[INFJ] How do you feel about our very emotional political climate?

noisebloom

noisebloom

theory conspirer
Site Supporter
MBTI
INTP
This question is targeted towards INFJs, as I'm particularly interested in how Ni-Fe may play into your opinions, but I have no doubt that many other perspectives would be interesting.

The world has a high degree of emotion that fuels the political "climate", nowadays, and in my opinion, it's tearing us apart.

We're not supposed to understand the other side, just abhor it. We're not supposed to forgive, but shame.

There is either zero tolerance for misspeaking or a horde of angry verbal assailants armed with extremely despicable things to say about others.

The dichotomy gets wider. People find it easier in their inhibiting anger to blindly cling to ideologies, instead of thinking independently about every event that occurs, regardless of if their side agrees.

I remember a time in which tragedies were followed by a period of predominantly grief and respectful sorrow... people would then discuss their political interpretation, but it wasn't the focus. Nowadays, togetherness is an afterthought.

It's all very emotional, and the major emotion is anger.

I relate to and believe that everyone has a right to be angry when they are wronged, but I was taught as a child (as I'm sure many of you were) that you need to regain your composure and act rationally but resolutely if you want to be effective. I don't see this happening. People keep screaming as if they aren't just provoking more fighting.

How do you feel about this? There's no doubt some of you disagree with me, but I'd be interested in hearing your opinion, regardless, and if you are consciously aware of your type playing a role in it. Perhaps my stance comes from being more disconnected from my emotions.
 
The internet and alt media has radicalized people (a small group) on both sides. These people should be disregarded.
Corporate media sensationalizes these groups. Because corporate media only cares about their bottom line, and drama sells.
It's an uphill battle against how humans are naturally wired to really fix the problem. The best thing is to look away from crazy.
If you're a person who is actually legitimately invested in politics (most of these radicals aren't) then you need to work double time on sifting through what is fact and what is hyperbole or conflated perplexity.
 
I believe extreme political ideologies are extremely noisy which is why it seems like the whole world seems to be going mad. I don't really think the majority of people are like this, however. What we see on TV, newspaper and social media is just the reflection of this noise which has enveloped even people that are not interested in politics to take a side with these extreme ideologues that can't see the gray amidst their black and white worldview.

Unfortunately, the moment you take a side you become the enemy of the other and you're suddenly thrown into that group along with all the prejudices and stereotypes that follows it. You're no longer an individual but an ideology that must be dealt with.
 
@Wyote and @AUM have said that the 'problem' (if we want to put it in those terms) is essentially the domination of the narrative by extreme or radical political viewpoints, which makes it difficult for the good people of the majority to exercise their democratic duty rationally, &c.

However, I'm not sure that this is the case. I think that in the US there exists a genuinely bipolar political state divided between 'conservatives' and 'liberals'.

I do not see much 'crossing of the floor' by moderates (party switching). I do not see a common platform shared by both sides without any implicit political judgement. It seems that even the most centrist people are forced to break into either of the big cliques.

I keep banging on about Social Network Analysis, so I won't go into specifics here, but just know that the theory of polarisation in this field has a silver lining: after the bipolar state is achieved, and the network is perfectly structurally balanced into two cliques, there is still a pressure towards utopia because any negative relations are unpleasant in themselves.

This 'back to utopia' can be achieved with n basically a couple of ways:

1) One clique annihilates the other clique.
2) The negative relations between cliques become positive relations.
3) The game is redefined such that opinions are no longer capable of causing negative relations. E.g. A broad range of Political opinions might become as socially acceptable as one's taste in clothing brands or restaurants, &c.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
3) The game is redefined such that opinions are no longer capable of causing negative relations. E.g. A broad range of Political opinions might become as socially acceptable as one's taste in clothing brands or restaurants, &c.
Click to expand...

It's going in this direction
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
I think that in the US there exists a genuinely bipolar political state divided between 'conservatives' and 'liberals'.
Click to expand...

A lot of it is familiarity and fear of change, and the necessity to hold on to the two party system in some way since in most people's minds it is a foundation of the country
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
@Wyote and @AUM have said that the 'problem' (if we want to put it in those terms) is essentially the domination of the narrative by extreme or radical political viewpoints, which makes it difficult for the good people of the majority to exercise their democratic duty rationally, &c.

However, I'm not sure that this is the case. I think that in the US there exists a genuinely bipolar political state divided between 'conservatives' and 'liberals'.

I do not see much 'crossing of the floor' by moderates (party switching). I do not see a common platform shared by both sides without any implicit political judgement. It seems that even the most centrist people are forced to break into either of the big cliques.

I keep banging on about Social Network Analysis, so I won't go into specifics here, but just know that the theory of polarisation in this field has a silver lining: after the bipolar state is achieved, and the network is perfectly structurally balanced into two cliques, there is still a pressure towards utopia because any negative relations are unpleasant in themselves.

This 'back to utopia' can be achieved with n basically a couple of ways:

1) One clique annihilates the other clique.
2) The negative relations between cliques become positive relations.
3) The game is redefined such that opinions are no longer capable of causing negative relations. E.g. A broad range of Political opinions might become as socially acceptable as one's taste in clothing brands or restaurants, &c.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with all of this, and what you've said goes through my mind frequently.

The picture painted by the media is essentially reality to me, because it's what most of the people I know actually believe. I know very few people that actually don't fall into the angry, mainstream ideologies. Maybe it's just where I live at the moment. My family back home from the Midwest hardly believes the stories I tell about what liberals or conservatives here do or say. It's like people want it all to fall apart.
 
Pin said:
I hate it.

People on opposite sides of the political aisle can't agree on basic facts, this makes substantive discussion impossible.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Enough misinformation exists that one almost has to avoid discussion of "the facts" to get anywhere... and people aren't content to state their opinions without hurling damning statistics at the other side.
 
noisebloom said:
Agreed. Enough misinformation exists that one almost has to avoid discussion of "the facts" to get anywhere... and people aren't content to state their opinions without hurling damning statistics at the other side.
Click to expand...
As a result of this phenomenon I think most people are becoming apathetic, myopically more focused on their own lives.

Perhaps I'm projecting, Rick.
 
noisebloom said:
Agreed. Enough misinformation exists that one almost has to avoid discussion of "the facts" to get anywhere... and people aren't content to state their opinions without hurling damning statistics at the other side.
Click to expand...
And as a rule, the statistics are always “biased” according to whomever you’re trying to prove a point to. It’s not that they can’t be, but they will be labeled as such 100% of the time if you’re using them in a debate.
 
I always find hope in moments where both sides of the political establishment show each other respect and reaffirm their commitment to democracy more generally.

E.g.

Part of the danger of Trump is that this 'civil discourse' and mutual respect seems that bit more difficult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top