3 ms·
I am skeptical of the framing of the original work in the article. If you actually read the original research, it boils down to building a model on willingness
by belval 5y ago
I am skeptical of the framing of the original work in the article. If you actually read the original research, it boils down to building a model on willingness to cooperate based on differing views and observing that past a specific point cooperation is no longer possible. This is not uninteresting for the scientist in me, but the kind of large generalization made in the article are simply not supported by the work nor by the authors.
To be fair, the abstract is somewhat asking for it given this:
> Confronted with a deadly global pandemic that threatened not only massive loss of life but also the collapse of our medical system and economy, why were we unable to put partisan divisions aside and unite in a common cause, similar to the national mobilization in the Great Depression and the Second World War?
The world is complex and while trying to model that complexity is an interesting problem, this kind of statement (by a co-author) falls short of my expectations for rigorous scientific communication and vulgarization:
> “If we reach that point, we cannot unite even in the face of war, climate change, pandemics, or other challenges to the survival of our society.”
- xupybd 5y agoThis might be a positive. Maybe modern society allows for more diversity of thought?
- belval 5y agoI am not arguing that their research is useless or uninteresting, simply that it shouldn't be communicated like it actually proves anything for on-the-ground polarization. It's a bit like when we have AI papers that anthropomorphize their model by saying they benefit from "dreaming". This is true among the community of experts that actually work on the topic, it is simply irrelevant or downright misleading for a more "public" audience.
- Nevermark 5y agoI don't think diverse thinking is equivalent to partisan conflict. Lots of constructive groups have very diverse thinking. Likewise, many groups with minimal differences, i.e. group think, may still fight intensely over those small differences.
- native_samples 5y agoWhen I see an abstract like that, I think that what's about to follow is going to be a highly ideological and partisan op-ed dressed up as "science". Rephrased, the abstract is saying "Why isn't everyone a morally pure collectivist like me, and how can we fix that?" And the answer is: because you're not morally pure, the "common causes" you want us to unite behind are exaggerated and collectivism has a track record of being far more deadly than the things it's trying to solve. But that answer wouldn't be ideologically acceptable to academia.