3 ms·

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 th

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.

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.