People read and find certain arguments convincing based on their parsimony, coherence, explanatory power, data, compatibility with historical record. People's life experiences lead them to certain conclusions about what policy works, for example perhaps they work in healthcare and come to see the impact of certain competing healthcare policies.

So experience, disposition, how compelling the argument is.

Mostly friends, family, but also personality.
A few science related facts just about the conservative-liberal axis (but not about the pro/anti authority axis, etc.)

1) Tribalism. According to the lastest theories of personality types, there is still the introvert-extrovert axis etc., but there is also just one personality trait that is not between two extremes; some people have it and some don't. Tribalism. The urge to band together with like-minded people to hurt everyone else. Although they can be any political stripe, more are conservatives than not. I've heard a few cynical political commentators comment about there is always a sneaking suspicion that conservatives are out to hurt people, and it turns out that, yes, some of them actually are. Not all, but more so than other political leanings.

2) It actually isn't Liberals who are the whiny-assed bleeding hearts. Conservatives feel hurt and loss more. After being beaten down, Liberals are the ones that are more likely to pick themselves up and get going again. That's why they don't mind trying new things. If it doesn't work, no big deal, they'll just try something else. Conservatives feel the hurt of losing more, react by sticking to a safe and sound structured world, and react to new facts by sticking to the same solution.

Kinda explains why many conservatives are climate-change deniers.
A) It's new and therefore scary; and
B) The rules of how we think the world works and our place in it are changing, and is therefore scary.

2) above surprised me, but only a bit.

And no, I'm not a liberal or a conservative.

liberaliterianism

Theodosius though I agree with your conclusions I don't agree at all with points #1 or #2. I feel you've misdefined tribalism, and made a lot of unfounded assertions about conservatives in general.

There are good points to tribalism too, I just didn't include them. I guess how you feel about tribalism depends on how often you and your friends have been on the receiving end of the not-so-good parts of it.

No, I think tribalism is stupid, I just think that hurting those "outside the tribe" is a byproduct of tribalism, rather than the intent of it.

That point #2 Theodosius made is on-par with the "I'm a liberal because I live in the real world" tripe that Ogion was spouting earlier

I'm in agreement with everyone who says it's mostly social factors (family, friends, etc.) that define your politics. I think that's true for me and many people I know.

What is interesting though, is that if we accept that there's some innate feeling towards right and wrong, does that not mean we can't convince people to change their minds? If my politics are simply my gut feeling and are rationalised after the fact, can anyone really get me to switch?

@PE I'm inclined to agree. It's an interesting viewpoint, but it's pretty hamhandedly anti-conservative. I'd need more to be convinced.

pangloss that is too deep a question for old YJ just before bed. Time to bow out and let other, if not wiser, minds decide.

@ Pangloss,

I think yes, it is possible. While peers influence people, I don't think that influence necessarily covers every possible issue that might crop up, but is mainly a broadly defined outlook. And I don't think everybody, or maybe even most people, necessarily have completely ideologically consistent worldviews. I think everybody has issues that they aren't particularly sure about, because they can't know everything about everything. On those issues I think people are more apt to having their mind changed. I know for example I've had my mind changed many times on issues, and have plenty of issues I'm unsure about.

I also think people are apt being convinced when in periods of personal transition, moving from home to college, or to a new job, or getting married/having kids. New experiences open you up to fresh outlooks on life.

Pangloss, you're supposed to be a dedicated optimist. Stay in character.

Yeah to be clear I'm not writing off the bit about tribalism. I think it's absolutely correct that people tend to associate with others and sort other people into ins and outs; it's impossible to look at human history and deny this tendency exists and strongly influences people.

I'm just not buying the second part.

And I think pangloss makes an insightful observation that has really sobering implications for democratic processes. I think he crystallized for me something I'd been considering for a while myself but couldn't quite hone in on. I wouldn't be surprised if by the time most people have turned 30 they're locked into their views for life, and only stray from them in ways which, in the grand scheme, are insignificant. (i.e. change their minds on a set policy, but not the principles behind them or the overall outlook)

Oh didn't finish reading the rest of #1. Yeah I obviously disagree with both but think the actual bit about tribalism itself is on-point.

@Putin33 I'll grant that for things you're not sure about, you can have your mind changed. But it seems to me that someone's general outlook on life and human nature isn't something they're uncertain about--at least in the cases we're concerned with. People can have inconsistent worldviews and yet defend their positions with religious fervour. I know this isn't an adequate response to what you're saying, but I'm heading off to bed soon.

@bo_sox48 Why not let people believe what they believe? Best not to disturb their thoughts--especially in so fruitless a struggle! All is for the best!

@PE I've seen some people change their minds after the age of 30 or so, but it doesn't seem to happen very much. People are weird and complicated, so it's hard to say with absolute certainty that any outlook on life is 100% correct. Except mine. ;)

For general outlooks, you're probably not going to change people completely, but I think you can move them substantially in one direction or another, especially if say you're exposing people to ideas they've never really heard of before or given a chance, and especially if your existence demonstrates to the person you're trying to convince that they had misconceptions about how "people like you" behaved, etc.

I've seen this, anyway, when witnessing conversions to Marxism. And there are enough 'former Marxists' out there to suggest that changes in general outlook are not infrequent.

What a person yearns for has got to have something to do with it.

Putin is right - people change all the time. Kids go to college, become smething they weren't...live life, change again...happens all the time.

It isn't common, but I certainly know examples of people who had a radical change in their whole worldview after 30.

Well I would disagree that conservatives deny climate change. While some I don't. With temperature changes I believe that climate is always going to change. What I do disagree with is the notion that climate change is purely man created. I do not think man to have such mastery over climate and I believe nature and the sun plays a distinct role in such changes. With that out of the way let me reply to the original question of this thread.

With regard to how people choose political ideology I believe it comes down to all the influences exerted upon a person throughout life. I was fortunate to move around often as I got to see differences in the education system for influence. Along with parents and the previous mentioned sources of influence I believe it is important to realize the influence a teacher has on a student whether that pushes the student toward or against an ideology.

When I moved to the state of NY a while back (which we moved again 2 years after that) I already came from a household with conservative sympathies. So I didn't care for my time in NY at all (sorry if you are from there I did not simply like). This was because of how rude they were to my family and how nosey they were. Also the teachers had this notion that since I was from Indiana I had to be the stupidest kid in class and paired me up with similar students. I currently take all AP classes in my current state of WV. Anyways that led to me developing a distinct distaste for my teachers. Also all of my teachers were very liberal and had no trouble sharing propaganda for their views in class.

So my point is if people you don't like have a certain view you are less likely to sympathize with that viewpoint.

hey not to be captain hardass but can we not talk about climate change in here so this doesn't get sidetracked

I know a person who changed his mind about climate change.

TAKE THAT, Eden.

The thread is about WHY people believe what they believe, not specific beliefs. PE is right.

I have a friend who believed a particular thing, which I won't mention so as not to get into specific beliefs. He believed it because a college professor told him, and while at first he was skeptical, he later concluded that the professor had good arguments.

This is from Psychology Today.
Note that it's also been shown..by psychologists..that psychologists are mostly liberal in orientation and are quite willing to discriminate against conservative colleagues. So the following quote should be toned down a lot "in the real world". Defensive reactions to world events can be healthy too, sometimes.

"In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics. "

So, possible liberal bias aside, and that this is only showing a trend and that not all, or even most liberals or conservatives follow this path, just the more extreme personalities tend to, still shows some truth to the 2) statement.

You can, and probably should, rewrite some of that to be more fair, like replacing "structured" for "rigid" on the conservative side, or "ADHD" for "energetic and impulsive" on the liberal side.


As an aside, there are plenty of science deniers on the left, too. Look at fracking, GMO foods, safety of nuclear power, and some of the alleged advantages of organic foods.

Everyone wears different coloured glasses. We can't help but see using bias.

@semck83 So your friend was persuaded by the professor's arguments? Like, logic and reason? Or did you just make some shit up there?

Rigid, indecisive 4 year olds? Easily offended? Quoi?

Pop science magazines are for the birds.

The fact that you felt the need to add caveats like "that not all, or even most liberals or conservatives follow this path, just the more extreme personalities tend to" tells me everything I need to hear about how valid a point it is... if *you're* not even convinced that the trend doesn't hold for most people you're describing, why should I be?

Interesting...
In my case, my dad is atheist and my mother believes something else (I should ask someday :P), but I did go to a Christian school.

I always thought God was just another silly lie like Santa Claus.
That was always my reasoning: Santa Claus can't exist and God is even less likely.
I wasn't really sharing my beliefs a lot though; why tell someone who still believes in Santa Claus that Santa Claus isn't real? Same counts for God IMO. I was quite young back then, but that's where I started I suppose: I rejected all religions I came in touch with, some because I'd swear they were just bedtime stories and others because they just didn't make sense to me. I always saw religion as ... nice stories...
One thing that has kept my disbelief in God going is the fact that I'd be shocked to find out if there were someone or something deciding about all our lives. For one, how does he secides who dies and who lives? But more importantly, if I, or anyone else, reaches something in life, I want to belief that's something I chose for, and chose to fight for. Not that I was chosen by a god.

I have some great things in mind for my life, but if there were a god, never mind. Screw him.
Another way to explain this is with heaven and hell. If you die and you go to heaven or hell based on wether you are a christian as some said, I'd rather go to hell than heaven. In heaven are all those annoying christians who think they know everything, while in hell would be all the people who at least think for themselves, was my reasoning.

Of course, I didn't know back then that there were decent christians, and that christianity wasn't teached everywhere.