5 ms·

"In February 2010, Peter Turchin, an ecologist from the University of Connecticut, predicted that 2020 would see a sharp increase in political volatility for We

"In February 2010, Peter Turchin, an ecologist from the University of Connecticut, predicted that 2020 would see a sharp increase in political volatility for Western democracies." I get the impression that the author of the article believes that this has come to pass, though she does not say so explicitly. We are now in the middle of May, and from my perspective, nothing of the sort has happened - in fact, the political institutions of the Western democracies seem to be functioning about as well as they were before, despite the major disruptions caused by Covid-19. By "as well as before", I mean that they are functioning, not particularly efficiently, but at least so far with no scocietal collapse, and while there is more volatility than necessary, the level does not seem to have changed markedly from the norms of the preceding decade (i.e. since the prdiction was made.) So we are still waiting to see if Turchin's prediction will come to pass. Furthermore, for his model to be in any way validated by such an outcome, it would have to happen for the reasons he proposed, and not, say, as a consequence of Covid-19, which he did not predict.

WalterBright 6y ago
Such predictions are not falsifiable, because its proponents use confirmation bias to prove them true.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  not to mention that this particular prediction doesn't even need any sort of quantitative or scientific methods. The idea of cyclical politics and periodic decay is as old as ancient Greece, comes up in virtually any religion, and you don't need a TI 84 to arrive at the conclusion that roughly every few decades something awful is going to happen.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  Just as their opponents use their own confirmation bias to "prove" them wrong. Politics in the UK and US and is clearly far more polarised and far more extremist in tone - especially on the right - than was the case ten years ago. The Brexit nationalist nonsense in the UK was almost unthinkable in 2010. It was literally considered fringe lunacy. A senior politician on the right literally called the people in favour of it "swivel-eyed loons." Now it's mainstream policy, with huge popular support - balanced against a slightly larger segment of the population who still consider it self-harming folly. That's your instability right there. You can Google any number of people on both sides saying that they cannot remember a time when the country was this polarised, and an utter absence of anyone saying the opposite. This is not normal. If you want to claim it is, prove it.
  - JackFr 6y ago
    In the U.K. I’d point to the General Strike of 1926 as a time when people were more polarized and I might add substantially prone to more political violence. Yes, it was nearly a century ago, but we’re often subject to recent bias wheN we think the current time is special. In the U.S. when someone points out that we've never been more polarized, it’s always easy to point out that a couple million men took up arms against each other during the civil war. But more recently between 1965 and 1968 there were riots in a dozen U.S. cities including N.Y., Chicago, L.A., Detroit, Newark , Baltimore and Washington which required use of the National Guard or army to restore order. We see nothing like that today.
    - mistermann 6y ago
      And for good reason: https://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1965.html https://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1965... https://learninglab.si.edu/collections/martin-luther-king-jr-the-later-years-1965-1968/uyGek3MpmmPtXC6J https://learninglab.si.edu/collections/martin-luther-king-jr... > We see nothing like that today. True, but knowing why that is the case is hard to do. Are modern day Americans more supportive of military adventures in far away lands that kill thousands of innocent people, or is it that we hardly see anything about it on the news, especially images of dead bodies? Similarly, are Americans now satisfied with the level of equality and justice currently enjoyed by the African American community, or are they occupied by other distractions? Riots in the streets seem to have been largely replaced by arguments in internet forums, particularly Reddit, where you will find not only large amounts of "unrest", but also a significant amount of mental illness - people who have completely lost touch with reality.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - friendlybus 6y ago
    It's frustating bringing a new idea to the Brits and have it be claimed that nothing new in the world truly exists, it has always been done before in one form or the other. The brits invented it first anyway. And then encounter your line of thinking where an event less damaging than the battle of the somme, or the great fire of 1666 is somehow exempt from the normality of history. I dont think HN is the appropriate place to discuss polticial demands on what is 'normal'.
thaumasiotes 6y ago
> Furthermore, for his model to be in any way validated by such an outcome, it would have to happen for the reasons he proposed, and not, say, as a consequence of Covid-19, which he did not predict. I mostly agree with you, but I don't agree with this point. It's perfectly coherent to take the view "by [2020], society will be stretched to the point that [whatever comes up] will trigger [whatever]". There is a very wide range of possible responses to any event. A minor stressor can cause a breakdown in bad times when it would barely even have been noticed in good times. The same omen will usually signify good things in good times and bad things in bad times. As such, if you're predicting "bad times will result in typical stresses leading [pretextually?] to atypical breakdowns", which stresses happen to do so is kind of beside the point. If e.g. people somewhere are almost ready for a revolution, and some charismatic guy comes along who thinks we need electrum-based money, and he leads a revolution with electrum-based money as a major part of his policy platform... we don't necessarily want to say that electrum was a key issue at the time. The revolution was determined by many things, but not that one. Electrum was mostly chosen arbitrarily by a guy who happened to be good at revolting, at a time when revolting was fruitful.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  That's a fair point, though then we might wonder if it would have happened on Turchin's schedule in response to a more normal trigger. Regardless of what happens this year, it takes more than one successful prediction to support a theory of predictable cycles.
sanderjd 6y ago
I disagree. I believe we've seen a sharp increase in political volatility worldwide, though it did not just happen, but has been happening since 2015. Up until about that point, the world had been dominated for a few decades by a relatively cohesive global consensus, which is now significantly more ragged. But I don't think the terms are well-defined enough to really debate this. I don't think your perspective is any more right or wrong than mine, because what is meant by "political volatility" is poorly defined.
- sandworm101 6y ago
  >> since 2015 Really? I seem to remember the bush years as being very divisive. The war(s). Gitmo. Hanging chads. Torturing people. Dick Cheney. Wiretapping ... it was bad.
  - naasking 6y ago
    Not as many people cared or paid attention in the Bush years. A lot more people cared when Trump got elected, I think.
  - pasquinelli 6y ago
    The bush admin was terrible, moreso i'd say than trump's, but the global neoliberal consensus was unshaken.
    - sarakayakomzin 6y ago
      >The bush admin was terrible, moreso i'd say than trump's what fucking planet are you on?
  - sanderjd 6y ago
    Yes, really. I am not saying that volatility (again, by my personal definition, which I don't claim is universal) there was no volatility before, but rather that I see an inflection point around 2015. For example, I don't think there were ever polls asking whether President Bush should have been impeached, but if there had been, the level of support for it would have been tiny, despite all the things you listed. On the other hand, a majority or near majority of people polled regularly supported impeaching the current president. There are other examples in other countries. But again, I really don't think we have an objective standard to measure against, this is just what I see.
lmilcin 6y ago
You do not need any special abilities to predict that. If you look around, the democracy is slipping from our hands for much of the western world and this means people look up to democratic values less when they do their decisionmaking. Since it seems (although has never been proven) that it is in fact the democratic values that allow democratic countries to live in relative peace I think it is only going to get worse. When elected officials can not only skirt but just totally ignore the law, when democratic procedures can be subverted, elections distorted, this is how democratic values slowly die. When people no longer are interested in history, spend their entire days glued to a screen, when they choose only easy entertainment and are not listening to messages explaining how democracy works and why we need it, etc., this is eroding perceived need for democracy. People use "democracy" now without understanding what the word means, more and more.
- pegasus 6y ago
  Ok, but there's no "sharp increase" in 2020 specifically. At least so far.
  - lmilcin 6y ago
    No, there is no "sharp increase". These things take decades. But sharp increase is not needed. Think of it like a marriage between countries that is slowly starting to erode. It might seem ok for a long time, from the sidelines, when you squint your eyes. But then a crisis happens that tests it and everything falls apart.

WalterBright 6y ago

Such predictions are not falsifiable, because its proponents use confirmation bias to prove them true.

Barrin92 6y ago
not to mention that this particular prediction doesn't even need any sort of quantitative or scientific methods. The idea of cyclical politics and periodic decay is as old as ancient Greece, comes up in virtually any religion, and you don't need a TI 84 to arrive at the conclusion that roughly every few decades something awful is going to happen.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Just as their opponents use their own confirmation bias to "prove" them wrong. Politics in the UK and US and is clearly far more polarised and far more extremist in tone - especially on the right - than was the case ten years ago. The Brexit nationalist nonsense in the UK was almost unthinkable in 2010. It was literally considered fringe lunacy. A senior politician on the right literally called the people in favour of it "swivel-eyed loons." Now it's mainstream policy, with huge popular support - balanced against a slightly larger segment of the population who still consider it self-harming folly. That's your instability right there. You can Google any number of people on both sides saying that they cannot remember a time when the country was this polarised, and an utter absence of anyone saying the opposite. This is not normal. If you want to claim it is, prove it.
- JackFr 6y ago
  In the U.K. I’d point to the General Strike of 1926 as a time when people were more polarized and I might add substantially prone to more political violence. Yes, it was nearly a century ago, but we’re often subject to recent bias wheN we think the current time is special. In the U.S. when someone points out that we've never been more polarized, it’s always easy to point out that a couple million men took up arms against each other during the civil war. But more recently between 1965 and 1968 there were riots in a dozen U.S. cities including N.Y., Chicago, L.A., Detroit, Newark , Baltimore and Washington which required use of the National Guard or army to restore order. We see nothing like that today.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    And for good reason: https://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1965.html https://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1965... https://learninglab.si.edu/collections/martin-luther-king-jr-the-later-years-1965-1968/uyGek3MpmmPtXC6J https://learninglab.si.edu/collections/martin-luther-king-jr... > We see nothing like that today. True, but knowing why that is the case is hard to do. Are modern day Americans more supportive of military adventures in far away lands that kill thousands of innocent people, or is it that we hardly see anything about it on the news, especially images of dead bodies? Similarly, are Americans now satisfied with the level of equality and justice currently enjoyed by the African American community, or are they occupied by other distractions? Riots in the streets seem to have been largely replaced by arguments in internet forums, particularly Reddit, where you will find not only large amounts of "unrest", but also a significant amount of mental illness - people who have completely lost touch with reality.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- friendlybus 6y ago
  It's frustating bringing a new idea to the Brits and have it be claimed that nothing new in the world truly exists, it has always been done before in one form or the other. The brits invented it first anyway. And then encounter your line of thinking where an event less damaging than the battle of the somme, or the great fire of 1666 is somehow exempt from the normality of history. I dont think HN is the appropriate place to discuss polticial demands on what is 'normal'.

thaumasiotes 6y ago

> Furthermore, for his model to be in any way validated by such an outcome, it would have to happen for the reasons he proposed, and not, say, as a consequence of Covid-19, which he did not predict. I mostly agree with you, but I don't agree with this point. It's perfectly coherent to take the view "by [2020], society will be stretched to the point that [whatever comes up] will trigger [whatever]". There is a very wide range of possible responses to any event. A minor stressor can cause a breakdown in bad times when it would barely even have been noticed in good times. The same omen will usually signify good things in good times and bad things in bad times. As such, if you're predicting "bad times will result in typical stresses leading [pretextually?] to atypical breakdowns", which stresses happen to do so is kind of beside the point. If e.g. people somewhere are almost ready for a revolution, and some charismatic guy comes along who thinks we need electrum-based money, and he leads a revolution with electrum-based money as a major part of his policy platform... we don't necessarily want to say that electrum was a key issue at the time. The revolution was determined by many things, but not that one. Electrum was mostly chosen arbitrarily by a guy who happened to be good at revolting, at a time when revolting was fruitful.

mannykannot 6y ago
That's a fair point, though then we might wonder if it would have happened on Turchin's schedule in response to a more normal trigger. Regardless of what happens this year, it takes more than one successful prediction to support a theory of predictable cycles.

sanderjd 6y ago

I disagree. I believe we've seen a sharp increase in political volatility worldwide, though it did not just happen, but has been happening since 2015. Up until about that point, the world had been dominated for a few decades by a relatively cohesive global consensus, which is now significantly more ragged. But I don't think the terms are well-defined enough to really debate this. I don't think your perspective is any more right or wrong than mine, because what is meant by "political volatility" is poorly defined.

sandworm101 6y ago
>> since 2015 Really? I seem to remember the bush years as being very divisive. The war(s). Gitmo. Hanging chads. Torturing people. Dick Cheney. Wiretapping ... it was bad.
- naasking 6y ago
  Not as many people cared or paid attention in the Bush years. A lot more people cared when Trump got elected, I think.
- pasquinelli 6y ago
  The bush admin was terrible, moreso i'd say than trump's, but the global neoliberal consensus was unshaken.
  - sarakayakomzin 6y ago
    >The bush admin was terrible, moreso i'd say than trump's what fucking planet are you on?
- sanderjd 6y ago
  Yes, really. I am not saying that volatility (again, by my personal definition, which I don't claim is universal) there was no volatility before, but rather that I see an inflection point around 2015. For example, I don't think there were ever polls asking whether President Bush should have been impeached, but if there had been, the level of support for it would have been tiny, despite all the things you listed. On the other hand, a majority or near majority of people polled regularly supported impeaching the current president. There are other examples in other countries. But again, I really don't think we have an objective standard to measure against, this is just what I see.

lmilcin 6y ago

You do not need any special abilities to predict that. If you look around, the democracy is slipping from our hands for much of the western world and this means people look up to democratic values less when they do their decisionmaking. Since it seems (although has never been proven) that it is in fact the democratic values that allow democratic countries to live in relative peace I think it is only going to get worse. When elected officials can not only skirt but just totally ignore the law, when democratic procedures can be subverted, elections distorted, this is how democratic values slowly die. When people no longer are interested in history, spend their entire days glued to a screen, when they choose only easy entertainment and are not listening to messages explaining how democracy works and why we need it, etc., this is eroding perceived need for democracy. People use "democracy" now without understanding what the word means, more and more.

pegasus 6y ago
Ok, but there's no "sharp increase" in 2020 specifically. At least so far.
- lmilcin 6y ago
  No, there is no "sharp increase". These things take decades. But sharp increase is not needed. Think of it like a marriage between countries that is slowly starting to erode. It might seem ok for a long time, from the sidelines, when you squint your eyes. But then a crisis happens that tests it and everything falls apart.