6 ms·

People are polarized because they don't like being not polarized isn't really a theory, it's a tautology.

by jjk166 6y ago

happytoexplain 6y ago
That's a stretch. Conversationally, the implication of your sentence has real meaning - it's not redundant, despite sounding verbally repetitive.
- jjk166 6y ago
  Masses attract because they are attracted to eachother is not a theory of gravity, it's a restatement of the givens. People are polarized because they polarize is likewise a restatement of the givens. That people don't like being non-polarized is inferred from the observation that they are polarized, the same way that the attractive property of masses is inferred from the observation of masses that have been attracted. Theories explain observations, and predict what ought to be observed beyond the data used in their formulation. There is no explanatory power of how or why people polarize, nor any testable prediction made by the model.
  - ordu 6y ago
    > Masses attract because they are attracted to eachother is not a theory of gravity, it's a restatement of the givens. Newton's theory of gravity had been dominating for a several centuries. It states literally this, masses attract because they are attracted. Despite of this it is a very valuable theory even now. > Theories explain observations, and predict what ought to be observed beyond the data used in their formulation. A very good theories manage to combine good explanations with a predictive power. But there are countless examples of theories which could give either explanation or predictive power. Moreover there are theories which manage neither explanations nor predictions, but something else. For example they can be used as an data structure for storing and retrieving facts: Carl Linnaeus devised the Linnean taxonomy, which directed biological research for a long time, even there were nor explanations nor predictions. I'm not sure though, maybe I'm stretching the term "theory" a little? But if we asked functions of Linnean taxonomy in times before Darwin, then we'd find that it's functions were functions of a theory: to collect and to classify facts and to drive research.
    - jjk166 6y ago
      Everyone who has ever lived knew that things fell to the ground; Newton's theory of gravity describes how. It makes testable predictions which were subsequently verified. That's why Newton gets his name on it and all those billions that came before him didn't. Knowing that things fall is not the same as knowing what causes them to fall. Linnean taxonomy makes the very powerful implicit prediction that similar looking animals are related in some way to one another. While it would be many decades more before the mechanism of those relations were explained, the recognition that, for example, a dog and a wolf are the same type of thing was in and of itself non-obvious. What I think you are trying to describe is a model, which is a system of understanding information without necessarily explaining it.
      - jlokier 6y ago
        Yes, but Newton's insight was that the ground has mass too, and that things fall because masses are attracted to each other. Before that, people knew things fell down, but it hadn't occurred to them that this was caused by masses attracting each other, or that the ground is being attracted to the falling object.
      - ordu 6y ago
        > Knowing that things fall is not the same as knowing what causes them to fall. A lot of prominent contemporaries of Newton critisized Newton for a "magic" explanation of gravity. How Jupiter knows a mass of Sun, to be attracted to it with a proper force? We learn Newton's theory in a school when we are not developed mentally enough to question Newton's theory, so we just accept it as an authority gives it to us. Then we become accustomed to it and it feels ok to Jupiter to know mass of Sun, so we do not question it when becoming wiser. But it is a stupid thing really. Einstein's explanation with the bent space-time is much better. I do not mean to mock Newton, to state that he was wrong and his critics were right. I'm trying to say that the lack of explanation is not a fatal thing for a theory. Critics of Newton were right, but Newton was right also. The real achievement of Newton is to 'trivialization' of a problem, he picked mass as a leading factor and ignored all other possible factors, like brightness, size, visible size on the sky, albedo, inner structure, material, density, etc. Newton picked mass, wrote his law, and managed to prove that Kepler's law could be derived from Newton's law. The discussed theory of political polarization do a very similar thing: it picks just one factor and describes facts with it, ignoring a lot of other factors. It is trivialization of a problem. I didn't thoroughly read the article, but it seems for me that authors propose a quantitative measures of a polarization and their model is able to predict them. They do worse than Newton because they didn't invent a whole new branch of math to prove that other models could be derived from their's. But does it makes their achievement nonexistent? > the recognition that, for example, a dog and a wolf are the same type of thing was in and of itself non-obvious. I'm not sure about this. The trouble is I was born at the era when the relation between a dog and a wolf was obvious. Maybe this make it impossible to me to believe that this couldn't be obvious. It seems for me that it is obvious that similar species are similar. Even if we do not state explicitly that they are related, we feel it already, so when stated it feels obvious. The non-obvious is when dissimilar species are related. So I don't know was it obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same type, though I could make a testable prediction to check it: if Linnaean taxonometry was non-obvious, than there had to be an outrage of contemporaries. Only obvious things are accepted by everyone. > What I think you are trying to describe is a model, which is a system of understanding information without necessarily explaining it. Yes, almost. One small correction: it is not understanding, it is just a mnemonic, which makes it relatively easy to file information and to retrieve it. The resulting understanding is a 'fake' one, people feel it like they understand, but really there are no understanding behind this feeling.
pstuart 6y ago
Speak for yourself. This polarization distresses me.
twiceaday 6y ago
My wife has a cup that she got as a gift from somebody she cares about. It's not a very good looking cup, it can't be microwaved, and it has to be hand-washed. She never uses it, it just sits in the closet. She has this cup not because she wants it but because she can't come to terms with not wanting it, with getting rid of it. Maybe you can vaguely summarize the situation as her wanting this cup, but that misses a lot of nuance.
- watwut 6y ago
  She wants that cup as remainder of the person that gave her the cup and as a show of respect toward that person. She wants that concerete cut.
- jjk166 6y ago
  I concur, you wife not-not wanting the cup is not a satisfying explanation for why she keeps the cup. Likewise not-not wanting to be polarized is not a satisfying explanation for why people are polarized.
  - tunesmith 6y ago
    Still not a tautology though; not-not wanting does not mean wanting.
    - jjk166 6y ago
      Only because in your example wanting != wanting, which is an unfortunate consequence of the language not having a good word to differentiate between the desire to possess something and the desire not to be rid of it. -(-A) == A, when A == A, is a tautology though.
      - tunesmith 6y ago
        Still not true, for instance if A is "proven". If A is not not proven, it doesn't mean it is proven; it can still be a hypothesis. And yet, proven == proven.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
eximius 6y ago
People are fit because they don't like being not fit. Except it isn't true. I do not see a meaningful difference between taking actions to become fit and choosing stances that are polarized, therefore that would imply this is not a tautology.
- jjk166 6y ago
  > People are fit because they don't like being not fit. Except it isn't true. I've never met anyone who was fit but really wanted not to be. > I do not see a meaningful difference between taking actions to become fit and choosing stances that are polarized If you accept the theory that people polarize simply because they innately seek to be in a polarized state, then that would imply polarization is the default state that people approach without any effort on their part. Becoming fit requires active and continuous work to eat healthy and exercise. They are polar opposites of one another. > therefore that would imply this is not a tautology. That orange != orange does not imply that apple == apple is not a tautology.

People are polarized because they don't like being not polarized isn't really a theory, it's a tautology.

by jjk166 6y ago

People are polarized because they don't like being not polarized isn't really a theory, it's a tautology.

That's a stretch. Conversationally, the implication of your sentence has real meaning - it's not redundant, despite sounding verbally repetitive.

jjk166 6y ago
Masses attract because they are attracted to eachother is not a theory of gravity, it's a restatement of the givens. People are polarized because they polarize is likewise a restatement of the givens. That people don't like being non-polarized is inferred from the observation that they are polarized, the same way that the attractive property of masses is inferred from the observation of masses that have been attracted. Theories explain observations, and predict what ought to be observed beyond the data used in their formulation. There is no explanatory power of how or why people polarize, nor any testable prediction made by the model.
- ordu 6y ago
  > Masses attract because they are attracted to eachother is not a theory of gravity, it's a restatement of the givens. Newton's theory of gravity had been dominating for a several centuries. It states literally this, masses attract because they are attracted. Despite of this it is a very valuable theory even now. > Theories explain observations, and predict what ought to be observed beyond the data used in their formulation. A very good theories manage to combine good explanations with a predictive power. But there are countless examples of theories which could give either explanation or predictive power. Moreover there are theories which manage neither explanations nor predictions, but something else. For example they can be used as an data structure for storing and retrieving facts: Carl Linnaeus devised the Linnean taxonomy, which directed biological research for a long time, even there were nor explanations nor predictions. I'm not sure though, maybe I'm stretching the term "theory" a little? But if we asked functions of Linnean taxonomy in times before Darwin, then we'd find that it's functions were functions of a theory: to collect and to classify facts and to drive research.
  - jjk166 6y ago
    Everyone who has ever lived knew that things fell to the ground; Newton's theory of gravity describes how. It makes testable predictions which were subsequently verified. That's why Newton gets his name on it and all those billions that came before him didn't. Knowing that things fall is not the same as knowing what causes them to fall. Linnean taxonomy makes the very powerful implicit prediction that similar looking animals are related in some way to one another. While it would be many decades more before the mechanism of those relations were explained, the recognition that, for example, a dog and a wolf are the same type of thing was in and of itself non-obvious. What I think you are trying to describe is a model, which is a system of understanding information without necessarily explaining it.
    - jlokier 6y ago
      Yes, but Newton's insight was that the ground has mass too, and that things fall because masses are attracted to each other. Before that, people knew things fell down, but it hadn't occurred to them that this was caused by masses attracting each other, or that the ground is being attracted to the falling object.
    - ordu 6y ago
      > Knowing that things fall is not the same as knowing what causes them to fall. A lot of prominent contemporaries of Newton critisized Newton for a "magic" explanation of gravity. How Jupiter knows a mass of Sun, to be attracted to it with a proper force? We learn Newton's theory in a school when we are not developed mentally enough to question Newton's theory, so we just accept it as an authority gives it to us. Then we become accustomed to it and it feels ok to Jupiter to know mass of Sun, so we do not question it when becoming wiser. But it is a stupid thing really. Einstein's explanation with the bent space-time is much better. I do not mean to mock Newton, to state that he was wrong and his critics were right. I'm trying to say that the lack of explanation is not a fatal thing for a theory. Critics of Newton were right, but Newton was right also. The real achievement of Newton is to 'trivialization' of a problem, he picked mass as a leading factor and ignored all other possible factors, like brightness, size, visible size on the sky, albedo, inner structure, material, density, etc. Newton picked mass, wrote his law, and managed to prove that Kepler's law could be derived from Newton's law. The discussed theory of political polarization do a very similar thing: it picks just one factor and describes facts with it, ignoring a lot of other factors. It is trivialization of a problem. I didn't thoroughly read the article, but it seems for me that authors propose a quantitative measures of a polarization and their model is able to predict them. They do worse than Newton because they didn't invent a whole new branch of math to prove that other models could be derived from their's. But does it makes their achievement nonexistent? > the recognition that, for example, a dog and a wolf are the same type of thing was in and of itself non-obvious. I'm not sure about this. The trouble is I was born at the era when the relation between a dog and a wolf was obvious. Maybe this make it impossible to me to believe that this couldn't be obvious. It seems for me that it is obvious that similar species are similar. Even if we do not state explicitly that they are related, we feel it already, so when stated it feels obvious. The non-obvious is when dissimilar species are related. So I don't know was it obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same type, though I could make a testable prediction to check it: if Linnaean taxonometry was non-obvious, than there had to be an outrage of contemporaries. Only obvious things are accepted by everyone. > What I think you are trying to describe is a model, which is a system of understanding information without necessarily explaining it. Yes, almost. One small correction: it is not understanding, it is just a mnemonic, which makes it relatively easy to file information and to retrieve it. The resulting understanding is a 'fake' one, people feel it like they understand, but really there are no understanding behind this feeling.

pstuart 6y ago

Speak for yourself. This polarization distresses me.

twiceaday 6y ago

My wife has a cup that she got as a gift from somebody she cares about. It's not a very good looking cup, it can't be microwaved, and it has to be hand-washed. She never uses it, it just sits in the closet. She has this cup not because she wants it but because she can't come to terms with not wanting it, with getting rid of it. Maybe you can vaguely summarize the situation as her wanting this cup, but that misses a lot of nuance.

watwut 6y ago
She wants that cup as remainder of the person that gave her the cup and as a show of respect toward that person. She wants that concerete cut.
jjk166 6y ago
I concur, you wife not-not wanting the cup is not a satisfying explanation for why she keeps the cup. Likewise not-not wanting to be polarized is not a satisfying explanation for why people are polarized.
- tunesmith 6y ago
  Still not a tautology though; not-not wanting does not mean wanting.
  - jjk166 6y ago
    Only because in your example wanting != wanting, which is an unfortunate consequence of the language not having a good word to differentiate between the desire to possess something and the desire not to be rid of it. -(-A) == A, when A == A, is a tautology though.
    - tunesmith 6y ago
      Still not true, for instance if A is "proven". If A is not not proven, it doesn't mean it is proven; it can still be a hypothesis. And yet, proven == proven.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

eximius 6y ago

People are fit because they don't like being not fit. Except it isn't true. I do not see a meaningful difference between taking actions to become fit and choosing stances that are polarized, therefore that would imply this is not a tautology.

jjk166 6y ago
> People are fit because they don't like being not fit. Except it isn't true. I've never met anyone who was fit but really wanted not to be. > I do not see a meaningful difference between taking actions to become fit and choosing stances that are polarized If you accept the theory that people polarize simply because they innately seek to be in a polarized state, then that would imply polarization is the default state that people approach without any effort on their part. Becoming fit requires active and continuous work to eat healthy and exercise. They are polar opposites of one another. > therefore that would imply this is not a tautology. That orange != orange does not imply that apple == apple is not a tautology.