(Beware, I never visited the US, all I write is based on my distant perception)

It seems like Americans like to black-and-white every decision, binarize every election (leading to two political parties; any alternative is disregarded). That mentality is taught since generations and cultivated by those press articles and many cultural products. It eases the herding of mass opinion, and by denying immediate access to intellectual subtlety, it makes philosophical though more alien and generates anti-intellectualism in scientific and cultural areas where subtlety and self-criticism are key.

Maybe my indirect reading is biased by the most prominent cultural exports of the US, or their the most vocal representatives. I would welcome the opinions of insiders.

If you have not visited the US, please resist the urge to make sweeping generalizations about it. OK?

Why? His data is from the outside and so is a generalization... But that's what are government is about... the majority. I'm from the US. i tend to agree with you. I believe overprotectve schooling and parenting (in general) has led to this mindset.

I agree he shouldn't generalize in principle, but as an American I complete agree with everything he said. We are somewhat conditioned to binarize information by a two party system.

OK.

"Maybe my indirect reading is biased by the most prominent cultural exports of the US, or their the most vocal representatives"...

Most of the cultural exports of the US are driven by economics, i.e. what can sell to worldwide audience.

Having lived in the US and traveled extensively throughout the world, it is my opinion that the average people in most countries are much more similar than different. People are people. The people in power may have slightly different agendas and by pushing slightly different things, but that doesn't fundamentally affect the citizenry.

Your observations are a little depressing for me, because they leaves few hope for fundamental improvement through education and cultural influence.

The majority (at least in the Midwest) vote a straight ticket. That's not to say there are those that don't vote on position or agenda, but most are positioned to vote party lines. I find it crazy that people will watch 10s of hours a week watching junk TV but when asked if they've researched who they're voting for they have a blank stare.

I just wanted to point out the irony of assuming that Americans making binary decisions is also taking a binary view of Americans :) We are a little more complicated than that, coming from vast diverse backgrounds and education (I'm Chinese American, with a CS/engineer outlook on things).

As I wrote in my disclaimer, I speak of what I do not know (but only remotely perceive) in order to get your explicit feedback. But more to the point, my post indeed expresses a perceived average. Both terms "perceived" and "average" already reveal many wrongs.

Alternative parties are disregarded because two major parties is the only stable state for the way our votes are counted. Without runoff elections or other ways of allowing people to express more complicated opinions, third parties simply cannot get traction. Many of us have complex political views but end up voting for a major party because that's what the system pretty much requires.

Certainly there's a lot of binary thinking in the US, but I don't think we're unique this way. An inability to handle subtlety is endemic to humanity as a whole.

Thanks for your constructive input :)

"It seems like Americans like to black-and-white every decision, binarize every election"

Probably more likely that people who hold a strong opinion either way tend to be the most vocal. People who haven't decided or don't have a strong opinion stay silent.

Then, as a result even those who don't voice an opinion or haven't formed one are likely to read the perhaps lopsided information presented and takes a side based on that.

This typeof interaction and propagation of ideas seem like great candidates for agent-based modelling and simulation, with NetLogo for instance. A simple model of personality (simplified Myers-Briggs?), a faithful representation of a continuum of ideas, an individual affinity function over that continuum that depends on personality, and a model of communication...

It may be possible, and it may be childish.... But it resonates.

I work for a giant oil and gas comp in Houston and we did this awkward dance of trying to figure out where each stands before i blurted out, "I'm rooting for Snowden."

That simple statement communicated a lot into my co-workers mind of what my values are especially deep in the heart of Texas.

I agree. I find it incredibly frustrating that the community seems polarized (assymetrically so, with a vast supermajority against the NSA).

Snowden is not a demigod who descended, perfect and fully formed, from the benevolent Lord of Hackers. He's not a tech messiah coming to herald an end to political abuse.

He's a dude. A perfectly fallible dude with strong politco-technical convictions, who did something big and now has a spotlight. That's literally all of it in a nutshell. He is allowed to make mistakes and still do a really cool thing. But human beings are pattern-searching creatures and have this neurosis with categorizing people as good or bad. That's my hypothesis, anyway.

People seem to be losing sight of this fact and acting as though there's no legitimate reason to argue for the NSA's actions. That's childish and unintelligent - if you don't agree, at least try to hold both sides of the argument in your head and entertain both before you argue one of them. It's fine to disagree, just don't insult a mass of people arguing against you as being misinformed sheeple.