My sister is ADHD so she legit has real questions that I can totally help with despite having seen the same stuff so far. But of course she has no idea which stuff is intentionally vague and which stuff she hasn’t been able to connect that was intended to be solved so far. So if it’s an intentionally vague moment my answer is “we don’t know yet”.
I definitely get that it can be annoying if you have no idea why they are asking. But they wouldn’t have learned that behaviour if it didn’t occasionally matter. Since this behaviour is common, and ADHD is common, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s always the case. But it’s probably only some people with ADHD, depending on how theirs presented. And of course some people may have this trait of ADHD without enough of the rest of the traits to be able to get diagnosed.
But yeah, it’s one of the traits of ADHD that makes them feel like they must not be smart, despite any evidence to the contrary. Cuz they just don’t “get” what are obvious clues to other people. But it’s simple topic linking, basically their brains see everything in it’s own bubble, and they can be very good at figuring out everything in that one bubble, but if a puzzle in that bubble needs a part from a different bubble, that puzzle is never gonna be solved for them without outside help to find the bubble that has the needed part.
I don’t, as far as I know, have ADHD. I did not notice foreshadowing and such until I took an elective in college that broke all that stuff down for cinema.
Now that I know, I notice it. It’s like hearing the Wilheim scream. Once you know what it sounds like, you hear it pop up a lot. A Lot. I never noticed it at all before.
Same thing with Hero’s Journey in storytelling.
Once you learn to recognize these things, you can’t not notice them. Sometimes it ruins things a little, sometimes it makes them better.
If you want to know how to read the clues, watch some youtubes on how to spot everything. People love making videos about it.
Or, just continue to enjoy the ride, but stop asking for it to be explained. If you want the explanation either learn the clues or just read a spoiler summary beforehand. Don’t risk ruining it for someone, who overhears your conversation by accident, when they just wanted to enjoy seeing the story unfold moment by moment.
I’m sorry none of that has anything to do with ADHD. If anything ADHD is great for helping make connections from disparate sources as, for better or for worse, 15 things pass through your brain every second. And as someone with ADHD, trying to talk to me during a movie is incredibly annoying, because I’m either hyperfocused on the movie or working very hard to focus on it. If I’m not focused on it, I probably don’t care about it very much, so I’m not going to be asking questions to try to keep up.
All of this sounds like your sister has made “ask questions” part of her “try very hard to focus” routine but that is her quirk, not an ADHD trait. I can only imagine nobody has annoyed her in this way so hasn’t thought about it.
Oh, no. She is definitely great at making connections otherwise. It’s just one of her executive dysfunction symptoms. Like I said, not all people with ADHD get that one. She 100% hates having to ask questions and break immersion. But she also has a huge fear of being wrong, and it bothers her to a larger degree when she thinks she has missed how two things might be related.
She is almost 40 now, so she has had plenty time to at least get a decent sense of when a movie should be making more sense than it is. But there are still times where it is just as much as we are supposed to know by now.
In multy-party system, you often end up voting for a party that then on your behalf makes deals with other parties to form coalition, deals you did not agree upon. It is like delegation of duty, or rather usurpation of your vote. And you still end up with fucked up government that does not reflect your values. In two party system you are the one who are forced to make those compromises.
In multiparty system, often one coalition (or even party) dominates for many years and election cycles. The two party system nearly guarantees strong opposition.
Power balances inside those coalitions (which can vary wildly depending on the votes outcome, compared to two party system) affect a lot. If the stricter left-wing party wins over the center-left party and gets to be the PM party then obviously the coalition is going to be more left-wing. And so on.
And it offers much better options for people to shop for a party they actually agree with. Having to vote either this or that is a sucky system because it offers basically two avenues for you if you are not happy with the party you voted for. Either you switch to the other side totally (which is often not at all what you want) or you don’t vote and you’ll just end up helping the other party anyway. Great options.
Multiparty system offers much better option to vote for, but then there is only one coalition. So, the question is only if you are the one deciding what compromise to make, or party you vote for decides for you. There is argument to be made that it is better for democracy that you decide for that.
Each party in 2 party system tries to maximize number of votes and adjusts its position for that as well, which is similar to “power balances shift inside those coalitions” that you mention, but here, they are talking directly to voters, as opposed to each other. Again, I see advantage of two party system here.
I believe that bad perception of two party system is because now, we truly have two camps in our culture - the society is broken in two, cohesiveness is lost. But it is not because of the two party system, it is the opposite: because of this cultural break it propagated, “mirrored” into our politics. But it is exactly how it supposed to work in representative democracy. It would be strange if we had this cultural problem and our politicians would not.
Two party system is just a bad idea if you want to have options. It’s basically left or right and if you’re not pleased by their politics, what can you do, not vote or vote the other side even further from you?
then there is only one coalition
I don’t get what you mean. There’s a huge variety of possible coalitions. All depends on who can make the 50%, if they’re going for a majority government.
So, the question is only if you are the one deciding what compromise to make, or party you vote for decides for you. There is argument to be made that it is better for democracy that you decide for that.
You are absolutely not the one making those decisions with two party system with two big tent parties. They’re making those decisions and compromises inside the party, since they have to please most of the voter base anyway and try to fish for new voters from the other side.
Each party in 2 party system tries to maximize number of votes and adjusts its position for that as well, which is similar to “power balances shift inside those coalitions”
The established party leadership in the US seem to just do similar sort of politics again and again, and reacting fairly little to that sort of stuff. It’s nowhere near the difference from voters switching to a different party altogether.
I don’t get what you mean. There’s a huge variety of possible coalitions.
There many possible coalitions, but there is actually just one with which you end up with, and into which you do not contribute.
You are absolutely not the one making those decisions with two party system with two big tent parties. They’re making those decisions and compromises inside the party...
I am not talking about compromises inside the party. I am talking about compromises that you are forced to make when you select one or another party.
The established party leadership in the US seem to just do similar sort of politics again and again
There many possible coalitions, but there is actually just one with which you end up with, and into which you do not contribute.
Of course you (and other voters) contribute. The biggest party typically is one that forms the coalition and the vote share and recent performance at the poll among other things affects that.
I am not talking about compromises inside the party. I am talking about compromises that you are forced to make when you select one or another party.
They are the same sort of compromises. There’s a reason every round people are unsatisfied with the result, even if their party won.
Are you arguing that US parties are too similar?
No?? I’m saying the parties do similar sort of politics as they’ve been doing for decades. Voters swinging to the left has little effect when it’s the same Democrat party in rule. Or same for right wing. You need something dramatic for the position to actually move.
They are the same sort of compromises. There’s a reason every round people are unsatisfied with the result, even if their party won.
Yes, exactly! But the difference is WHO is making the compromise. You, as a voter, or not. Maybe I like pro-business party but would never, ever vote for party that want to push religion into high school. In US, I will just not vote republican, because I can not make this compromise. But, in other countries, I may vote for pro-business party which then enters into coalition with religious party, and I can not take my vote back. And even in the next election I would not know if pro-business party will end up in coalition with religious party.
Or same for right wing.
I would say that particularly GOP is very different than it were 10 years ago, because of the Trump voters.
If the pro-business party is making compromises or decisions you don’t like, you can switch your party. If Democrats make those compromises or decisions, where will you go?
I would say that particularly GOP is very different than it were 10 years ago, because of the Trump voters.
That’s what I had in mind too. But Democratic party is still very much the same. It takes a lot to change those parties, otherwise it’s same old same old.
If the pro-business party is making compromises or decisions you don’t like, you can switch your party. If Democrats make those compromises or decisions, where will you go?
They are making compromises (that you have not approved) as result of forming coalition. Democrats do not have to do those compromises - if they are in power - they are in power. The compromises were done at voting booth by you.
Yes they do have to do compromises, they do them all the time. Compromises on who to cater to and who to piss off, what to do if they don’t have senate, house, presidency… You don’t get to decide those compromises. They might not even know they’ll have to make them or it would just look bad so they don’t mention them.
Btw you can have a party holding +50% of the seats in multi-party democracy too. Could have “best of both”, if you are worried about parties having to fit into a coalition.
Yes they do have to do compromises, they do them all the time. Compromises on who to cater to and who to piss off...
I am not saying they do not do any compromises. I am saying they do not have to do EXTRA compromises to form coalition. And those compromises could be particularly great.
Btw you can have a party holding +50% of the seats in multi-party democracy too.
That, by itself, is not a good thing, since that would essentially mean that there is no strong opposition. I am of opinion that strong opposition is always needed. It keeps party in power "more honest". This is again advantage of the two party system, as I mentioned before.
They’ve already made more compromises than a smaller party typically would have to since they’re trying to cater to so many people. Of course they still have to do compromises like the mentioned senate, house, presidential thing that we don’t really have, but that’s more not really a two/multi party thing.
That, by itself, is not a good thing, since that would essentially mean that there is no strong opposition. I am of opinion that strong opposition is always needed. It keeps party in power “more honest”. This is again advantage of the two party system, as I mentioned before.
It’s a strange idea that +50% seats in two party system good but bad in multi-party system. It doesn’t mean there’s no strong opposition when there’s more than one opposition party…
Also two party system is no guarantee for a strong opposition. You can easily have a situation where one clearly dominates. Strong opposition is not a guarantee or unique to two party system at all.
They’ve already made more compromises than a smaller party typically would have to since they’re trying to cater to so many people. Of course they still have to do compromises like the mentioned senate, house, presidential thing that we don’t really have, but that’s more not really a two/multi party thing.
For the purpose of our discussion, it nearly does not matter how they come up with the platform before you vote. What matters is what happens after your choice. Whether your choice can be overwritten by necessity to create coalition. The voter becomes more removed from the policy of the ruling coalition than from the party in two party system.
It’s a strange idea that +50% seats in two party system good but bad in multi-party system.
What is good and bad is not 51% seats, but the 49% of opposition. In situation when you have multi-party system and 51% are in hands of one party, it does not mean that you have 49% of strong opposition! Most likely you have like 20% and the rest are in-between to be opposed or not opposed. Opposition is not united in this case and can do nothing. It is weak. Not so for two party system. 51% is barely majority.
Also two party system is no guarantee for a strong opposition. You can easily have a situation where one clearly dominates.
I agree with that in principle, but in practice, if one party starts taking 80% of votes, the other will adjust. On top of this, this situation is no different from 80% case in multi-party system so it is not what differentiate one from another.
Your vote can be overridden no matter what. There’s nothing saving you from that. Party platforms in any kind of system aren’t very good promises on what will happen.
I’m not sure if it was just a poor choice of words but there’s no necessity to compromise to form a coalition. A party can decide not to participate or come to the conclusion that they aren’t able to form an effective coalition (if the biggest party).
Opposition is not united in this case and can do nothing
And what, you think in two party system the opposition party can just take down the government from minority position? Of course the opposition can rally against the government and hope their lines break. Which is something that can be more likely when it’s a coalition. But it being a single or multi party doesn’t matter. If government lines hold, there’s nothing to be done other than rallying against them and waiting for the next elections.
Most likely you have like 20% and the rest are in-between to be opposed or not opposed
In my experience that is not at all the case, rather parties supporting the standing government outside of it is a rarity. Such party will most likely suffer from unpopular decisions of the government and not benefit from the possibility of being in opposition. It’s rarely a smart position to be in.
Not to mention in multi-party system, it’s not just sitting government vs opposition that are fighting, but the parties within the coalition and parties in the opposition are competing. And after elections, some government parties might end up joining the new government formed by opposition parties and so on. The whole point is that it’s not just two opposing sides, this or that, but multitude of ideologies and platforms that are competing.
I agree with that in principle, but in practice, if one party starts taking 80% of votes, the other will adjust. On top of this, this situation is no different from 80% case in multi-party system so it is not what differentiate one from another.
I’m surprised. I thought the idea that two party system meant a strong opposition was one of your main points.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.