Separate player skill and ideals. You can be good and liberal, good and conservative, bad and liberal, and bad and conservative. Good and liberal might be outnumbered by good and conservative, but by no means does good imply conservative, or liberal imply bad.
you're completely missing my point. i have not stated that you can't be good and liberal, or that your opinions INHERENTLY imply your skill.
however just saying "correlation doesn't imply causation" without even attempting to look at the causation for a fairly clear trend, is simply foolish. and i've said that i do not think that your opinions define your skill, or that your skill defines your opinions. i've said that the traits that tend to come with having liberal opinions have a tendency to accompany poor mindsets, that leads to not learning as much, or being as good, which leads to not having the self assessment skills necessary to even realize that this is happening (this last part is known as the dunning kruger effect, which i've been talking about a lot).
it's similar to how some people have attributed part of the crime drop in the '90s to roe v. wade, and the legalization of abortion in the '70s. the crime dropped about 18-20 years after the legalization of abortion (can't remember which, but it was a fairly clear trend), this includes happening in the same timeframe afterwards in the 5 states that had abortion legal 3 years prior to everyone else.
part of the reason for this would be that people who would abort their child if they could are not as likely to be a good influence on the child's life, and causes the child to be more likely to get into crime.
no one is saying that abortions inherently lower crime rates, if someone did then correlation=/=causation would be a valid response. what people do say (i'm not sure whether they're correct, but it's a rational argument based on the information at hand) is that the legalization of abortion is likely to stop certain things, and those things have a tendency to lead to poor parenting, and poor parenting has a tendency to lead to unexperienced kids in crime.
it's not some magic placebo effect, if you look at an argument in its simplist form, of course it'll probably look more ridiculous (or perhaps even better. more skewed is probably the correct term to use here). boiling my argument down to a statement that says "liberals are bad, therefore if you're liberal you're bad" is downright dishonest (and a strawman fallacy), as i've not said this, although i'll admit that i can understand misunderstanding what i said. what i actually said was more along the lines of:
"being liberal is often accompanied by certain traits, and many of these traits in combination also often accompany poor mindsets about how the game is actually played (among other things that i can't get into in a short summary). and having a poor mindset very often and reliably leads to being bad at the game"
it's not "liberal therefore bad", it's not a black and white thing. although it's a very common thing, making such a black and white statement is wrong for a variety of reasons, one of which being that it completely disregards exceptions, which exist. it's a more case-by-case thing (however it's a very common case-by-case thing), that goes "liberal, which easily fosters a poor mindset, which in turn fosters poor self assessment skills, and knowledge, and skill at the game itself, which leads to being bad, and also being unable to know when you're wrong"
however the issue with giving a tiny summary like this, is that it invites you to attack the summary for lack of proof, or rational, and disregard the paragraphs upon paragraphs where i actually have already responded, because such a simple concept is more likely to have stuff that look like fallacies, and ends up fueling surface-level objectivity.
