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 ...
As many people have noted, Less Wrong currently isn't receiving as much content as we would like. One way to think about expanding the content is to think about which areas of study deserve more articles written on them.
For example, I expect that sociology has a lot to say about many of our cultural assumptions. It is quite possible that 95% of it is either obvious or junk, but almost all fields have that 5% within them that could be valuable. Another area of study that might be interesting to consider is anthropology. Again this is a field that allows us to step outside of our cultural assumptions.
I don't know anything about media studies, but I imagine that they have some worthwhile things to say about how we the information that we hear is distorted.
What other fields would you like to see some discussion of on Less Wrong?