I have tried for short summaries, but it hasn't worked. Very short summary: A "rational" ideology can be based on three morals (or core ideological principles): (1) fidelity to "unbiased" facts and (2) "unbiased" logic (or maybe "common sense" is the better term), both of which are focused on (3) service to an "objectively" defined conception of the public interest.
Maybe the best online attempts to explain this are these two items:
an article I wrote for IVN: http://ivn.us/2015/08/21/opinion-america-needs-move-past-flawed-two-party-ideology/
my blog post that tries to explain what an "objective" public interest definition can be and why it is important to be broad, i.e., so as to not impose fact- and logic-distorting ideological limits on how people see issues in politics: http://dispol.blogspot.com/2015/12/serving-public-interest.html
I confess, I am struggling to articulate the concepts, at least to a lay audience and maybe to everyone. That's why I was really jazzed to come across Less Wrong -- maybe some folks here will understand what I am trying to convey. I was under the impression that I was alone in my brand of politics and thinking.
I have been arguing and debating politics online for over 7 years now and I am quite used to how people speak to each other. There is nothing at all politically ignorant in my comment. When I say something is obvious, it has to be taken in the context of the entire post. It's easy to cherry pick and criticize by the well-known and popular practice of out-of-context distortion of a snippet on content in a bigger context. I have seen that tactic dozens of times and I reject it. It's cheap shot and nothing more. You can do better. Bring it on.
My blog and all of my other online content speaks directly to the American people in their own language. I do not address academics in academic language. I have tried academic language with the general public and it doesn't work. Here's a news flash: There is an astonishing number of average adult Americans who have little or no trust in most any kind of science, social and cognitive science included. As soon as one resorts to the language of science, or even mentions something as "technical" as "cognitive science", red flags go up in many people and their minds automatically switch to conscious rationalization mode. My guess is that anti-science attitude applies to about 40-60% of adult Americans if my online experience is a reasonably accurate indicator. (my personal experience database is based on roughly 600-1,000 people -- no, I am not so stupid as to think that is definitive, it's just my personal experience)
I am trying to foster the spread of the idea that maybe, just maybe, politics might be rationalized at least enough to make some detectable difference for the better in the real world. My world is firmly based in messy, chaotic online retail politics, not any pristine, controlled laboratory or academic lecture room environment.
Political ignorance is in the eye of the beholder. You see it in me and I see it in you.
By the way, reread the blog post you criticize as making no specific proposal. There is a specific proposal there: based on the social science, remove fuel 1 from the two-fuel fire needed to spark a terrorist into being. How did you miss it? Did you read what I said, or did your eye simply float down to the offending phrase and that triggered your unconscious, irrational attack response?
I do appreciate your comment on the review of Achen and Bartel's book. If your whining about spelling errors is the best shot you have, then I am satisfied that I understand the book well enough to use to to leverage my arguments when I cross swords with non-science, real people in the real world. I have no interest in basing my politics on my misunderstanding of areas of science that are outside my formal academic training. I need to be as accurate and honest as I can so that people can't dismiss my arguments for rationality as based in ignorance, stupidity and/or mendacity. That's another cheap shot tactic I come across with some regularity. The only defense against that attack is to be correct.
Shall we continue our dance, or is this OK for you?
I like your approach. Maybe we could chat offline if you're interested.
Does commentary and opinion that LW "sucks" mean that it can't proselytize? Everybody from terrorists to politicians to businesses proselytize, and what most of them are selling looks to me to be a whole lot less useful than what LW is selling.
Am I missing something?
My rationality outreach is limited to commenting and/or authoring content for several politics-related websites. Most of my commentary and content advocates "objective" or "rational" politics as I define that concept. I see my work as an experiment to test the acceptability of the concept. So far, the concept is a complete flop. Based on my personal experience so far, most people have little or no interest in or appetite for questioning their own beliefs. I suppose that surprises no one here.
At the IVN (Independent Voter Network) website, I comment and author articles under the pseudonym "Dissident Politics", e.g., this review of the May 2016 book "Democracy for Realists" by Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels: http://ivn.us/2016/04/21/democracy-it-isnt-what-you-think/ (notice the underwhelming response from the independents)
I put up posts at Daily Kos, a large liberal, pro-democrat politics website, under the pseudonym "pragmatic1", e.g., this rewiew of Daniel Khaneman's 2011 book, Thinking, Fast and Slow: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/01/15/1470227/-Thinking-Fast-and-Slow-Book-Review (notice the slightly better response from the liberals)
I am moderator under the pseudonym "Germaine" at the Disqus politics channel "Harlan's Place", which has all sorts of followers (socialists, libertarians, nut balls, etc), e.g., this inquiry about the social science of terrorism: https://disqus.com/home/channel/harlansplace/discussion/channel-harlansplace/self_criticism_and_conflict_resolution/ (notice the ferocious attacks on my brand of politics and my logic)
My own blog "Dissident Politics" is focused on the intersection of social and cognitive science with politics, and it contains my explanation and defense of how I see "rational" politics based on my understanding of social and cognitive science, e.g., this probably futile attempt to at least partially refute Johnathan Haidt's contention in his book "The Righteous Mind", that politics will forever remain overwhelmingly intuitive or system 1-based: http://dispol.blogspot.com/2016/01/reason-can-be-compatible-with-intuition.html (I'm not sure I convinced myself, especially now in view of what I am currently reading in the book "The Rationalizing Voter" by Milton Lodge and Charles S. Taber -- PS: no one reads my blog, I use it as an information source to link back to when there's too much content to put in a comment)
I sure could use some friendly feedback about whether I am barking up the wrong tree or am on to something plausible for politics.
Archeological evidence of spirituality goes back tens of thousands of years or maybe more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions#Prehistoric_evidence_of_religion
My reading of cognitive science suggests to me that spirituality is hard wired, but how that wiring manifests itself varies from person to person. As this discussion points out, listening to music is spiritual for some people. But, for millions of Christian Americans spirituality manifests as a deeply held belief that the bible is to be taken literally and, e.g., the Earth is less than about 10,000 years old.
I used to believe that it was a waste of time to logically argue against religion because "fact-based" logic and "spiritual-based" arguments are completely different things. One observer sees secular vs. religion debates as comparing Oranges to France: http://ivn.us/2014/02/06/creation-vs-evolution-debate-two/
But now, I'm not so sure. Assuming that American society is better off with less religion in the formal Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc., sense, there is a tangible upside to simply engaging in the debate. One person pointed out to me that unless the debate is engaged people are simply not hearing the other side. Cognitive science says that repeated exposure to the same thing tends to make it more familiar and that tends to make it more believable. It may be the case that religious people who defend religion in debates will never change their mind, but that says nothing about the minds of the people listening to the debate. A debate heard years before coupled with current circumstances can lead to a change of heart for some people. It is a fact that some religious people become atheists and some atheists sometimes become religious. Minds sometimes do change.
Hi from San Diego, California. I'm an attorney with academic training in molecular biology (BS, MS, PhD). I have an intense interest in politics, specifically the cognitive biology/social science of politics. I'm currently reading The Rationalizing Voter by Lodge and Taber. I have read both of Tetlock's books, Haidt's Righteous Mind, Khaneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow, Thaler's Nudge, Achen and Bartels Democracy for Realists and a few others. I also took a college-level MOOC on cognitive biology and attendant analytic techniques (fMRI, etc) and one on the biology of decision making in economics.
Based on what I have taught myself over the last 6-7 years, I came up with a new "objective" political ideology or set of morals that I thought could be used to at least modestly displace or supplement standard "subjective" ideologies including liberalism, conservatism, capitalism, socialism, Christianity, anarchy, racism, nationalism and so on. The point of this was an attempt to build an intellectual framework that could help to at least partially rationalize politics, which I see as mostly incoherent/irrational from my "objective" public-interest oriented point of view.
I have tried to explain myself to both lay audiences (I'm currently a moderator at Harlen's Place, a politics site on Disqus https://disqus.com/home/channel/harlansplace/ ), but have failed. I confess that I'm becoming discouraged at the possibility of applying cognitive and social science to even slightly rationalize politics. What both Haidt and Lodge/Tabor have to say, makes me think that what I am trying is futile. I have tried contact about 50-60 academics, including Tetlock, Haidt, Bartels and Taber, but none have responded with any substance (one got very annoyed and chewed me out for wasting his time; http://www.overcomingbias.com/ ) - most don't respond at all. I get that -- everyone is busy and crackpots with new ideas are a dime a thousand.
Anyway, I stumbled across this site this morning while looking for some online content about the affect heuristic. I thought I would introduce myself and try to fit in, if I'm up to the standards here. My interest is in trying to open a dialog with one or more people who know this science better than myself so that I can get some feedback one whether what I am trying to do is a waste of time. As a novice, I suspect that I misunderstand the science and overestimate the limits of human rationality in politics in a society that lives under the US constitution (free speech).
My blog is here: http://dispol.blogspot.com/
I'm done with this weird shit arrogant, academic web site. Fuck all of you academic idiots. Your impact on the 2016 November elections: Zero. Your efforts will have zero impact on the Donald's election. Only the wisdom of American common sense can save us. LW is fucking useless. :)