4 ms·

> seemingly extreme proposals serve to stretch the Overton window before the middle-ground wins out I've not seen any evidence that this is true, nor that "Ov

> seemingly extreme proposals serve to stretch the Overton window before the middle-ground wins out I've not seen any evidence that this is true, nor that "Overton"-thinking has any evidence as such. OP's comment is precisely that backreactions to this kind of thinking are often larger than the alleged shifts that are assumed to occur. NB. The "overton window" is a description of a consensus, not a model; ie., there is nothing of the consensus which is like a dial to be moved. The reason that people view X as possible is the latent preferences around X, incentives and institutional practices, and their (essentially rational) judgement about the practicalities and possibilities of X. Eg., Marxism isn't "outside the overton window" by some weird dialogue exclusion. Ironically, it is only in the conversation because of "overton thinking" ie., hype. It is outside the window because peoples preferences, incentives, and institutional practices are overwhelmingly oriented away from Marxism; which has no practical or evidentiary basis. No social mechanism of implementation. No group of people have the incentives, reasons and power to implement Marxism. Activism cannot "move the overton window". It provides no reasons, incentives, or power. It changes no institutional practices; it offers no evidence. "Hype activism" frequently does more harm than good, by reinforcing the status quo.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Activism cannot “move the overton window”. The “Overton Window” is a concept developed initially and further elaborated subsequently by a policy think tank, largely as a tool for activists (specifically, that think tank itself) to understand how they can move the social consensus to drive policy. https://www.mackinac.org/OvertonWindow https://www.mackinac.org/OvertonWindow
- mjburgess 6y ago
  Yes, and it's a false model of "policy change". Your link even, largely, makes this point, to quote: Sometimes politicians can move the Overton Window themselves by courageously endorsing a policy lying outside the window, but this is rare. More often, the window moves based on a much more complex and dynamic phenomenon, one that is not easily controlled from on high: the slow evolution of societal values and norms. It's a description of why politicians will advocate for some policies; it's not a theory of change. (Such a theory would be unevidenced and obviously false). The quote says "rare", but i'd say, "essentially never". The "slow evolution" is also not really of norms. The public do not "Accept" ideas within some "Window" that you move by "Advocacy". Almost all "beliefs" are grounded in technological, incentive, preference and practice structures. They are symptoms of much larger mechanistic forces that regulate behaviour (, belief, etc.). The significant majority of "belief change" is caused by technological and economic change.
  - yters 6y ago
    Overton window is pretty effective in some ways. Just look at how much of what is taken for granted nowadays as the moral high ground was considered grossly immoral and unthinkable just a generation ago, e.g. gay marriage. This was largely achieved intentionally through media and other forms of social programming. Seems like a win for the Overton window to me.
    - mjburgess 6y ago
      Attitudes towards same-sex coupling have much to do with birth rate, health and population shocks. Much of the regulation of sex comes down to population & birth rate fears (this is the history of abortion in America: initially only discouraged because immigrants were outbreeding white people). The religious origin of anti-samesex prohibitions is just a part of techniques to keep birthrates up (since, historically, 20% of children died before 10). With massive death rates up until 1940s, it is only in the very modern era that we have the pill & tiny childhood mortality rates. In this environment our sensitivity to "reporductive freedom" has decreased dramatically, drastically tapering off these prohibitions. If we were in a pre-40s world of high infant mortality, etc. MANY would regard homosexuality as immoral, precisely because it would seem to limit the size of the future generation (seen, here, as a "misuse of the body to serve the needs of pleasure vs. society"). Activists haven't "moved the window", they are precisely a symptom of forces they are profoundly ignorant of; here, laregely technological. Once these have taken hold, activists have only to prod at the now meaningless tradition.
      - yters 6y ago
        You don't consider the pill part of the Overton window? It was introduced largely due to an ulterior agenda of population control and eugenics, and seems to have furthered that goal effectively.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    If you read more carefully, you will recognize that it's saying it's rare for elected politicians because of the short-term constraints of needing to win elections, and that change in the Window is driven by actors who aren't concerned with losing their job if they advocate outside of it. > It's a description of why politicians will advocate for some policies; it's not a theory of change. It's both. > (Such a theory would be unevidenced and obviously false). This seems to be based on your own (“unevidenced and obviously false”, IMO) naive rational choice theory of change. Yes, broad forces are responsible for what would be the long-term equilibrium if conditions were static. Conditions change fast enough that the conditions which set the long-term equilibrium don't determine the actual Overton Window, or even consistently the short-term direction of change, though they are part of the context which influences change.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Activism cannot “move the overton window”. The “Overton Window” is a concept developed initially and further elaborated subsequently by a policy think tank, largely as a tool for activists (specifically, that think tank itself) to understand how they can move the social consensus to drive policy. https://www.mackinac.org/OvertonWindow https://www.mackinac.org/OvertonWindow

mjburgess 6y ago
Yes, and it's a false model of "policy change". Your link even, largely, makes this point, to quote: Sometimes politicians can move the Overton Window themselves by courageously endorsing a policy lying outside the window, but this is rare. More often, the window moves based on a much more complex and dynamic phenomenon, one that is not easily controlled from on high: the slow evolution of societal values and norms. It's a description of why politicians will advocate for some policies; it's not a theory of change. (Such a theory would be unevidenced and obviously false). The quote says "rare", but i'd say, "essentially never". The "slow evolution" is also not really of norms. The public do not "Accept" ideas within some "Window" that you move by "Advocacy". Almost all "beliefs" are grounded in technological, incentive, preference and practice structures. They are symptoms of much larger mechanistic forces that regulate behaviour (, belief, etc.). The significant majority of "belief change" is caused by technological and economic change.
- yters 6y ago
  Overton window is pretty effective in some ways. Just look at how much of what is taken for granted nowadays as the moral high ground was considered grossly immoral and unthinkable just a generation ago, e.g. gay marriage. This was largely achieved intentionally through media and other forms of social programming. Seems like a win for the Overton window to me.
  - mjburgess 6y ago
    Attitudes towards same-sex coupling have much to do with birth rate, health and population shocks. Much of the regulation of sex comes down to population & birth rate fears (this is the history of abortion in America: initially only discouraged because immigrants were outbreeding white people). The religious origin of anti-samesex prohibitions is just a part of techniques to keep birthrates up (since, historically, 20% of children died before 10). With massive death rates up until 1940s, it is only in the very modern era that we have the pill & tiny childhood mortality rates. In this environment our sensitivity to "reporductive freedom" has decreased dramatically, drastically tapering off these prohibitions. If we were in a pre-40s world of high infant mortality, etc. MANY would regard homosexuality as immoral, precisely because it would seem to limit the size of the future generation (seen, here, as a "misuse of the body to serve the needs of pleasure vs. society"). Activists haven't "moved the window", they are precisely a symptom of forces they are profoundly ignorant of; here, laregely technological. Once these have taken hold, activists have only to prod at the now meaningless tradition.
    - yters 6y ago
      You don't consider the pill part of the Overton window? It was introduced largely due to an ulterior agenda of population control and eugenics, and seems to have furthered that goal effectively.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  If you read more carefully, you will recognize that it's saying it's rare for elected politicians because of the short-term constraints of needing to win elections, and that change in the Window is driven by actors who aren't concerned with losing their job if they advocate outside of it. > It's a description of why politicians will advocate for some policies; it's not a theory of change. It's both. > (Such a theory would be unevidenced and obviously false). This seems to be based on your own (“unevidenced and obviously false”, IMO) naive rational choice theory of change. Yes, broad forces are responsible for what would be the long-term equilibrium if conditions were static. Conditions change fast enough that the conditions which set the long-term equilibrium don't determine the actual Overton Window, or even consistently the short-term direction of change, though they are part of the context which influences change.