Micro-Digressions: A Philosophy Podcast · Spencer Case

Political Beliefs (with Oliver Traldi)

November 19, 2023·1 hr 10 min·5 clips

Oliver Traldi explains how Trump's 2016 victory led him to question why everyone got politics so wrong.

This episode of Micro-Digressions features host Spencer Case interviewing philosopher Oliver Traldi about his forthcoming book on the epistemology of political beliefs. Traldi explains his interest was sparked during the 2016 U.S. election, observing starkly different perceptions between his Democratic campaign-worker friends and alternative online viewpoints. He describes a pattern where confident predictions about Donald Trump's campaign from sources like Nate Silver repeatedly proved incorrect. This led Traldi to question the incentives, information sources, and reasoning processes behind political beliefs, drawing him into social epistemology. He references concepts like echo chambers and epistemic bubbles from C. Thi Nguyen's work. Traldi engages with the "skin in the game" idea, noting arguments from Hugo Mercier and Dan Williams about how social incentives and a lack of consequences can shape belief. He explores the challenge of distinguishing genuine belief from mere political expression, citing Michael Hannon's work on political expressivism. The conversation examines whether most people hold deep political beliefs or simply echo their social groups, referencing Philip Converse's classic findings on non-ideological public opinion. Traldi details starting his book by analyzing the very definition of a "political belief," drawing a parallel to the complexity of defining religious beliefs. He argues against a purely stipulative definition to avoid political bias in the inquiry. A notable example discussed is the cycling of views on COVID-19 severity between political factions, illustrating reactive group identity. Traldi suggests negative partisanship—hatred of the opposing group—can be a stronger motivator than positive affiliation. The dialogue turns to whether people should face social penalties for holding objectionable beliefs, like being a "closet Nazi," touching on puzzles of doxastic responsibility. Traldi posits that concern over future political action, not the belief itself, is the primary reason for such ostracism. He questions the effectiveness of raising social costs to deter beliefs, noting it might encourage costly signaling by trolls. Spencer Case raises a concern that enforcing "epistemic herd immunity" uses non-epistemic, potentially irrational, reasons to promote group rationality. Traldi observes that accusations of bad faith in politics can paradoxically be a charitable interpretation when someone's stated view seems wildly implausible to the listener. The episode concludes with a practical discussion on maintaining friendships across political divides, with both hosts sharing their personal policies of broad tolerance. The tone is conversational and intellectually exploratory, blending personal anecdote with academic philosophy. Listeners interested in the psychology of polarization, meta-political analysis, or social epistemology would find this engaging. Those seeking concrete political commentary or policy debates might find it too abstract.

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from Micro-Digressions: A Philosophy Podcast