4 ms·

The article notes that democratic backsliding is a global phenomena, particularly in the G-20. Seeing as countries with much less wealth/income inequality than

The article notes that democratic backsliding is a global phenomena, particularly in the G-20. Seeing as countries with much less wealth/income inequality than the US are experiencing the same trend, that kind of disproves this theory. There have been populist revolts in countries with a pretty low Gini, most recently Chile which is in the middle of the pack inequality-wise for Latin America. Basically, this is a popular but demonstrably wrong theory. I recommend reading Revolt of the Public by Martin Gurri for a deeper explanation of how the Internet Age enables rolling, continuous populist revolts that have inchoate goals and accomplish little

claudeganon 6y ago
With a longer view of history, we can remember that invention of mass printing led to a huge uptick in conspiracizing and sectarian violence across Europe. While widespread literacy proved a long-term good, it was quite a rough ride from start to finish.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
mistermann 6y ago
> Basically, this is a popular but demonstrably wrong theory. Knowing whether income inequality has some effect on the popularity of populism in a particular country cannot be "(dis)proven" one way or the other based on low-dimensional observations of (alleged) behavior and motivations of people in another country. Each individual person holds an incredibly complex set of beliefs in their heads that drive their actions. Some people go to school to learn some things about human behavior and cognition, and then get jobs hypothesizing about the causal underpinnings of human behavior, and then broadcast these hypotheses to the world from where they are picked up and stored in other minds, which then also proceed to hypothesize about other things based on the aggregate of information (of which this is only a small part) they have consumed in the past. These hypotheses, the ideas the mind conjures from thin air, seem largely indistinguishable from reality, but this is a clever illusion that (allegedly) arose out of millions of years of evolution. Seeing speculative beliefs in other people is easy, seeing them in oneself is not so easy - or so psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy would have us believe.
AftHurrahWinch 6y ago
It's only demonstrably wrong if you assume that wealth inequality should be calculated within the borders of a nation. That people in Chile should only compare themselves to their nearest oligarchs.

claudeganon 6y ago

With a longer view of history, we can remember that invention of mass printing led to a huge uptick in conspiracizing and sectarian violence across Europe. While widespread literacy proved a long-term good, it was quite a rough ride from start to finish.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

mistermann 6y ago

> Basically, this is a popular but demonstrably wrong theory. Knowing whether income inequality has some effect on the popularity of populism in a particular country cannot be "(dis)proven" one way or the other based on low-dimensional observations of (alleged) behavior and motivations of people in another country. Each individual person holds an incredibly complex set of beliefs in their heads that drive their actions. Some people go to school to learn some things about human behavior and cognition, and then get jobs hypothesizing about the causal underpinnings of human behavior, and then broadcast these hypotheses to the world from where they are picked up and stored in other minds, which then also proceed to hypothesize about other things based on the aggregate of information (of which this is only a small part) they have consumed in the past. These hypotheses, the ideas the mind conjures from thin air, seem largely indistinguishable from reality, but this is a clever illusion that (allegedly) arose out of millions of years of evolution. Seeing speculative beliefs in other people is easy, seeing them in oneself is not so easy - or so psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy would have us believe.

AftHurrahWinch 6y ago

It's only demonstrably wrong if you assume that wealth inequality should be calculated within the borders of a nation. That people in Chile should only compare themselves to their nearest oligarchs.