The validity of the so-called horseshoe theory is that those on the extremes tend to strongly believe that the ends (assuming they're politically correct) justify the means, and that any resulting from the means is subordinate. Those toward the middle accept the primacy of process, and tacitly believe that any harm in the ends should be minimized but is nonetheless subordinate.
The validity of the so-called horseshoe theory is that those on the extremes tend to strongly believe that the ends (assuming they're politically correct) justify the means, and that any resulting from the means is subordinate. Those toward the middle accept the primacy of process, and tacitly believe that any harm in the ends should be minimized but is nonetheless subordinate.
Hmmm, maybe, but not completely true. Those towards the middle maybe not necessarily accept the " primary of process," as you call it, totally or completely. That is an assumption.
It's almost by definition. Here, I was talking about American politics. Those who are more moderate - i.e. more toward the center - support the system in general, with some reforms. Our system of governance is process-oriented. I don't see how you can interpret the COTUS any other way. Even the substantive rights guaranteed by the COTUS are more aimed at influencing the process than at any end results. If I'm wrong on this, let me know.
I see. I was thinking "primacy effect" from a more social standpoint I suppose. Then, of course, there is primacy bias, and so on. You make excellent points, and are obviously a very intelligent person. Thank you.
The validity of the so-called horseshoe theory is that those on the extremes tend to strongly believe that the ends (assuming they're politically correct) justify the means, and that any resulting from the means is subordinate. Those toward the middle accept the primacy of process, and tacitly believe that any harm in the ends should be minimized but is nonetheless subordinate.
Hmmm, maybe, but not completely true. Those towards the middle maybe not necessarily accept the " primary of process," as you call it, totally or completely. That is an assumption.
It's almost by definition. Here, I was talking about American politics. Those who are more moderate - i.e. more toward the center - support the system in general, with some reforms. Our system of governance is process-oriented. I don't see how you can interpret the COTUS any other way. Even the substantive rights guaranteed by the COTUS are more aimed at influencing the process than at any end results. If I'm wrong on this, let me know.
I see. I was thinking "primacy effect" from a more social standpoint I suppose. Then, of course, there is primacy bias, and so on. You make excellent points, and are obviously a very intelligent person. Thank you.
More like "Irrational primary effect"-- false perception of an association between two events or situations.