not of the body. Suddenly, only evidence tilting one way is packed into the debating bags. Suddenly, previously politically agnostic individuals develop that red-hot religious fervor, that intolerance to anyone thinking differently or even suggesting nuances or complications in the tale of the Hero's Ascension. Disagreement becomes impossible, because it is interpreted as proof that one is not of the body, as proof that one is (gasp!) the enemy.

So does any of that matter? After all, it's just people advocating for their chosen candidate.

I believe it does, because non-stop advocacy introduces bias into the conversations and because advocacy makes planning for the general elections and the possible responses from the Republicans that much harder.

For an advocate the goal is that missionary one: to convert others. For an "analyst"* the goal is to understand both the positives and negatives of the candidates and to try to predict what might happen in the general elections. The latter includes being prepared for the potential Republican attacks. Advocacy hinders that preparation.

http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2016/02/primary-screams.html

[Bagsgroove]

1. Nice post

I'm a Bernie guy, but it's curious that any time I say anything that might suggest he may not be perfect, or that his campaign faces some tough challenges, I'm labeled as a "shill for Hillary" or something similar.

It is possible to support a candidate without suggesting they can walk on water.

[katmondoo]

2. I was banned from Hillary and Bernie

This and I support them both. I didn't say anything bad about Bernie except for the amount of posts about Bernie made it seem DU was only for Bernie. Clinton more serious, she takes advice and is a long time friend of Kissinger. I am old enough to remember the Vietnam War and Pinochet and Kissinger's part in both, this worries me.

[HereSince1628]

3. Although many deny it, humans evolved capacity for patterened social-psychological responses

which can simply, and thereby intellectually dangerously, sum up as 'us vs them'.

Promotion of in-group status through the channeling of animosity about 'them' is very common human behavior.

The development of capacity for intellectual detachment and non-emotional argumentation runs against the natural pattern which is evolved to produce coalitions and behaviors that manifest compliant belonging and enforced loyalty.

On DU detached argumentation is frequently referred to as "word salad", while characterizing opponents as diseased or morally corrupt is fine, until the other's treat it as an attack on their 'us'.

Our evolution biases our senses to 'feel right' about defending us by attacking them. Of course the rub in an environment of shifting coalitions is we all belong to a group that is labelled by some alien 'us' as them. Being shunned into 'them' really pisses off our primal sensibilities because being 'them' is to be placed at risk.

[MisterP]

4. the less someone has to offer the louder they have to be