Having the same political stance as your father and his friends is usually:
Everybody knows the famous Pavlov experiment with his dogs, where he associated the sound of a bell to feeding time and after a little training could measure an increase in saliva production (from the dog:) even though there was no food to instigate it, but just the sound of the bell.
I am often embarrased for people when they are obviously retorting something somone they look up to said - and have the feeling that they do not hold these opinions because the actually read up on the matter, but rather that they just took a poll from a sparse group og friends and family, and base their vision of complex matters in such childish ways.
I often wonder how big a percentage of people get their political views in the same way they get their religious views; that is, being brainwashed as a child. My guess is a pretty high percentage
A valid stance
Side Score: 4
|
 |
A Pavlovian stimulus-response
Side Score: 8
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
1
point
It's called persuasion and influence. The political parties do it so they get into power. The influential people of society do it to gain power. There's nothing wrong with it, whether you're a strong willed adult or an easily swayed individual, there's nothing wrong with believing in the same things as your close ones. Otherwise there'd be chaos everywhere... Side: A valid stance
Well, if individuals take on beleifs because the majority around them says it is so, without checking the facts, it seems to me they are making a bet on what is right (for they havent made sure the only way it is possible to make something sure; by reading up on issues) - and bets invite randomness and chaos So I would say that taking on the beleifs of other without trying to find out for yourself is actually instigating chaos. Sometimes you got to undertake a little chaos and uncertainty in your mind to lessen such things in reality - The feeling of chaos and uncertainty (and fear) is actually a tell tale sign that you are learning something in my opinion Side: A Pavlovian stimulus-response
Sure, you can go and check out all the facts yourself and learn everything firsthand or just watch the herd and run when they do. It saves time and energy. And most of the time it will also save your life. I know that we're capable of much more than flock mentality but when time and resources are limited, it makes a lot of sense not to always go out there and "seek the truth" about absolutely everything... it's just not possible, even if you're a full-time investigator. It's human to trust, especially those closest to you. Side: A valid stance
|
I think this is obviously the case for more often than not. Human society which politicians try to control, is the most dynamic system known (or not so well known) to man. Politicians try to control this complexity usually with beauty queen ideals (freedom, justace, sustainability etc.) and allot of people retort those same ideas again and again as if they have a quantafiable meaning or function that can be plugged straight into the social machinery to produce utopia. I am afraid that in a little more sane discussion with practical issues at hand most people would loose interest, because then the argument wouldnt have the fervor they get stimulated with, that is; a quasi religious fervor. Side: A Pavlovian stimulus-response
I disagree with almost everything my father says when it comes to politics. He's Left Wing Economics with Cultural Conservatism while I'm basically the exact opposite. Hell, I was debating with him just a few minutes ago. It's not always a valid stance. If you truly believe in what they say, than it's a valid stance (if you can back it with logic). But if you're just quoting your dad in order to prove a point, you're a shadow. Side: A Pavlovian stimulus-response
|
