"Vote with your actions"

Author: Swagnarok

Posts

Total: 12
Topic's author
#1
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
I posit that:

1. The human mind isn't a monolithic entity. People are doubled minded, and this is probably underselling it. Oftentimes, the statement "I want this and don't want that" is misleading. People often act in ways that conflict with what they say they want.

2. Because of this, polling can't be considered a reliable indicator of what the public wants. If people's private actions seem to be informed by value sets contrary to the values which informed how they responded to a poll, then their collective actions may be thought of as an ongoing poll in itself.

3. This has implications for such debates as the legal status of pornography or marijuana, tax ethics, social justice, and climate change policy.

Discuss.
#2
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Swagnarok
2. Because of this, polling can't be considered a reliable indicator of what the public wants. If people's private actions seem to be informed by value sets contrary to the values which informed how they responded to a poll, then their collective actions may be thought of as an ongoing poll in itself
Yes, this is called “revealed preference” and it’s a big interest of mine. I couldn’t possibly go into all of the examples off the top of my head but there’s a ton of cognitive dissonance in politics. A great recent example is how liberal city dwellers are reacting to the migrant crisis. While there are some true believers, the revealed preference is that when masses of impoverished and uneducated foreigners are dumped on their streets these self proclaimed sanctuary cities don’t like it too much. 
#3
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,275
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Swagnarok
I think this idea only makes sense if someone commits the action they say they want banned. I can't imagine saying someone who doesn't smoke weed believes weed should be illegal by virtue of their actions (or lack of weed-smoking action). Many people value others' freedom to benefit or harm their bodies more than they value enforcing their own moral standards upon others.
#4
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,275
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Swagnarok
@thett3
 A great recent example is how liberal city dwellers are reacting to the migrant crisis. While there are some true believers, the revealed preference is that when masses of impoverished and uneducated foreigners are dumped on their streets these self proclaimed sanctuary cities don’t like it too much. 
Good ol' Marthas Vineyard. Lol. I guess your example immediately proves my statement above isn't broad enough. 

I guess one could say someone who believes weed should be legal but hates the influx of stoners around their town would also fall in this category.
#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Swagnarok
I can imagine people that stand with Ukraine and Israel should also be forced to register for the draft.
#6
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,275
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Eh I think that issue is a bit more nuanced than this. First of all, what is "standing with Ukraine?"... Is it moral support, more aid, or boots on the ground? Second of all, while it may be reasonable to ask someone who believes in increased aid if they were willing to pay more taxes, I don't think it's reasonable to ask someone who wants boots on the ground if they would go themselves.

While paying more taxes is inevitable in the event of aid, a draft isn't immediately going to happen if we send some forces in. Paying more taxes is definitely inevitable in the event of the US sending forces in, though.

To be clear, I don't support the idea of sending forces to Ukraine (nor am I happy with the large amount of aid we are giving them), but I think this whole conversation is an easy gateway to accusing someone of cognitive dissonance when all they have is a more nuanced take.
#7
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Mharman
Housing is a famous example. People will always always always say that they support building “affordable housing” but try and put an apartment complex near their neighborhood and see what happens 
#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Mharman
I don't think it's reasonable to ask someone who wants boots on the ground if they would go themselves.
In the context of this thread, we should explore support for war and killing with actions. The women in WW2 took action by working at war factories. Moral support wasn't nearly as important during WW2 as the actions people took to support the war.

#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,969
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Swagnarok
climate change policy....
These are good articles describing the disconnect between what people will "morally support" and what they will "actually do"
Thoughts:
Actions:
#10
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
what people will "morally support" and what they will "actually do
Its called playing stupid.

As long as you verbally support good things, you are free to do bad actions.
Topic's author
#11
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Mharman
I think this idea only makes sense if someone commits the action they say they want banned. I can't imagine saying someone who doesn't smoke weed believes weed should be illegal by virtue of their actions (or lack of weed-smoking action). Many people value others' freedom to benefit or harm their bodies more than they value enforcing their own moral standards upon others.
Yeah, that's what I meant. And I don't just mean straight up hypocrisy but also an understandable reluctance to make really hard personal calls.

For example, you're a poor Democratic voter who supports total decarbonization of the US economy by, let's say 2035. You have a beat up 20 year old car and you're struggling to pay the bills you already have. You're not about to take out a massive crippling loan to swap your gas guzzler for an electric vehicle and reduce your carbon footprint.
Heck, let's say you're not so poor. Maybe upper working class or lower middle class. You still might see this as an unnecessary expense.

9 days later

#12
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
This is probably part of the politcal correctness that the left set up in the contemporaneous society. I mean, people are not so courageous to say what they really think so to not offend the other, or simply because they were told that this is the correct way to behave, almost as part of the moral code. 

In that matter, I have the same opinion of Jordan Peterson, we have to risk to offend the other because it's the only way to find the truth, or in this case to find the solution.