What is the reason for the lack of civil discourse the politics section?

Maybe party membership is not related to intelligence, but ideology does seem to be related to education. Also, education tends to be related to intelligence (for example college grads tend to have a slightly higher IQ - 115 or so I believe - than the average population, and graduate students and graduates of doctorate programs tend to have slightly higher still - 120 or 125 compared to a general population average of around 100. And, as is well-known, people with higher education levels tend to be more liberal.

And you're right about moral beliefs influencing political beliefs, but even moral beliefs are thought to relate to intelligence. This is controversial but there is evidence that people with higher intelligence levels operate at higher levels on Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_o...

But you are absolutely right that we can't attack somebody's intelligence on the grounds of their ideology or party affiliation. Even IF one side or another tends to be smarter, those are only averages; you can't be certain about individuals. Plus, of course, being intelligent or educated doesn't mean you are right - someone could be less intelligent than you but be making a much better argument.

I think you've asked a really interesting question. You probably should re-ask it in psychology. I'm not an expert, but I do believe that there are a number of biases that lead to this. Many people, when confronted with opposing viewpoints react by entrenching themselves in their own viewpoint rather than considering contrasting evidence. This has been shown by the "factcheck" phenomenon - people react to articles which attempt to "factcheck" false claims by continuing to believe those false claims. This is probably more likely when they have publicly committed to a position (how many people on here ask those biased questions then select as the best answer someone who disagrees with them?). The anonymity of the site further adds to the level of hostility and stupidity - people will say things on here they never would in real life. I also think that there is a tendency here for constant escalation - once one person says something outrageous and stupid, it will egg on either people on their side or people on the other side who feel a need to reply. Logic is all well and good, but it doesn't have the emotional satisfaction than an irrational outburst has.

In the end there are a bunch of factors that make it very unlikely for this category to produce much that's worthwhile. I don't think there is anything that any of us can do, since the site will probably always regress to the mean (ha, a pun). Maybe Yahoo should try to reorganize the site and to weed out the BS - requiring accounts be connected to facebook profiles has reduced hostility and stupidity on other sites. I don't know what else, but maybe if we understand how the arrangement of the site contributes to the problems you mention, we could come up with better arrangements which reduce the nastiness level and increase the intelligence level. Ah, but I can dream. :)

Waitaminute: Political rhetoric and bombast has a role to play, sure, but that doesn't mean we should greet every bit of nasty stupidity that raises its head as if it were the equivalent of a Lincoln speech. The Founding Fathers certainly didn't think that everybody's speech and ideas were equal in merit - they thought that rational deliberation was important. This isn't a curtailment on free speech, just a recognition that all speech is not equal. When private websites, such as yahoo, choose to regulate the speech that occurs on them, that is not an infringement of the right to free speech. I don't think a group hug solves a whole lot; I think logic, evidence, rational argumentation, and, admittedly, inspired rhetoric can solve a lot. What goes on here makes those difficult or impossible.

It's very hard to be civil here.

It seems the village idiots have made this forum their home.

Here they are:

Top Answerers in Politics & Government

Position Member Best Answers

1 Paul Grass™℠ 18555

2 wizjp 13003

4 MikeGolf 11176

5 George L 10031

6 trooper3316 9188

Let's add 'waitaminute., shall we?

Cause this is been going on since 911..People are no longer content to believe what the corporate news media hand feeds us.

Yahoo Politics is the worst of the worst, a cesspool...Yang?

You would be better off just to leave before it rubs off on you.

Because liberals are nothing more than ignorant Leftist thugs led by talking points. Faux News, Faux News, Sarah Palin, Crosshairs, Faux News.

Children & Progressive defamatories

I'm no lover of Democrats politics mostly, but I've told a few harping asshole children off who were bashing democrats in personal ways

You think lack of civil discourse in politics is new? You think Obama's remark, "If they [polititical opponents] bring a knife, we'll bring a gun" is new?

Read history. Rhetoric, bombast and outrageous political comments are the essence of American political history. That's why the Founders embraced the First Amendment, including the right to state your mind, to state what you think -- and they weren't talking about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

But maybe you've been taught that a "Group Hug" solves everything, a basic principle taught in our government schools?

Immaturity

You will not find the things you seek here, Grasshopper. This is more like a big playground for grownups. Alright, maybe grownups isn't the right word. But you get the idea.

This si a fun forum if you want real serious Politics, look elsewhere,

I try not to spend too much time here. The lack of truth on display is somewhat astounding. Later!!!