JackHandy said:
sundin13 said:
Thats a cool hypothetical, but that isn't how reality works. Moderate decision making simply isn't more evidence based than less moderate positions. Moderates aren't more likely to accept something outside of their typical political platform than less moderate positions. Moderates aren't the "get things done" branch of politics. I find it fairly laughable that you can still assert this given what is currently happening in US politics. What this is, to me, is a prime example of the "Moderation Bias" that I talked about earlier. People think of being in the middle as virtuous because of all these made up attributes they attach to the idea. Sometimes, the extremes are right. Sometimes, the extremes compromise. That shouldn't be surprising. |
I didn't say moderate people get things done. I said taking what works from both sides, disregarding what doesn't and forming an official position based on that allows for things to get done. But I know how things are. Red team. Blue team. Pick a side and fight! It's sad. |
That only works under the assumption that both sides are equally likely to have a position which is supported by evidence. I have seen little evidence of that.
Further, again, being moderate is a political position in and of itself. It is not simply an empty vessel, there is moderate policy and moderate politics that exist outside of simply looking elsewhere and seeing what works.
