Opinion Not Another Political Compass Thread

[Lead]

The past few years, I've found this political compass article as a pretty good way in understanding ones ideology. Mostly putting the up for the poll but feel free to give thoughts on the dimensions and/or why you think you fit under each.

Coupled / Decoupled

In decoupled society the default relationship between two people is that of no obligations whatsoever (special circumstances like friendship or family bonds don’t count since we’re talking about the macro scale). The only obligations are to respect explicitly stated rights and agreements. No expectations beyond that are valid (for example, between employers and employees). Social problems can and should be addressed with formal means: contracts, property rights, tort law. Political decouplers like money and the market as institutions because they quantify and decontextualize social obligations.

In coupled society what it means to be a good person or what may be required of you at any point is open-ended. There are not clear boundaries between people and you are expected to take others’ or society’s interests into account as much as your own. Anything you do that plausibly affects anyone or anything outside yourself is everybody’s business; duties are not fully specified and can never be completely discharged or fulfilled. Social problems can and should be addressed by everyone taking on themselves to be more self-sacrificing and focus less on what rights they have to do what they want. Political couplers dislike money and the market for the same reasons decouplers like it[3].

Coupling and decoupling[4] as moral stances are obviously politically relevant. How about as factual stances? At least as much. According to a decoupled view, human beings are built from the inside out. They have traits, tastes and behaviors that results from a combination of inborn nature, rational thought and acts of will, and social structures are the emergent result of them interacting. In the coupled view, human beings are created from the outside in. They’re lumps of clay shaped to perform the roles assigned to them by a system tending to perpetuate itself, and individual selves are the emergent result of socialization into these roles[5].

Stanovich talks about “cognitive decoupling”, the ability to block out context and experiential knowledge and just follow formal rules, as a main component of both performance on intelligence tests and performance on the cognitive bias tests that correlate with intelligence. Cognitive decoupling is the opposite of holistic thinking. It’s the ability to separate, to view things in the abstract, to play devil’s advocate.

Thrive / Survive

In a “survive” scenario (think famine, war or zombie apocalypse) mistakes are costly, outsiders are potential threats, keeping order is paramount and we can’t afford to be too generous towards the weak lest they pull us down with them. Only serious dangers are real problems and risk and discomfort are things we need to deal with.

In a “thrive” scenario by contrast (think true post-scarcity in a future automated economy), where we don’t even need to think about making a collective living we can afford almost limitless generosity towards the “other”, the non-useful, the few antisocial, the sensitive and the non-conformist. As we get richer we work towards eliminating ever smaller risks and discomforts.

Radical/ Incremental
This is a third dimension I wanted to add as it's been something I've noticed that can separate people in the same party. It focuses on how quick/ slowly change for a policy should come about. A radical would normally side that change should come quick with a lot of moving parts at once. An incrementalist would want more gradual/ slower change. One could argue this might overlap either of the dimensions above but I think it's independent enough to be it's own thing.



This might be a hard poll to decide on. I found when seeing this article (credits to @Jack V Savage btw for showing it way back) it took time seeing different discussions play out and view them over these dimensions. I've found you usually can see more common ground with someone by looking at this rather than just the issue at hand.

 

[MMAisGod]

The past few years, I've found this political compass article as a pretty good way in understanding ones ideology. Mostly putting the up for the poll but feel free to give thoughts on the dimensions and/or why you think you fit under each.

Coupled / Decoupled


Thrive / Survive


Radical/ Incremental
This is a third dimension I wanted to add as it's been something I've noticed that can separate people in the same party. It focuses on how quick/ slowly change for a policy should come about. A radical would normally side that change should come quick with a lot of moving parts at once. An incrementalist would want more gradual/ slower change. One could argue this might overlap either of the dimensions above but I think it's independent enough to be it's own thing.

Voted. That Coupled description when broken down like that just sounds like some absolutely insane rationale to me lol, so I guess it would be good insights to potentially know where people fall. It would probably be a massive waste of time for someone like me to discuss a topic with someone with that view, as most people aren't willing to change their positions or views regardless of stance and we'd be too far apart before the conversation even starts.

 

[Lead]

Voted. That Coupled description when broken down like that just sounds like some absolutely insane rationale to me lol, so I guess it would be good insights to potentially know where people fall. It would probably be a massive waste of time for someone like me to discuss a topic with someone with that view, as most people aren't willing to change their positions or views regardless of stance and we'd be too far apart before the conversation even starts.

When going back to the article to post this, I didn’t remember it being defined that way so I suppose I’ve been using it a little different. I always had been seeing it coupled is big picture while decoupled is more compartmentalized. Coupled can have a con of ends justify the means while decoupled can get too focused on process that it doesn’t accomplish desirable goals. I also disagree the contextual piece has to be exclusive to coupled as context has a part in procedure as well.

That is the axis I focus on more when seeing other discussions. I think I tend to butt heads with someone more coupled minded and radical. Thrive/ survive not too sure because it’s different by topic and it’s the dimension I’m likely not to far to one end or the other.

 

[MMAisGod]

When going back to the article to post this, I didn’t remember it being defined that way so I suppose I’ve been using it a little different. I always had been seeing it coupled is big picture while decoupled is more compartmentalized. Coupled can have a con of ends justify the means while decoupled can get too focused on process that it doesn’t accomplish desirable goals. I also disagree the contextual piece has to be exclusive to coupled as context has a part in procedure as well.

That is the axis I focus on more when seeing other discussions. I think I tend to butt heads with someone more coupled minded and radical. Thrive/ survive not too sure because it’s different by topic and it’s the dimension I’m likely not to far to one end or the other.

You sound kinda similar to me in the second paragraph. And yea historically I've seen Coupled/DeCoupled somewhat differently. But it could be that I haven't seen it broken down in a way that truly shows me how far away I am from such a mindset since this breakdown was done in a "truly separate" type of way. I'm sure there's someone who would read it and say "wow that DeCoupled mindset is craziness", but like you said I couldn't imagine not butting heads with them because it's just a veryyy different rationale.

 

[mjfan23]

Which categories do MAGA and Feminist fall under?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I like the other type of decoupling/coupling axis described:

Stanovich talks about “cognitive decoupling”, the ability to block out context and experiential knowledge and just follow formal rules, as a main component of both performance on intelligence tests and performance on the cognitive bias tests that correlate with intelligence. Cognitive decoupling is the opposite of holistic thinking. It’s the ability to separate, to view things in the abstract, to play devil’s advocate.

This goes back to another discussion recently about WEIRD/Traditional mindsets (with coupling being very important for traditional thinkers). Anyway, I'm on the extreme end on cognitive decoupling.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Also, I'm solidly incrementalist not necessarily out of a philosophical conviction that incrementalism is better (though there is a good argument there) but because it's just a necessity in our system. Unless you have really widespread agreement on a big change, you can't do it as a practical matter.

 

[Lead]

I like the other type of decoupling/coupling axis described:



This goes back to another discussion recently about WEIRD/Traditional mindsets (with coupling being very important for traditional thinkers). Anyway, I'm on the extreme end on cognitive decoupling.

Added it back into the section. I guess the holistic thinking piece helps simplify it.

 

[ferrisjso]

Voted

Coupled/Thrive/Radical

 

[panem-et-circenses]

Coupled / Thrive / Incrementalist

Humans are born, and then they’re moulded, something that’s impossible to change. Society reflects this fact, for good or bad. Most of the stuff in the decoupled society description are shit we made up after the fact and as life improved, but we have an implicit duty to one another, which shows itself in troubling times.

I’m an incrementalist, I guess; although sweeping changes could occur overnight, mostly because many of these debates have gone on too long.

 

[Jack V Savage]

When going back to the article to post this, I didn’t remember it being defined that way so I suppose I’ve been using it a little different. I always had been seeing it coupled is big picture while decoupled is more compartmentalized. Coupled can have a con of ends justify the means while decoupled can get too focused on process that it doesn’t accomplish desirable goals. I also disagree the contextual piece has to be exclusive to coupled as context has a part in procedure as well.

That is the axis I focus on more when seeing other discussions. I think I tend to butt heads with someone more coupled minded and radical. Thrive/ survive not too sure because it’s different by topic and it’s the dimension I’m likely not to far to one end or the other.

That guy infamously said that Biden's statement encouraging vaccination was the most divisive thing a president has ever said and there's no close second. I think if you look at that statement in isolation, it is literally insane, like it indicates a complete disconnection from reality as well as impossible historical ignorance. But if you "couple it" to the broader anger about pandemic mitigation efforts and understand the context of how deeply ingrained anti-vaxxism and CTism generally is to some people's sense of identity, it is still an exaggeration but a more understandable one. So that should illustrate to him how people can "couple."

 

[Jack V Savage]

You can also look at economy Truthers in that light. They believe that admitting that the economy is really good right now is the same as saying that Biden is good, and they have a sincere belief that that can't be true. I pointed out that when a lot of numbers were similar but not as good in 2018 and 2019, I had no problem saying the economy was good. It reads to me as a difference in honesty, but being generous to the deniers, you can say it's just easier for me to separate an analysis of presidential performance from one of the economy.

 

[Lead]

Coupled / Thrive / Incrementalist

Humans are born, and then they’re moulded, something that’s impossible to change. Society reflects this fact, for good or bad. Most of the stuff in the decoupled society description are shit we made up after the fact and as life improved, but we have an implicit duty to one another, which shows itself in troubling times.

I’m an incrementalist, I guess; although sweeping changes could occur overnight, mostly because many of these debates have gone on too long.

For the other definition, would you still say it applies? Thinking the whole picture more than individual parts?

 

[Andy Capp]

Also, I'm solidly incrementalist not necessarily out of a philosophical conviction that incrementalism is better (though there is a good argument there) but because it's just a necessity in our system. Unless you have really widespread agreement on a big change, you can't do it as a practical matter.

Contrarily, I voted radical since it describes what is ideal, to me, regardless of the practical barriers which--as you point out--make radical changes impractical since the "compass" seems rather an idealistic measure of things in general even as it illuminates some interesting aspects of peoples' thinking.