How often are our stances on Policy Issue X influenced by our personal political philosophy that may be totally unrelated to X?
Eg : If you are a supporter of changing rules of admission at Sabarimala, you are also likely worried about Govt eroding central bank independence
Eg : If you are a supporter of changing rules of admission at Sabarimala, you are also likely worried about Govt eroding central bank independence
Though it is needless to say Sabarimala has nothing to do with central banking. But these two stances would be highly correlated.
Similarly, if you are a critic of Western academic translations of Rig Veda Samhitas, you are also likely a supporter of Demonetization.
Similarly, if you are a critic of Western academic translations of Rig Veda Samhitas, you are also likely a supporter of Demonetization.
If you support abortion rights, maybe you are likely to support affirmative action too.
If you support capital punishment, maybe that makes it v likely that you oppose government intereference in temple management
If you support capital punishment, maybe that makes it v likely that you oppose government intereference in temple management
If you prefer eating at Haldiram as opposed to McDonalds, and prefer Pav Bhaji over Croissant, maybe that makes you a very vocal critic of Judicial activism and Public interest litigations.
If you like Urdu Shayari, maybe that makes you a strong critic of GST implementation.
The point I am trying to make here is -
Our opinions on a host of completely unrelated issues are often governed by our personal prejudices. If we dislike people who hold Stance A, then that might prompt us to hate Stance B too, just because B is likely held by those who hold A
Our opinions on a host of completely unrelated issues are often governed by our personal prejudices. If we dislike people who hold Stance A, then that might prompt us to hate Stance B too, just because B is likely held by those who hold A
This is something worth pondering on.
Is there a larger phlosophical framework guiding our opinions on various topics? Or do we tend to form opinions by virtue of association.
Is there a larger phlosophical framework guiding our opinions on various topics? Or do we tend to form opinions by virtue of association.
Now a counter to this might be -
Why does "association" and correlation exist in the first place?
Why is it that people who support changing rules of admission at Sabarimala also likely to bemoan Govt interference in RBI matters?
Why does "association" and correlation exist in the first place?
Why is it that people who support changing rules of admission at Sabarimala also likely to bemoan Govt interference in RBI matters?
Why do people who oppose abortion also likely to oppose affirmative action / reservations?
Is there an underlying dichotomy of philosophical framework in men which is making these correlations happen in the first place
Is there an underlying dichotomy of philosophical framework in men which is making these correlations happen in the first place
@ThomasSowell, an intellectual hero of mine, believes these correlations are not coincidences but are outcomes of a conflict of visions..
A Constrained vision vs an Unconstrained vision of human nature
I like his view very much, but I still somehow am not 100% convinced
A Constrained vision vs an Unconstrained vision of human nature
I like his view very much, but I still somehow am not 100% convinced
Sure, we can use the conservative liberal divide to explain many of these apparent coincidences, but some of them just defy any attempt at intellectual rationalization.
