#### The Illusion of Depth in Political Beliefs In [[The Mind is Flat]] by Nick Chater, the difficulty in explaining deeply held political ideas and beliefs is attributed to the book’s central argument: the human mind does not operate with deep, pre-formed beliefs or values stored in the subconscious. Instead, it generates ideas, decisions, and rationalisations in the moment, based on context and surface-level information. When it comes to politics, this means that what feels like deeply held convictions are often constructed on the spot in response to a situation or question. This can make articulating or defending these beliefs challenging because they are not based on a cohesive, underlying system of thought but rather on fragmented and situational reasoning. ### **The Politics of Conviction: Emotion, Context, and Historical Trajectories** [[Antonio Damasio]]’s work on the role of [[Emotions]] in decision-making and [[Morality]], combined with Nick Chater’s view of [[Belief]] construction in _The Mind is Flat_, offers an insightful framework for understanding political convictions. When applied to politics, particularly figures like [[Bernie Sanders]], this synthesis reveals how deeply ingrained emotional patterns shape behaviour and give the appearance of principled steadfastness, while highlighting the ephemeral and context-dependent nature of belief. ### **Emotion and Conviction in Politics** ##### 1. **Damasio’s Perspective on Convictions** • Political convictions, such as Sanders’ advocacy for justice and collective well-being, can be explained by Damasio’s concept of **somatic markers**. These emotionally charged imprints, formed through a lifetime of experiences, guide decision-making by providing a visceral sense of right and wrong. • Sanders’ consistency may stem from the repeated reinforcement of somatic markers tied to ideals like fairness and economic equality, allowing him to navigate political fields with a sense of moral coherence. ##### 2. **Chater’s Perspective on Ephemerality** • Chater challenges the notion of deeply stored, unchanging beliefs, suggesting instead that convictions are constructed in the moment, shaped by the immediate context. • For Sanders, these constructions might draw on somatic markers that ensure his responses align with long-term patterns of justice, creating the illusion of depth and permanence. ##### 3. **Reconciling Emotion and Context** • Sanders’ convictions highlight how somatic markers, developed through sustained exposure to certain values and struggles, provide a consistent emotional guide. This contrasts with politicians who lack such markers and are more susceptible to opportunistic, shifting allegiances driven by transient incentives like polling or donor influence. #### **The Ephemerality of Convictions and Political Legitimacy** While Chater’s framework suggests that all beliefs are contextually constructed and thus ephemeral, Damasio’s work adds nuance by showing how the weight of emotional reinforcement gives certain convictions the **appearance of permanence**. Sanders’ political consistency may not stem from immutable truths but from patterns of emotional and experiential learning shaped by decades of activism and advocacy. In contrast, politicians guided by self-interest or power dynamics may also construct their convictions momentarily, but their lack of emotionally ingrained markers tied to broader values leads to perceptions of inconsistency or moral flexibility. #### **The “Right Side of History” in Politics** If political convictions are constructed, can there be a “right side of history”? Both Damasio and Chater offer insights: • While beliefs emerge situationally, they gain legitimacy when they align with enduring human values such as **justice**, **equality**, and **collective welfare**. • Figures like Sanders appear principled not because their beliefs are fixed but because their constructed convictions consistently resonate with these moral trajectories, fostering trust and authority. #### **Unpacking Political Convictions** ##### 1. **Convictions Are Emotional, Not Abstract** • Sanders’ convictions are rooted in emotional responses formed by repeated engagement with justice-oriented contexts, creating a coherent moral narrative. ##### 2. **Opportunism as a Construct** • Politicians who shift with power or profit are not devoid of convictions; their behaviour is guided by situational contexts that prioritise short-term self-interest over collective values. ##### 3. **The Role of Alignment in Historical Judgement** • Convictions aligned with long-term human progress—such as combating inequality or addressing existential threats like climate change—appear principled and enduring, even if they are ultimately contextually constructed. #### **Conclusion: The Politics of Moral Coherence** Sanders’ steadfastness exemplifies how emotionally reinforced convictions, consistently aligned with justice and collective well-being, create the impression of deep moral integrity. Whether this steadfastness reflects permanence or a well-constructed pattern matters less than its impact on shaping a more equitable and sustainable future. In politics, being on the “right side of history” depends not on immutable truths but on aligning momentary convictions with enduring principles of human progress. ### Key points from Chater’s explanation include: ##### 1. Illusion of Depth: People assume their beliefs are grounded in deep, coherent principles, but this is an illusion. The mind improvises explanations that feel consistent, but these may fall apart under scrutiny. ##### 2. Context Dependency: Political beliefs can shift depending on the framing of questions or the social and emotional context, revealing their lack of fixed foundations. ##### 3. Rationalisation: Instead of expressing pre-existing beliefs, we often post-rationalise our choices and preferences to make them seem logical, even though they may not have a strong basis. This framework helps explain why discussions about political beliefs can feel frustrating or circular: beliefs are less about consistent ideologies and more about fluid interpretations shaped by immediate circumstances. ## The Illusion of Depth in Political Beliefs In The Mind is Flat by Nick Chater, the difficulty in explaining deeply held political ideas and beliefs is attributed to the book’s central argument: the human mind does not operate with deep, pre-formed beliefs or values stored in the subconscious. Instead, it generates ideas, decisions, and rationalisations in the moment, based on context and surface-level information. When it comes to politics, this means that what feels like deeply held convictions are often constructed on the spot in response to a situation or question. This can make articulating or defending these beliefs challenging because they are not based on a cohesive, underlying system of thought but rather on fragmented and situational reasoning. ### Key points from Chater’s explanation include: ##### 1. Illusion of Depth: People assume their beliefs are grounded in deep, coherent principles, but this is an illusion. The mind improvises explanations that feel consistent, but these may fall apart under scrutiny. ##### 2. Context Dependency: Political beliefs can shift depending on the framing of questions or the social and emotional context, revealing their lack of fixed foundations. ##### 3. Rationalisation: Instead of expressing pre-existing beliefs, we often post-rationalise our choices and preferences to make them seem logical, even though they may not have a strong basis. This framework helps explain why discussions about political beliefs can feel frustrating or circular: beliefs are less about consistent ideologies and more about fluid interpretations shaped by immediate circumstances. ## A Nietzschean View of Political Engagement Nietzsche might advocate for a post-political approach: • Abandon the illusion of “right answers” in politics (absolutism). • Resist the nihilism of “everything is relative” (relativism). • Instead, embrace politics as a dynamic arena of competing perspectives, driven by the will to power. This view prioritises creativity, vitality, and the affirmation of life over rigid ideological commitments. ## Bruno Latour [[Bruno Latour]]'s definition of politics as **"the progressive composition of a common world"** encapsulates a dynamic and inclusive view of political processes. Here’s a breakdown of this concept: ##### 1. **Progressive**: This suggests that politics is an ongoing, evolving process. It emphasizes change, development, and continual improvement rather than a static or fixed state. ##### 2. **Composition**: This term implies creation, construction, and assembly. Politics, in this sense, involves bringing together diverse elements, ideas, and entities to form a coherent whole. ##### 3. **Common World**: This highlights the goal of politics as creating a shared reality that encompasses all members of a society. It underscores inclusivity, collective responsibility, and the idea that the political sphere is a space where different voices and perspectives come together to shape a collective future. Latour's definition shifts the focus from politics as merely the exercise of power or governance to a more collaborative and constructive process. It views politics as the art of assembling and negotiating the diverse interests and values of a [[Community]] to build a shared world. This perspective encourages engagement, dialogue, and the recognition of the interconnectedness of all societal elements in shaping our common existence. --- # The Media, The Government & Climate Change There has been a fair amount of discussion regarding the relationship between media and [[Government]] when it comes to [[Climate Change]]. To delve into this topic, some recommendations to explore are the works of authors like [[Noam Chomsky]], particularly his book "[[Manufacturing Consent]]," which delves into media's role in shaping public opinion. Additionally, "[[Merchants of Doubt]]" by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway explores how certain interest groups have influenced public perception of [[Climate Change]]. This might provide insights into the dynamics you're curious about. **Books**: Understanding the importance of context in shaping political opinions and viewpoints is a crucial aspect of political science. - "The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion" by John Zaller. - "[[The Righteous Mind]]: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt. Maybe left & right have their standpoints because of protecting something dear to them. I for myself want to progress the protection of artists, give them more freedom. A religious believer may be right wing because they feel threatened by the lefts want of changing the past. When we end up attacking decent people because of beliefs we must be doing something wrong - just because they hold different ideas. Surely it is actions that matter - # Just Stop Oil If a member of the public attacks us, a good rebuttal might be to say that we are doing this for their kids futures - Our government are just being greedy and banking on their own personal wealth to protect them from future catastrophes, so please can they let us stand up to express our concern in this last resort manner for the good of their kids futures. --- # Discussion of the biography of the flamboyant black congressman and civil rights campaigner Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., with the book’s author, [[Charles Hamilton]].  ---