A lot of the political thinking in this thread (and other political threads around TypoC) shows strong evidence of a cognitive bias called the "Halo Effect."
The Halo Effect is a common cognitive bias in human thinking. It has two aspects:
1) If we gain a positive impression of someone based on limited knowledge (a first impression), we will tend to think of that person positively and associate him with positive characteristics that we know nothing about. For example, if we are told that X is intelligent, we tend to ascribe to him other positive characteristics like leadership, charity, etc. until proven otherwise. Even if that person screws up, we will tend to give that person the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an error or consider the screw-up inconsequential. The name Halo Effect comes from the idea of the goodness of a person spreading like a halo over that person until we assume positive features about the person that we can't actually know about.
2) Conversely, if we gain a negative impression about a person based on superficial knowledge, we will quickly come to dislike pretty much everything about that person. When that person screws up, we will tend to judge the screw-up as indicative of his poor character and want to see him punished. Sometimes the Halo Effect is called the "horns and halo effect" due to the two-sided nature of its effect.
From Wikipedia: The effect works in both positive and negative directions (and is hence sometimes called the horns and halo effect). If the observer likes one aspect of something, they will have a positive predisposition toward everything about it. If the observer dislikes one aspect of something, they will have a negative predisposition toward everything about it.
People frequently demonstrate the Halo Effect when describing their like or dislike for political figures and political policies. Due to the celebrity status of political figures and the fact that we can only have fairly superficial impressions of them based on "sound bites" from mass media, it's easy for the Halo Effect to take hold. The same applies to political policies: It's easy for a person to become a fan or enemy of a big government program based on limited knowledge about that program gleaned from the mass media.
Why does this cognitive bias arise? Because our "intuitive" grasp of the people and events around us likes to imagine a world that is more coherent and makes more sense than it does in reality.
Also, it's part of lazy thinking. If we assume that all the good is on one side of the equation and all the bad is on the other side of the equation, then the choice is easy: We don't have to make any difficult trade-offs or compromises. We just see the equation as black-and-white and choose accordingly.
The world, however, is rarely black-and-white. When it comes to moral or political issues of any complexity, there are almost always difficult trade-offs or compromises to be made. Good and evil rarely line up neatly on one side or the other. Instead, both sides tend to be a mix of strengths and weaknesses.
So if you see someone praising or condemning a political figure or party or policy without reservation and without recognizing the trade-offs necessitated by that choice, think to yourself "Halo effect."
I don't know what to tell you. I thought that rendition of highlander's post was particularly delightful, and I thank you for it.
