People often agree on the facts of a political event but arrive at opposite conclusions because their internal 'threat monitors' are calibrated differently. One person's 'alarming authoritarian move' is another's 'necessary step for order,' leading to intractable debates.
Adults rarely change their minds on emotional issues through debate. Instead of arguing facts, create a positive, controlled personal experience related to the topic. This reframes their conceptual understanding, which is more effective than direct persuasion at shifting their position.
To accurately assess a leader's actions, especially an unconventional one, avoid asking 'What would it mean if I did that?' Instead, ask 'What does it mean that *they* are doing that?' This helps separate your personal behavioral standards from their actual intent and worldview.
When one political party prioritizes governing and maintaining standards, it's disadvantaged against a party that prioritizes drama and disregards those standards. The governing party is forced onto the defensive, constantly reacting to manufactured outrage instead of advancing its own agenda.
The psychological engine of populism is the zero-sum fallacy. It frames every issue—trade deficits, immigration, university admissions—as a win-lose scenario. This narrative, where one group's success must come at another's expense, fosters the protectionist and resentful attitudes that populist leaders exploit.
To combat self-deception, write down specific predictions about politics, the economy, or your life and review them 6-12 months later. This provides an objective measure of your judgment, forcing you to analyze where you were wrong and adjust the thought patterns that led to the incorrect forecast.
To extend the solvency of U.S. debt, create a one-to-one stablecoin backed by treasuries. This would grant global citizens, particularly in countries with unstable currencies, a direct way to save in a dollar-denominated asset. This new demand could lengthen the runway for U.S. fiscal policy.
The current political dynamic, where one side consistently forgives norm violations, is unsustainable. Game theory suggests a better strategy is 'tit-for-tat with forgiveness': respond in kind to adversarial actions to establish consequences, but also offer an off-ramp back to cooperation. This is more stable than endless retaliation.