I'm beginning to think the human race has *always* been separated into 'Reality-Based' and 'Fantasy-Driven' ways of looking at the world. Moreover, the 'Reality-Based' community (as opposed to a few 'Reality-Based' individuals) may be an extremely recent development in human history and very much in the minority.
If the goal of the demagogue is to play to populist fantasies about how things work, what is the goal of the 'Reality-Based' politician? And how can they compete?
Related, there are clearly reality-based individuals in every cross-section of politics you might want to inspect; meaning you can honestly look at the same reality as another person and still form a different opinion about it. And it's clear there are those who are reality-based on some subjects, but fantasy-driven on others.
To what extent does this explain the (somewhat valid) 'political compass' and are what are the distributions of reality-based and fantasy-driven thinking across it?
NOTE: I call the 'political compass' 'somewhat valid' because showing human political opinions across two dimensions is superior to a single dimension of left vs right. But, in truth, without yet more dimensions it remains overly reductionist.
@jackwilliambell Did you just invent the Political Battenberg? 🤯
More like the Political Hypercube. In any case, it's more I pointed out the need for such than invented it.
Finally, could we be reality-based on some subjects and fantasy-driven on others – and not know it? Even those of us who firmly believe we are Realists?
Among other things, this would help explain Dunning-Kruger and an awful lot of bad decisions made by people who should know better…