What are My Interests? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14817875
Many times we hear about interests. National interests and personal interests, the interests of the voters, the middle classes, the working classes, businesses.

Do a person's personal interests exist outside of their own perception? For example, if you are middle class, would it be against your interest to vote for a far left party? Or if you are working class, would it be against your interest to vote for the conservatives?

The reason I ask is because someone with lots of money may make the decision that a vote for the communists is actually in the interest of their nation and that they could comfortably adapt to the new system. And likewise a working class person may imagine a libertarian society and conclude that this is the type of system they want to live in.

Where are personal interests, are they set in stone and if so, what if they contradict your ideal vision for your own life and for your vision for your country?

Hypothetical scenario: I am an upper middle class to upper class person. The socialist party is going to tax me and may even nationalise my business. However the socialists also plan to build lots of apartments, better roads, schools and intend to build a more prosperous and unified country. I feel that crime will go down if the socialists are in government. The socialists are going to keep my country out of foreign wars. However the conservatives will not tax me, they will give me tax exemptions, but will cut spending to infrastructure, roads, schools and will increase class divisions. They will also involve the country in more useless wars. Which one is in my personal interest?
#14817877
While there may certainly be exceptions, my gut feeling is that our "ideal visions" are subconsciously and strongly influenced by our own personal interests and so I doubt there could be this "conflict" in many people for this to be relevant phenomenon.
Just my opinion eh, no claims to be right. :D
#14817883
Your interests are just what you want. There are a few we treat as universal because almost everyone is interested in them. i.e. making your families lives better, getting more money, being safer, etc.

There are people out there who hate their families, don't care about money, and love the thrill of danger. However by and large most people are driven by our biologically evolved interests of spreading our genes, survival, and our social instincts. How those things are expressed or even deviations from what most people would think rational are all perceptions of the world built out of our essentially irrational drives.

Basically we want lots of things and how people perceive those things are their interests, the underlying in built motivations are just generalized modules that push you in a general direction but not a particular one.

From a moral point of view biology doesn't make anything right or wrong so I'd say philosophically your interests are merely personal motives.

Hypothetical scenario: I am an upper middle class to upper class person. The socialist party is going to tax me and may even nationalise my business. However the socialists also plan to build lots of apartments, better roads, schools and intend to build a more prosperous and unified country. I feel that crime will go down if the socialists are in government. The socialists are going to keep my country out of foreign wars. However the conservatives will not tax me, they will give me tax exemptions, but will cut spending to infrastructure, roads, schools and will increase class divisions. They will also involve the country in more useless wars. Which one is in my personal interest?


Our socialization and social instincts would drive us to protect our communities in general. Our instincts towards self preservation and multiplication would drive us to protect ourselves. Which one wins out in your head has a lot of variables like upbringing, culture, and even genetic predisposition.

The two parties appeal to different things in your psyche and either could be "in your interests."

There is no black and white answer for what your interests are, at best there are generalizations you can apply to classes of people. Which would be a rather unsatisfying spreadsheet where you evaluate the value of those social services to you vs. your likely tax increase to find if it represents a gain or a loss. Personally I would also use a dollar utility modifier since losing 1 million extra to tax if you have a 10 million will have far less effect on you than if you lose $100 if you only have $1000.

tl;dr you don't have interests in a universal sense. Just in a biological, social, or personal sense.

Edit: You've made a few posts like this recently PI, whats on your mind?
By B0ycey
#14817893
Very few would vote against their personal interests. What is key when contempating a thought like this is figuring out what things people will consider their MAIN personal interest. I would say most people vote with their wallets so want policies that benefit them financially. However the general public is comprised of individuals so not everyone will consider money their main priority when voting. For example, you can be rich or poor, but if the environment is important for you, you'd likely vote for a Green party. If human rights are important, you'd vote for a Liberal party. Law and order, Conservative. Workers rights, Labour. UKIP is also an example of personal interest priorities. UKIP gained the xenophobic, Nationaliat vote and again this crossed social and economic boundaries.They didn't attract a specific class group.
#14817930
B0ycey wrote:Very few would vote against their personal interests. What is key when contempating a thought like this is figuring out what things people will consider their MAIN personal interest. I would say most people vote with their wallets so want policies that benefit them financially. However the general public is comprised of individuals so not everyone will consider money their main priority when voting. For example, you can be rich or poor, but if the environment is important for you, you'd likely vote for a Green party. If human rights are important, you'd vote for a Liberal party. Law and order, Conservative. Workers rights, Labour. UKIP is also an example of personal interest priorities. UKIP gained the xenophobic, Nationaliat vote and again this crossed social and economic boundaries.They didn't attract a specific class group.


But how does one define "personal" interests?

It could be in my personal interest to vote for one party which will do nothing for law and order or social equality. As a result crime rates remain high and the country is a banana republic. I am sure being rich in a country like Brazil surrounded by dangerous slums is wonderful.

But then you could vote for a party which will improve social inequality, make the country safer and reduce crime. But that might result in a personal financial loss. However what is gained is a sense of greater personal security.

Therefore where do personal interests lie? You could be filthy rich but living in a country full of poor criminals who would happily take it from you, or less rich but comfortable in a safer environment. Does money always determine personal interest?
By B0ycey
#14817933
Political Interest wrote:But how does one define "personal" interests?

It could be in my personal interest to vote for one party which will do nothing for law and order or social equality. As a result crime rates remain high and the country is a banana republic. I am sure being rich in a country like Brazil surrounded by dangerous slums is wonderful.

But then you could vote for a party which will improve social inequality, make the country safer and reduce crime. But that might result in a personal financial loss. However what is gained is a sense of greater personal security.

Therefore where do personal interests lie? You could be filthy rich but living in a country full of poor criminals who would happily take it from you, or less rich but comfortable in a safer environment. Does money always determine personal interest?


No, money doesn't always determine someones personal interests? Everything you write is correct, but unfortunately there is no magic formula to determine what anyone will consider their main personal interest. The example you give is a win-lose. And a voter would vote on the issue that is the most important to them. Would they rather be rich and have to hire/buy their own security or poor but live in a crime free environment? Everyone is different. But usually people do vote with their wallets so would go with option one - even though society as a whole would benefit with option two. Look at tax rises as an example. Tax rises would improve social services like the NHS and the police and everyone would benefit overall, but no one is willing to be taxed an extra fiver a week for a successful well run health service and crime force. So we struggle with a shit Health service and a depleting police numbers. And that is human nature.
#14817935
I would also look into Jonathan Haidt, a lot of his research on peoples political preferences revolves around explaining it through some fundamental values and not through direct personal interests.

http://righteousmind.com/

You can even take some of the survey's he used for the research on yourmorals.org which would roughly tell you what your "interests" are in that framework.

I think Boycy's point of view is a common one but ultimately doesn't really have all that much explanatory power. Many poor whites disproportionately get money out of the system in the US for instance but vote to lose that money which runs directly counter to their pocket book interest. You also have a lot of very wealthy voters for the democratic party in various sectors, who would raise their taxes.
#14817942
I have been forced to vote for a party whose policies I don't agree with completely, due to the fact that the alternative parties have some fundamental position that I cannot accept. In the end, its not my interests, its theirs. I may not vote next time.
#14818197
B0ycey wrote:No, money doesn't always determine someones personal interests? Everything you write is correct, but unfortunately there is no magic formula to determine what anyone will consider their main personal interest. The example you give is a win-lose. And a voter would vote on the issue that is the most important to them. Would they rather be rich and have to hire/buy their own security or poor but live in a crime free environment? Everyone is different. But usually people do vote with their wallets so would go with option one - even though society as a whole would benefit with option two. Look at tax rises as an example. Tax rises would improve social services like the NHS and the police and everyone would benefit overall, but no one is willing to be taxed an extra fiver a week for a successful well run health service and crime force. So we struggle with a shit Health service and a depleting police numbers. And that is human nature.


I suppose what I am asking, is whether or not interests are defined in an external, concrete and scientific way.

Is there a scientific and non-negotiable definition of interests? Or have interests always been negotiable, and some of us just choose to define personal interest as monetary benefit/detriment?

In all reality, someone could be a billionaire who is quite content to live in a small apartment and take transportation for the rest of his life if he thinks that is better for his own life and the national good.
#14818205
I feel kinda ignored. :lol:

Interests are largely negotiable but as I've been pointing out it's not either or. They are fundamentally rooted in a handful of factors but can express themselves very differently and with different emphasis and priority in individuals.
By B0ycey
#14818221
Political Interest wrote:I suppose what I am asking, is whether or not interests are defined in an external, concrete and scientific way.

Is there a scientific and non-negotiable definition of interests? Or have interests always been negotiable, and some of us just choose to define personal interest as monetary benefit/detriment?

In all reality, someone could be a billionaire who is quite content to live in a small apartment and take transportation for the rest of his life if he thinks that is better for his own life and the national good.


Being that people are individuals with different opinions, this would suggest that a personal interest cannot be defined concretely or in a scientific way. And being we are presented with choice, like any decision, any interest with variables can be negotiable. But what I find interesting is what I have put in bold. The concept of money is unusual. Money by itself is worthless. What you can do with it is great. It can feed, clothe, provide and secure you. So because of this, most people will consider money the main variable when defining personal interest. Why? Because it affects our lives the most. The people with money have more social standing, quality of life and possessions than those without. Money can also solve some major problems if you have enough of it. Nonetheless, as I have mentioned before, not everyone will consider money their main interest. And that is personal choice. A wealthy billionaire may be more than happy to live in a apartment and use public transport for the rest of their life. We, in this very forum, have plenty of communists who wish for a Soviet Republic who, I can only assume, would wish for such a way of life to consume western powers. And if any such poster had any wealth to them, you could place them in this hypothetical scenario of yours. I suppose what I am saying is pretty much the same as Mike when he writes...

mikema63 wrote:They (personal interest) are fundamentally rooted in a handful of factors but can express themselves very differently and with different emphasis and priority in individuals.
#14818399
B0ycey wrote:Very few would vote against their personal interests.
I'm strongly missing a word like "consciously" or "intentionally" or "willingly" in that sentence. People make poor choices that harm them in the end all the time.

Also I would like to point out that many elections only have poor choices. The thing voted for is then the least awful one, not one of which you expect actual improvement. See the last election of the US president - Clinton vs Trump.
#14818401
It's not actually true to say they were the only options. There was also the primaries which provides an extra layer of selection as well as local elections which are in the long run far more important.

It's a little silly that people point to the general presidential election as if it's the only choice they are ever offered.
#14818434
Clangeddin wrote:While there may certainly be exceptions, my gut feeling is that our "ideal visions" are subconsciously and strongly influenced by our own personal interests and so I doubt there could be this "conflict" in many people for this to be relevant phenomenon.
Just my opinion eh, no claims to be right. :D


I agree and have thought this for a long time. What we choose to vote for or support is a deep indication of what we truly believe we would benefit from. Therefore there is no such thing as a champagne socialist, because their politics is based on a sense of their own interests. Its just that someone may not be able to rationalise why a wealthy person could perceive their interests in socialism.

@mikema63

mikema63 wrote:Your interests are just what you want. There are a few we treat as universal because almost everyone is interested in them. i.e. making your families lives better, getting more money, being safer, etc.


But sometimes having more money can be detrimental to other interests. For example, some people like to argue that the West benefits from foreign intervention because it increases tax revenues flowing into Western governments and brings more money into Western economies, but the West could still enjoy economic growth and strength without those interventions. For example, the US economy would not have collapsed if America had not invaded Iraq, despite the extensive revenues this generated for certain American businesses.

mikema63 wrote:There are people out there who hate their families, don't care about money, and love the thrill of danger. However by and large most people are driven by our biologically evolved interests of spreading our genes, survival, and our social instincts. How those things are expressed or even deviations from what most people would think rational are all perceptions of the world built out of our essentially irrational drives.


I agree with this. We can have different ideas of how to improve our lives, but they are still an expression of what we perceive our interests to be, no matter how irrational they may seem to others.

mikema63 wrote:Basically we want lots of things and how people perceive those things are their interests, the underlying in built motivations are just generalized modules that push you in a general direction but not a particular one.


This is a very good idea.

mikema63 wrote:Our socialization and social instincts would drive us to protect our communities in general. Our instincts towards self preservation and multiplication would drive us to protect ourselves. Which one wins out in your head has a lot of variables like upbringing, culture, and even genetic predisposition.


And I do not think there is a true difference between protecting ourselves and our communities. Ultimately man cannot entirely separate himself from his collective identity, although it is important not to ignore individual identity.

mikema63 wrote:There is no black and white answer for what your interests are, at best there are generalizations you can apply to classes of people. Which would be a rather unsatisfying spreadsheet where you evaluate the value of those social services to you vs. your likely tax increase to find if it represents a gain or a loss. Personally I would also use a dollar utility modifier since losing 1 million extra to tax if you have a 10 million will have far less effect on you than if you lose $100 if you only have $1000.

tl;dr you don't have interests in a universal sense. Just in a biological, social, or personal sense.


Therefore it cannot be scientifically measured?

mikema63 wrote:Edit: You've made a few posts like this recently PI, whats on your mind?


I am not sure. Over the last month I have been feeling like my entire world view is falling to pieces.
#14818450
But sometimes having more money can be detrimental to other interests. For example, some people like to argue that the West benefits from foreign intervention because it increases tax revenues flowing into Western governments and brings more money into Western economies, but the West could still enjoy economic growth and strength without those interventions. For example, the US economy would not have collapsed if America had not invaded Iraq, despite the extensive revenues this generated for certain American businesses.


This is true, and there are two main reasons for this. One is simply lack of information or understanding of a realistic cost/benefit of a particular policy. Another is ideological.

There has always been a powerful strain of idealism in the american population and even in government. Some people see creating democracy as a moral imperative. That not imposing democracy is simply immoral laziness on our part. Many people in the bush administration have this view.

Personally I am more of a realist, having a country be a democracy is nice. Not just because of ideological reasons but because it draws them into our multilateral institutions and economic markets. It isn't however always possible, and we need to be hard headed and practical in our actions.

I will argue that many of our interventions do actually serve the purpose of improving our economic positions (saudi arabia is a my go to example of pragmatic cynical policy on this front).
And I do not think there is a true difference between protecting ourselves and our communities. Ultimately man cannot entirely separate himself from his collective identity, although it is important not to ignore individual identity.


It's also a fundamental contradiction of the human psyche. A part of us is a narcissistic self-serving bastard who doesn't care about our communities. Damage to our frontal lobes and malfunctioning amygdala lead to antisocial behaviors. These parts of the brain function to support our social communal roles and without them the part of us always striving to serve ourselves is laid bare.

Personally I view the human psyche as a sort of collective madness we all mostly have in common. We are all in some sense quite insane from the point of view of an outside rational observer. We do contradictory things and believe contradictory thing, and ultimately it's completely necessary for us to exist in this universe.

Procreation doesn't really matter, nor does money, community, or anything else really. We ascribe meaning to it for no other reason than the way we evolved to have chemicals spurt around in our brains. I try not to really think about it that often since it's depressing but it does lend some perspective on why people very often don't make any sense at all.

Therefore it cannot be scientifically measured?


Oh we can certainly measure stuff, the problem is that science cannot ascribe value to things that don't have any objective value. Value is something that humans ascribe to things that is anchored in our relationship and beliefs about that thing and not any objective quality that exists outside of our minds.

Value isn't gravity or electromagnetism, it's imagination springing from our collective delusions.

I am not sure. Over the last month I have been feeling like my entire world view is falling to pieces.


I've been there, and it sucks. My advice is to stop worrying about what a perfect world should look like. The world will never be perfect, it probably wont even get particularly close.

All the big changes to society happen over centuries and are the results of forces well outside human control. All you can do is decide on 2-3 things you want from life and work for them.

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]