I'm not sure it's religious differences as much as different sets of facts. Conservatives want to believe there are two sexes, progressives see a spectrum. If you have entirely different fact sets, agreement is difficult.
This has gotten worse with the differences in education across the political spectrum as the areas those fact differen…
I'm not sure it's religious differences as much as different sets of facts. Conservatives want to believe there are two sexes, progressives see a spectrum. If you have entirely different fact sets, agreement is difficult.
This has gotten worse with the differences in education across the political spectrum as the areas those fact differences cover has increased. Conservatives believe climate change is a hoax, so no progressive policy on climate change would appeal to them.
Even now with Russia, we're seeing gaslighting on the conservative front about who started the war (it was Russia). That gaslighting is expanding the scope of mismatching fact sets even further.
Until we find a way to come back and share facts, I don't think we'll see a lot of agreement or compromise.
I think the people who are arguing from a place of facts can be persuaded and find a reasonable compromise. But the real religious zealotry comes from people who use facts when convenient but still argue from a place of belief. Climate change is actually a good ex, on the right you have these people as you say and on the left you have de-growthers, a group of whom believes capitalism is bad, we need fewer humans and that animals are superior, we should stop building etc. It's very religious. Obviously both groups are wrong.
I don't see a lot of persuasion coming from people with different fact sets. Very few people want to admit they are wrong! Just look at how the MAGA campaign owned the lie about immigrants eating dogs in Ohio. A clearly false claim that they owned because they didn't want to admit Trump was wrong. You cannot reason or compromise with that.
Yeah campaign commentary is always going to be odd, that's just that game (which is some % just vibes some % facts) - but one hopes in actual issues and debates of our time we could approach things less with the beliefs of large dogmatic tribes and more what is simply the best course of action (might not be politically correct for one group). Both parties are guilty on various things. If everyone was a few % more reasonable I think we'd get there (and also don't let extremists permeate a party)
That would require not having entirely separate information communities. The facts you see on Twitter are vastly different than what you see on Facebook, and Fox News is vastly different than NPR.
The legacy of the Trump movement is that the campaign never ends, so there is no reprieve. Everything is a campaign all the time, and facts are chosen or created to fit the policy goal.
There is no clear path back from that. Climate change, for example, is already affecting people's lives so they can see it with their own eyes. Yet still they don't believe.
I'm not sure it's religious differences as much as different sets of facts. Conservatives want to believe there are two sexes, progressives see a spectrum. If you have entirely different fact sets, agreement is difficult.
This has gotten worse with the differences in education across the political spectrum as the areas those fact differences cover has increased. Conservatives believe climate change is a hoax, so no progressive policy on climate change would appeal to them.
Even now with Russia, we're seeing gaslighting on the conservative front about who started the war (it was Russia). That gaslighting is expanding the scope of mismatching fact sets even further.
Until we find a way to come back and share facts, I don't think we'll see a lot of agreement or compromise.
I think the people who are arguing from a place of facts can be persuaded and find a reasonable compromise. But the real religious zealotry comes from people who use facts when convenient but still argue from a place of belief. Climate change is actually a good ex, on the right you have these people as you say and on the left you have de-growthers, a group of whom believes capitalism is bad, we need fewer humans and that animals are superior, we should stop building etc. It's very religious. Obviously both groups are wrong.
I don't see a lot of persuasion coming from people with different fact sets. Very few people want to admit they are wrong! Just look at how the MAGA campaign owned the lie about immigrants eating dogs in Ohio. A clearly false claim that they owned because they didn't want to admit Trump was wrong. You cannot reason or compromise with that.
Yeah campaign commentary is always going to be odd, that's just that game (which is some % just vibes some % facts) - but one hopes in actual issues and debates of our time we could approach things less with the beliefs of large dogmatic tribes and more what is simply the best course of action (might not be politically correct for one group). Both parties are guilty on various things. If everyone was a few % more reasonable I think we'd get there (and also don't let extremists permeate a party)
That would require not having entirely separate information communities. The facts you see on Twitter are vastly different than what you see on Facebook, and Fox News is vastly different than NPR.
The legacy of the Trump movement is that the campaign never ends, so there is no reprieve. Everything is a campaign all the time, and facts are chosen or created to fit the policy goal.
There is no clear path back from that. Climate change, for example, is already affecting people's lives so they can see it with their own eyes. Yet still they don't believe.