3 ms·
As she explains in the video, that was Erica Chenoweth's a priori guess too, before looking at the data. Her study, looking at all the available data from every
by crispinb 7y ago
As she explains in the video, that was Erica Chenoweth's a priori guess too, before looking at the data. Her study, looking at all the available data from every resistance movement involving more than 1000 people since 1900, apparently suggests otherwise.
Non-empirical 'commonsense' guesswork turns out to be wrong far more often than most people think. So it's great that the Chenoweth's of this world are curious enough to put their guesses to the test.
- Super_Jambo 7y agoAnd the replication crisis showes that 'empirical' social science that contradicts common sense should not be taken as fact. This seems especially true when the conclusions align closely with the incentives of people who have the power to get research friendly to their interests infront of you.
- crispinb 7y agoTrue enough on the not taking it as fact. I don't, though I think it carries more weight than so-called 'commonsense' (which I dont' share your apparent respect for). Obviously it should be subject to good empirical critique.
- Veen 7y agoIf you have a problem with the methodology or evidence presented here, then why not describe your issues? That would at least be useful. Unlike you, Chenoweth presents a substantial amount of evidence and reasoning. Assuming that everything that comes from the social sciences is politically motivated exhibits reasoning as flawed as assuming the opposite.
- zielen_miejska 7y agoIn oppressive states protesters tend to just disappear and there is little evidence about their fate. Does the methodology correct for this?
- danso 7y agoThe study's description says it makes a comparison against violent campaigns. Ostensibly, violent protesters also suffer from "just disappearing": > Between 1900-2006, campaigns of nonviolent civil resistance were twice as successful as violent campaigns. Erica Chenoweth, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School and a Susan S. and Kenneth L. Wallach Professor at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, will talk about her research on the impressive historical record of civil resistance in the 20th century and discuss the promise of unarmed struggle in the 21st century. She will focus on the so-called “3.5% rule”—the notion that no government can withstand a challenge of 3.5% of its population without either accommodating the movement or (in extreme cases) disintegrating. In addition to explaining why nonviolent resistance has been so effective, she will also share some lessons learned about why it sometimes fails.
- Super_Jambo 7y agoI attempted to get access to the data which the study is based upon. They requested I register my e-mail address, name, organization in order to get access. having done that I still do not have access. How much due diligence did you do on the data before accepting the study's claims?
- Veen 7y agoI’ve neither accepted nor rejected it, which is why I’m not going to spout off about it based on nothing but irrelevant generalities.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]