28 ms·

Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

90 points by Lwepz 5y ago

themodelplumber 5y ago
Fascinating paper. And nice job with the model! > Strictly limiting exposure to dissimilar views, however, is an effective mechanism for avoiding rapid polarization (Figs. 4 and 5). This may, at first, appear contrary to practical experience: Encouraging interactions among those with different views might be expected to decrease polarization by fostering increased tolerance. Lots of interesting points in there.
- yosito 5y ago
  > Strictly limiting exposure to dissimilar views, however, is... ...not an effective mechanism for social media and news sites to make a profit, unfortunately.
  - colordrops 5y ago
    We so easily give up our agency to debate, dissent, connect, and communicate a diversity of ideas. We will severely regret it one day.
    - johnisgood 5y ago
      We already gave up our agency to make our own decisions in many areas of life. The Government does it for us.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - o5ira 5y ago
        In my experience, Government imposes far fewer limitations on my life than the Market does. It determines that I must work to live, who I can work for, what sort of home and food I can have, etc.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        johnisgood 5y ago
        > I must work to live Are you saying that you do not work voluntarily but under duress, e.g. to avoid starvation? In any case, just to be clear... are you blaming our economic system, capitalism for this? I am asking, because it is a common thing to do; blaming capitalism for everything that is the fault of the Government. After all, capitalism is about working less to earn more. This alone is in conflict with "work to live". Plus the market is a voluntary concept. The Government interferes with the market, and creates all sorts of horrible financial incentives. We have an interventionist economy, and it is not doing too well, I agree with you on that. People should support each other more. Our web of social support is not satisfactory. We have the technology to "retire" many people, but if we do that, they cannot get money, and not getting money is a problem indeed. The Government "creates" all sorts of useless jobs we could do without just so people can earn money. We should be able to work less, and live just as well, if not better; which is what capitalism - our economic system - is about. That said, existence has externalities. Humans take food, water, produce waste, damage things, require shelter, etc. and someone has to cover that and you could always work to cover it or go join a commune to cover it if your Government has not made it illegal.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - rmbyrro 5y ago
    They were known to create bubbles and echo chambers. And make huge profits from it. How did this change recently? Not supporting any side, just wondering about the reasoning
DeathArrow 5y ago
We are past the point when preventing polarization was possible. Now we are near the end of the path one political side brought us, with the other fighting against that. One side will win and will establish the rules the society will follow for the next decades.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  What would such a win look like from your perspective? Everything I have observed indicates the federal government operates as a pendulum. Voters for the party in power disappoint their base, while the opposition becomes more mobilized.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    > the federal government operates as a pendulum. That seems like wishful thinking, to me. Also, I think the federal government (I take it you mean the government of the USA) is rather weak; state governments seem to have a lot more power. Not saying whether I think that is good or bad.
  - DeathArrow 5y ago
    It's not just about parties and voters. It's about two sides of society who became radicalized, leaving critical thinking for fundamentalism. The clashes within those two sides will grow in number and intensity. The conflict is fueling itself. There's nothing the politicians can do or will to defuse the situation. And the world is much bigger than US. The fight is not only fought in US.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
    Probably like the US after the end of Reconstruction.
  - throwawaygal7 5y ago
    I think there is a pendulum effect, but it's dominated by a leftward cultural trajectory. The republican party really just takes democrat positions from a few years ago on social issues, adds some murmering about trying to reign in the debt, occasionally cuts taxes , and continues the progression of the dominant culture. My theory is the increasing polarization is due to one side clearly seeing their dominance in the culture and wanting to crush all opposition; and some reactionaries on the right noticing this state of affairs and calling for more aggressive means to try to change the situation.
kome 5y ago
Bad political science + virtuoso use of methodology but unsubstantiated + underlying US centrism Polarization is a problem when you let a political system polarize. In other words, while in Europe multiple parties represented in parliament are the norm; in the US - a two-party state, naturally exacerbate the risk of polarization. So, paradoxically, polarization is a problem of not enough variety in the political spectrum. Not too much difference. Looking from abroad, democrats and republicans are almost the same. And this is the core of the problem, and the deeper root of polarization.
- shrimpx 5y ago
  > Looking from abroad, democrats and republicans are almost the same. And this is the core of the problem, and the deeper root of polarization. Can you elaborate on this? How does similarity between the parties cause polarization?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - vidarh 5y ago
    Because when the points of meaningful disagreements are few, people often have a need to emphasise those points in order to justify their choice. I don't think this is by any means universal and it doesn't need to get hostile. Proportional systems often force parties to be prepared to cooperate or be left with no influence so even with starkly polarised views on certain issues it doesn't pay to get too hostile about it. To take a concrete example, in Norway the two centre-right centrist parties are classical liberals (Left/Venstre) and Christian democrats (KrF/Christian Peoples Party). The Christian democrats are hardline on abortion by Norwegian standards. It's of course genuinely important to them, but it's also clear that it's gained extra importance to them as one of the few areas where they clearly stand out to their potential voters. Yet they remain on "friendly terms" with the liberals who are one of the most firmly pro choice parties. I'm guessing part of this is that in addition to being aligned on a number of policy areas they're also not competing for the same voter base, so letting the polarisation escalate to hostility serves no purpose for either of them. But when you have two parties fighting over control in a non-proportional system and you care about power in the short term, it pays for them to both seek towards the other to fight over voters near the centre and to exaggerate the importance of the remaining differences.
arvigeus 5y ago
My country Bulgaria just had elections. The new government is a mix parties with completely different ideologies, one of them is considered very corrupt, another is considered populist. The thing is that the previous government was turning into one man dictatorship, and none of the other parties on their own could win. Some of the new parties seem to be competent. In any case it would be interesting to see if such model could work. Certainly it will be fragile, and the looming crisis will not help either.
- paganel 5y ago
  As far as I can tell the same has been happening in Israel since Netanyahu has lost his job, from the outside things seem to be holding, not sure how good or bad.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kstenerud 5y ago
It's an interesting paper, but unfortunately it misses the point. Polar dissimilar political beliefs are not the problem. Many countries have this, and even have lively political discussions that remain civil, rallies that remain civil, and elections that remain civil. The actual problem is psychological, specifically dealing with identity beliefs. Once a person takes on a belief as part of their identity, any attack upon that belief becomes an attack upon the person, at which point they will retaliate for the offence or dig in to defend. This is most commonly observed in the "Backfire Effect". Identity beliefs are pervasive in the USA, so much so that I doubt many are aware of it (the authors of this paper certainly aren't). For example, in America you say "I'm a Republican." but in Germany you say "I support the CDU." Notice the difference? One is an identity, the other is an action. Guess in which of these countries you can have polite (even if heated) dinner conversations about politics! Identity beliefs aren't limited to politics, either. They can be religious, ethnic, or even ideological (e.g. incels, preppers, anti-vaxers, jihadists, etc).
- nosianu 5y ago
  > Guess in which of these countries you can have polite (even if heated) dinner conversations about politics! Yes, but that was before vaccination scepticism and AfD (new-ish right wing party that made waves the last few years and now sits in the Bundestag too). Now we (Germany) see similar vitriol. We even had murder (some guy murdered the cashier at a petrol station because they were outraged he asked to wear a mask) and as recent as this week headlines about violent anti-vaccination protests. We also read about splits in families similar to what we were used to reading about from the US. Looks like we are catching up.... /s https://www.thelocal.de/20211207/germanys-new-government-condemns-aggressive-anti-vax-movement/ https://www.thelocal.de/20211207/germanys-new-government-con... https://www.ft.com/content/f04ac67b-92e4-4bab-8c23-817cc0483df5 https://www.ft.com/content/f04ac67b-92e4-4bab-8c23-817cc0483... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany (AfD party)
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    In Czechia and Poland, the same vitriol seems to be catching up. Well, in case of Poland, it might actually already be on the US level. At least we are multiparty countries, so switching allegiance is not as hard as in the US/UK system. But social networks are really good in their role of Shiri's scissor [0]. We shouldn't feel smug; as you say, we may just be slightly behind in the trend whose shockwave travels through the U.S. first. (A darkly funny observation: polarization and obesity seem to develop in a similar fashion. Maybe a diet of unhealthy shit and a diet of horrible info content go hand in hand, hacking the same circuits in our brains.) [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/
lnxg33k1 5y ago
I think polarisation within the voters is not necessarily a bad thing, you need to stick to your ideas, and somehow if someone is for wealth redistribution and public infrastructure and someone considers that taxation is theft it's hardly a situation that can be mixed within the people, or if someone wants to lock immigrants in a cage and someone wants open border it's hardly matchable. but I think this is where the power of the democratic process comes to mind, if you have people actually voting according to their ideas, the representation that those ideas would make sure that within parliament there is a balance of those point of view, so like, maybe let's not completely open the border, but make it dependent on immigrant background, or let's decrease taxes and public spending by cutting some money waste, etc. Voters I think must be polarised, it is the parliament who needs to create a balance through discussion. I mean I am not sure if I am polarised but sticking to the example I am not sure what my point of rendez-vous would be with a guy who considers taxation as theft for example
idontwantthis 5y ago
Polarization in America: One side invaded the capital building in a violent attempt to overthrow democracy, and the other side wants to make voting for whoever you want as easy as possible. Guess which pole I’m at and tell me how I should meet the other pole in the middle.
- rmbyrro 5y ago
  That's how bad the situation is... To be fair, though, the left also has been associated with violent and anti-democratic behaviors.
  - idontwantthis 5y ago
    “To be fair” nothing approaching the same ballpark has been committed by the left and the any “violent and anti democratic behaviors” you can give examples of have not been championed by the left establishment. One side wants to seize power for all time, and the other side wants democracy. If anyone on the left isn’t polarized by that fact then they aren’t paying attention.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - h2odragon 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_Senate_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_Senate_bomb... > Six members of the radical far-left Resistance Conspiracy were arrested in May 1988 and charged with the bombing, as well as related bombings just one, commonly cited counterpoint.
      - idontwantthis 5y ago
        This game is fun, can I play? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair > In the internationally publicized legal proceedings that followed, eight anarchists were convicted of conspiracy
Rucadi 5y ago
The problem is not polarization of ideas, the problem is the lack of freedom and the imposition of the ideas over the others. I love that you think that a big ass state is the best for everybody, I don't think so, so don't forefully make me pay a lot of taxes for a lot of services I don't want and I can't decide. Group yourself with people happy with that and let the others live their life without imposing them that shit.
- Freak_NL 5y ago
  The usual solution to this is to move to a country that is more in line with your life philosophy (i.e., “group yourself with people happy with that”). Or you could accept that paying taxes in order for a government to provide certain services is a situation the majority of people find beneficial, and that changing this may be untenable.
  - superflit2 5y ago
    But what IF one of groups "invite" or promote immigration to make another group weaker?
    - epakai 5y ago
      What if they don't but one group spreads a lie that they do so? Have you fallen for it?
      - superflit2 5y ago
        Like If I send millions of buddhist people to a Muslim country. The buddhist will become Muslim? Is that how it works?
pydry 5y ago
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum. The easy way to avoid people from accidentally getting too far outside of the spectrum is to dial up the "liveliness" of the debate and double down wedge issues. It's staggeringly effective and quite depressing to watch. It's quite one thing watching strangers explode in response to divisive propaganda designed to drive a wedge between them and people with fundamentally similar interests. It's quite another to watch your own friends and family be manipulated this way.
sleepysysadmin 5y ago
>Democracies require compromise. But compromise becomes almost impossible when voters are divided into diametrically opposed camps. One of the identity tricks that George W Bush used was being a yokel. The Democrats fell into the obvious trap of attacking his identity which immediately turned off tons of people. Then Bush kept going with identity politics. Like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_liberal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_liberal So then right after that, the democrats played the ultimate identity politics card with Obama. First black president! This is in context of Kanye West saying George W Bush doesn't care about black people during a hurricane for new orleans. Black identity was played hard. The thing about identity politics is that it's not free. Bush's identity politics enabled and pushed the identity politics of Obama which created and enabled Trump. You'll notice that biden vs trump is old white dudes. But more importantly, BLM for example seems like they are allied with Biden/Harris but who has so far done more for the black community? Trump. Biden and friends have passed and done nothing for BLM. Clinton described Trump’s supporters: “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. You might ask, when does it end? It really doesn't until something pretty big breaks it. Civil war? War with China? War with Canada? It will be something very bloody to stop this and reunite people.
- epakai 5y ago
  Biden quit demonizing BLM. That's a huge step in calming things instead of being the strong man who dismisses their beliefs and calls them sons of bitches. Trump having done more is laughable when he intentionally inflamed the situation.
  - sleepysysadmin 5y ago
    >Biden quit demonizing BLM. That's a huge step in calming things instead of being the strong man who dismisses their beliefs and calls them sons of bitches. Like I dont mind Biden's position on the left wing riots. BLM or antifa for that matter. I feel like rational people are going to be upset with clear police brutality that is happening. Though the tremendous violence that is involved is wrong. Biden is right to say this. However, as a leader who acknowledges police brutality. He should do something about it. >Trump having done more is laughable when he intentionally inflamed the situation. If you look at it objectively. Trump has to date done more for the blm cause than the democrats since replacing trump. As of right now, they have achieved nothing for blm. Like I think we can all agree there's a police brutality problem. But also clearly a racism related issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKGZnB41_e4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKGZnB41_e4 The only difference is skin colour and police react much differently. As a leader this needs to be fixed. So lets step back. Why would Trump not acknowledge the issue or attack blm? Why is biden and friends doing nothing for them? Also, why does blm only exist during elections? https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=blm https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge... BLM isn't about police brutality. It's not even about racism. Trump attacks them because of what they are and biden ignores them because of what they are. Alas, sideline BLM. The USA still has a police problem. Biden seems to acknowledge the problem exists and they seem to be clearly not interested in fixing the problem.
brightball 5y ago
The polarization is much worse on the left side of the isle. I’d always observed it on the internet with what comes across as belligerent hate of anything done by a conservative, but this recent poll really brings home just how far the brainwashing has gone. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/over-70-of-young-democrats-wouldnt-date-republicans-poll https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/over-70-of-young... If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled them so firmly as to write them off entirely as a person, you have jumped the shark and become the problem.
- Clubber 5y ago
  >If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled them so firmly as to write them off entirely as a person, you have jumped the shark and become the problem. If you get the population to focus on wedge issues that laws can't really remedy, they won't focus on your hand stealing money from their pockets. In other words, if you can get them to fight each other, they won't fight you, the power class. It's all wrestling, these guys fighting each other on the news, talking about things that get people all riled up, go have a beer together after the show.
- ilikecakeandpie 5y ago
  > If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled them so firmly as to write them off entirely as a person, you have jumped the shark and become the problem. If someone is having their bodily autonomy threatened by legislation pushed and passed by a political party and a choice for potential partner actively supports and votes for those people to gain or retain power, it's not an irrational decision to decide they're probably not compatible.
  - gruez 5y ago
    seems like you can pull out this explanation for either side. Just replace "bodily autonomy" issue from "abortions" to "vaccine mandates"
dumbkidinsch 5y ago
I don't think you can, if the fundamental premises and values of different groups of people are too divergent. I've been noticing the greatest hates comes from actually knowing your neighbor rather than the myth hate comes from being ignorant. If I had to guess its knowing plus disgust leads to polarization.
buffalobuffalo 5y ago
I think one way to massively reduce polarization in the US at least is to mix up the parties. That is to say, get left leaning people into the republican party and right leaning people into the democratic party. (just having them vote in the primaries would be sufficient). This would at least dampen the political effect of extreme polarization. The funny thing is that from a game theory perspective, it seems like it would be in both parties’ interest to encourage this. If you push your supporters into the opposing party for the primary but they don’t follow suit, your voter base/platform can remain static but your opponent’s voter base/platform shifts towards you. This would make it easier to pass legislation you want. Allow this to continue and eventually both parties would have to encourage this until we reach nash equilibrium with both parties being fairly heterogeneous.
- snovv_crash 5y ago
  If it was about getting legislation through that would make sense. If it's about getting certain individuals into positions of power, however, the opposite is true. /cynical
edmcnulty101 5y ago
The media calling January 6th an 'insurrection' is a perfect example of the problem. It's pure sensationalism. There were no guns, there was no centralized organization to indicate an insurrection, the 4 people who died were all protestors, mostly from being dumbasses. Clearly those people who damaged the capitol should be punished, just like the Black Lives Matter protesters who damaged the Foley Federal Building. But calling it an INSURRECTION is just pure disingenuous sensationalism by the media. What story will make the media more money: A protest that got very heated? Or an insurrection? And of course the more extreme opponents of either side will seize on the identity politics and propagate this narrative and we continue down the path of polarization. I have no idea how to fix this issue of media propaganda other than teaching people statistics and critical thinking, but that starts with education from an early age. I don't know if most people even have the time to research alternative views so they just trust their news sources, which worked up until the past decade(?) or so.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Why were they there? To support overturning the results of the vote. That's at least in intent an insurrection. Why did they bring a noose for Mike Pence? Isn't that insurrection? Or is it "merely" assassination? (Or just an over-the-top prop that they didn't intend to use?)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- TomSwirly 5y ago
  A group of people publicly proclaimed that the election was fake. They announced they were going to advance on Congress and Stop The Steal. They showed up in the thousands with weapons and restraining devices, broke into the Capitol building, broke a lot of things, literally wiped their shit on the walls, and were finally repulsed. Sounds like an "INSURRECTION" to me. What part is missing? Do you only count it as an "INSURRECTION" if it fails? Hmm... --- Hey, I heard a joke: Q: How do you know Trump was running the January 6 insurrection? A: It failed. :-D
dragonwriter 5y ago
Both ideological and effective polarization are exacerbated by electoral and political structures like those in the US that promote factional duopoly; comparative study of modern democracies has shown this. Reducing it is simple, adopt an electoral system which has greater legislative proportionality and a political system less heavily tilted to a unitary executive.
lamontcg 5y ago
What if the polarization is the result of the economic system becoming bankrupt and that large structural changes are actually necessary? There's a baked in idea here that compromise and centrism is always right, when it may be that during periods of history when centrism is the wrong path that political polarization naturally increases. By trying to avoid deeper structural change it becomes like pressure building up on a fault line and the longer it goes on the worse the resulting political Earthquake becomes.
watersb 5y ago
I am in the process of reading all of these comments, so I know I have a ways to go. If we are in fact talking about strange beluefs becoming a matter of identity, then any attempt to talk someone out of that identity will not help anyone. It's certainly important to acknowledge our own beliefs, and to check those beliefs against the facts on the ground. You can sure start to feel like you are surrounded by crazy people, and get pulled into arguing "the facts" anyway. That's how I usually screw it up. So what happens if, instead of pushing back on facts, when someone in personal conversation insists that (for example) the current president was illegitimately elected... what happens with a responsing by questions that signal my interest in their point of view? "Ok, what is the most important thing for Americans to do right now?" Usually people will think I am agreeing with them. I might have to assert my point of view, I don't want to lie to people. I don't know if anything will work, at this point.

90 points by Lwepz 5y ago

Fascinating paper. And nice job with the model! > Strictly limiting exposure to dissimilar views, however, is an effective mechanism for avoiding rapid polarization (Figs. 4 and 5). This may, at first, appear contrary to practical experience: Encouraging interactions among those with different views might be expected to decrease polarization by fostering increased tolerance. Lots of interesting points in there.

yosito 5y ago
> Strictly limiting exposure to dissimilar views, however, is... ...not an effective mechanism for social media and news sites to make a profit, unfortunately.
- colordrops 5y ago
  We so easily give up our agency to debate, dissent, connect, and communicate a diversity of ideas. We will severely regret it one day.
  - johnisgood 5y ago
    We already gave up our agency to make our own decisions in many areas of life. The Government does it for us.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - o5ira 5y ago
      In my experience, Government imposes far fewer limitations on my life than the Market does. It determines that I must work to live, who I can work for, what sort of home and food I can have, etc.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - johnisgood 5y ago
        > I must work to live Are you saying that you do not work voluntarily but under duress, e.g. to avoid starvation? In any case, just to be clear... are you blaming our economic system, capitalism for this? I am asking, because it is a common thing to do; blaming capitalism for everything that is the fault of the Government. After all, capitalism is about working less to earn more. This alone is in conflict with "work to live". Plus the market is a voluntary concept. The Government interferes with the market, and creates all sorts of horrible financial incentives. We have an interventionist economy, and it is not doing too well, I agree with you on that. People should support each other more. Our web of social support is not satisfactory. We have the technology to "retire" many people, but if we do that, they cannot get money, and not getting money is a problem indeed. The Government "creates" all sorts of useless jobs we could do without just so people can earn money. We should be able to work less, and live just as well, if not better; which is what capitalism - our economic system - is about. That said, existence has externalities. Humans take food, water, produce waste, damage things, require shelter, etc. and someone has to cover that and you could always work to cover it or go join a commune to cover it if your Government has not made it illegal.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- rmbyrro 5y ago
  They were known to create bubbles and echo chambers. And make huge profits from it. How did this change recently? Not supporting any side, just wondering about the reasoning

DeathArrow 5y ago

We are past the point when preventing polarization was possible. Now we are near the end of the path one political side brought us, with the other fighting against that. One side will win and will establish the rules the society will follow for the next decades.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
What would such a win look like from your perspective? Everything I have observed indicates the federal government operates as a pendulum. Voters for the party in power disappoint their base, while the opposition becomes more mobilized.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > the federal government operates as a pendulum. That seems like wishful thinking, to me. Also, I think the federal government (I take it you mean the government of the USA) is rather weak; state governments seem to have a lot more power. Not saying whether I think that is good or bad.
- DeathArrow 5y ago
  It's not just about parties and voters. It's about two sides of society who became radicalized, leaving critical thinking for fundamentalism. The clashes within those two sides will grow in number and intensity. The conflict is fueling itself. There's nothing the politicians can do or will to defuse the situation. And the world is much bigger than US. The fight is not only fought in US.
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
  Probably like the US after the end of Reconstruction.
- throwawaygal7 5y ago
  I think there is a pendulum effect, but it's dominated by a leftward cultural trajectory. The republican party really just takes democrat positions from a few years ago on social issues, adds some murmering about trying to reign in the debt, occasionally cuts taxes , and continues the progression of the dominant culture. My theory is the increasing polarization is due to one side clearly seeing their dominance in the culture and wanting to crush all opposition; and some reactionaries on the right noticing this state of affairs and calling for more aggressive means to try to change the situation.

kome 5y ago

Bad political science + virtuoso use of methodology but unsubstantiated + underlying US centrism Polarization is a problem when you let a political system polarize. In other words, while in Europe multiple parties represented in parliament are the norm; in the US - a two-party state, naturally exacerbate the risk of polarization. So, paradoxically, polarization is a problem of not enough variety in the political spectrum. Not too much difference. Looking from abroad, democrats and republicans are almost the same. And this is the core of the problem, and the deeper root of polarization.

shrimpx 5y ago
> Looking from abroad, democrats and republicans are almost the same. And this is the core of the problem, and the deeper root of polarization. Can you elaborate on this? How does similarity between the parties cause polarization?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- vidarh 5y ago
  Because when the points of meaningful disagreements are few, people often have a need to emphasise those points in order to justify their choice. I don't think this is by any means universal and it doesn't need to get hostile. Proportional systems often force parties to be prepared to cooperate or be left with no influence so even with starkly polarised views on certain issues it doesn't pay to get too hostile about it. To take a concrete example, in Norway the two centre-right centrist parties are classical liberals (Left/Venstre) and Christian democrats (KrF/Christian Peoples Party). The Christian democrats are hardline on abortion by Norwegian standards. It's of course genuinely important to them, but it's also clear that it's gained extra importance to them as one of the few areas where they clearly stand out to their potential voters. Yet they remain on "friendly terms" with the liberals who are one of the most firmly pro choice parties. I'm guessing part of this is that in addition to being aligned on a number of policy areas they're also not competing for the same voter base, so letting the polarisation escalate to hostility serves no purpose for either of them. But when you have two parties fighting over control in a non-proportional system and you care about power in the short term, it pays for them to both seek towards the other to fight over voters near the centre and to exaggerate the importance of the remaining differences.

arvigeus 5y ago

My country Bulgaria just had elections. The new government is a mix parties with completely different ideologies, one of them is considered very corrupt, another is considered populist. The thing is that the previous government was turning into one man dictatorship, and none of the other parties on their own could win. Some of the new parties seem to be competent. In any case it would be interesting to see if such model could work. Certainly it will be fragile, and the looming crisis will not help either.

paganel 5y ago
As far as I can tell the same has been happening in Israel since Netanyahu has lost his job, from the outside things seem to be holding, not sure how good or bad.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kstenerud 5y ago

It's an interesting paper, but unfortunately it misses the point. Polar dissimilar political beliefs are not the problem. Many countries have this, and even have lively political discussions that remain civil, rallies that remain civil, and elections that remain civil. The actual problem is psychological, specifically dealing with identity beliefs. Once a person takes on a belief as part of their identity, any attack upon that belief becomes an attack upon the person, at which point they will retaliate for the offence or dig in to defend. This is most commonly observed in the "Backfire Effect". Identity beliefs are pervasive in the USA, so much so that I doubt many are aware of it (the authors of this paper certainly aren't). For example, in America you say "I'm a Republican." but in Germany you say "I support the CDU." Notice the difference? One is an identity, the other is an action. Guess in which of these countries you can have polite (even if heated) dinner conversations about politics! Identity beliefs aren't limited to politics, either. They can be religious, ethnic, or even ideological (e.g. incels, preppers, anti-vaxers, jihadists, etc).

nosianu 5y ago
> Guess in which of these countries you can have polite (even if heated) dinner conversations about politics! Yes, but that was before vaccination scepticism and AfD (new-ish right wing party that made waves the last few years and now sits in the Bundestag too). Now we (Germany) see similar vitriol. We even had murder (some guy murdered the cashier at a petrol station because they were outraged he asked to wear a mask) and as recent as this week headlines about violent anti-vaccination protests. We also read about splits in families similar to what we were used to reading about from the US. Looks like we are catching up.... /s https://www.thelocal.de/20211207/germanys-new-government-condemns-aggressive-anti-vax-movement/ https://www.thelocal.de/20211207/germanys-new-government-con... https://www.ft.com/content/f04ac67b-92e4-4bab-8c23-817cc0483df5 https://www.ft.com/content/f04ac67b-92e4-4bab-8c23-817cc0483... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany (AfD party)
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  In Czechia and Poland, the same vitriol seems to be catching up. Well, in case of Poland, it might actually already be on the US level. At least we are multiparty countries, so switching allegiance is not as hard as in the US/UK system. But social networks are really good in their role of Shiri's scissor [0]. We shouldn't feel smug; as you say, we may just be slightly behind in the trend whose shockwave travels through the U.S. first. (A darkly funny observation: polarization and obesity seem to develop in a similar fashion. Maybe a diet of unhealthy shit and a diet of horrible info content go hand in hand, hacking the same circuits in our brains.) [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/

lnxg33k1 5y ago

I think polarisation within the voters is not necessarily a bad thing, you need to stick to your ideas, and somehow if someone is for wealth redistribution and public infrastructure and someone considers that taxation is theft it's hardly a situation that can be mixed within the people, or if someone wants to lock immigrants in a cage and someone wants open border it's hardly matchable. but I think this is where the power of the democratic process comes to mind, if you have people actually voting according to their ideas, the representation that those ideas would make sure that within parliament there is a balance of those point of view, so like, maybe let's not completely open the border, but make it dependent on immigrant background, or let's decrease taxes and public spending by cutting some money waste, etc. Voters I think must be polarised, it is the parliament who needs to create a balance through discussion. I mean I am not sure if I am polarised but sticking to the example I am not sure what my point of rendez-vous would be with a guy who considers taxation as theft for example

idontwantthis 5y ago

Polarization in America: One side invaded the capital building in a violent attempt to overthrow democracy, and the other side wants to make voting for whoever you want as easy as possible. Guess which pole I’m at and tell me how I should meet the other pole in the middle.

rmbyrro 5y ago
That's how bad the situation is... To be fair, though, the left also has been associated with violent and anti-democratic behaviors.
- idontwantthis 5y ago
  “To be fair” nothing approaching the same ballpark has been committed by the left and the any “violent and anti democratic behaviors” you can give examples of have not been championed by the left establishment. One side wants to seize power for all time, and the other side wants democracy. If anyone on the left isn’t polarized by that fact then they aren’t paying attention.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - h2odragon 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_Senate_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_Senate_bomb... > Six members of the radical far-left Resistance Conspiracy were arrested in May 1988 and charged with the bombing, as well as related bombings just one, commonly cited counterpoint.
    - idontwantthis 5y ago
      This game is fun, can I play? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair > In the internationally publicized legal proceedings that followed, eight anarchists were convicted of conspiracy

Rucadi 5y ago

The problem is not polarization of ideas, the problem is the lack of freedom and the imposition of the ideas over the others. I love that you think that a big ass state is the best for everybody, I don't think so, so don't forefully make me pay a lot of taxes for a lot of services I don't want and I can't decide. Group yourself with people happy with that and let the others live their life without imposing them that shit.

Freak_NL 5y ago
The usual solution to this is to move to a country that is more in line with your life philosophy (i.e., “group yourself with people happy with that”). Or you could accept that paying taxes in order for a government to provide certain services is a situation the majority of people find beneficial, and that changing this may be untenable.
- superflit2 5y ago
  But what IF one of groups "invite" or promote immigration to make another group weaker?
  - epakai 5y ago
    What if they don't but one group spreads a lie that they do so? Have you fallen for it?
    - superflit2 5y ago
      Like If I send millions of buddhist people to a Muslim country. The buddhist will become Muslim? Is that how it works?

pydry 5y ago

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum. The easy way to avoid people from accidentally getting too far outside of the spectrum is to dial up the "liveliness" of the debate and double down wedge issues. It's staggeringly effective and quite depressing to watch. It's quite one thing watching strangers explode in response to divisive propaganda designed to drive a wedge between them and people with fundamentally similar interests. It's quite another to watch your own friends and family be manipulated this way.

sleepysysadmin 5y ago

>Democracies require compromise. But compromise becomes almost impossible when voters are divided into diametrically opposed camps. One of the identity tricks that George W Bush used was being a yokel. The Democrats fell into the obvious trap of attacking his identity which immediately turned off tons of people. Then Bush kept going with identity politics. Like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_liberal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_liberal So then right after that, the democrats played the ultimate identity politics card with Obama. First black president! This is in context of Kanye West saying George W Bush doesn't care about black people during a hurricane for new orleans. Black identity was played hard. The thing about identity politics is that it's not free. Bush's identity politics enabled and pushed the identity politics of Obama which created and enabled Trump. You'll notice that biden vs trump is old white dudes. But more importantly, BLM for example seems like they are allied with Biden/Harris but who has so far done more for the black community? Trump. Biden and friends have passed and done nothing for BLM. Clinton described Trump’s supporters: “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. You might ask, when does it end? It really doesn't until something pretty big breaks it. Civil war? War with China? War with Canada? It will be something very bloody to stop this and reunite people.

epakai 5y ago
Biden quit demonizing BLM. That's a huge step in calming things instead of being the strong man who dismisses their beliefs and calls them sons of bitches. Trump having done more is laughable when he intentionally inflamed the situation.
- sleepysysadmin 5y ago
  >Biden quit demonizing BLM. That's a huge step in calming things instead of being the strong man who dismisses their beliefs and calls them sons of bitches. Like I dont mind Biden's position on the left wing riots. BLM or antifa for that matter. I feel like rational people are going to be upset with clear police brutality that is happening. Though the tremendous violence that is involved is wrong. Biden is right to say this. However, as a leader who acknowledges police brutality. He should do something about it. >Trump having done more is laughable when he intentionally inflamed the situation. If you look at it objectively. Trump has to date done more for the blm cause than the democrats since replacing trump. As of right now, they have achieved nothing for blm. Like I think we can all agree there's a police brutality problem. But also clearly a racism related issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKGZnB41_e4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKGZnB41_e4 The only difference is skin colour and police react much differently. As a leader this needs to be fixed. So lets step back. Why would Trump not acknowledge the issue or attack blm? Why is biden and friends doing nothing for them? Also, why does blm only exist during elections? https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=blm https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge... BLM isn't about police brutality. It's not even about racism. Trump attacks them because of what they are and biden ignores them because of what they are. Alas, sideline BLM. The USA still has a police problem. Biden seems to acknowledge the problem exists and they seem to be clearly not interested in fixing the problem.

brightball 5y ago

The polarization is much worse on the left side of the isle. I’d always observed it on the internet with what comes across as belligerent hate of anything done by a conservative, but this recent poll really brings home just how far the brainwashing has gone. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/over-70-of-young-democrats-wouldnt-date-republicans-poll https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/over-70-of-young... If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled them so firmly as to write them off entirely as a person, you have jumped the shark and become the problem.

Clubber 5y ago
>If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled them so firmly as to write them off entirely as a person, you have jumped the shark and become the problem. If you get the population to focus on wedge issues that laws can't really remedy, they won't focus on your hand stealing money from their pockets. In other words, if you can get them to fight each other, they won't fight you, the power class. It's all wrestling, these guys fighting each other on the news, talking about things that get people all riled up, go have a beer together after the show.
ilikecakeandpie 5y ago
> If your political beliefs prevent you from associating with somebody because you have labeled them so firmly as to write them off entirely as a person, you have jumped the shark and become the problem. If someone is having their bodily autonomy threatened by legislation pushed and passed by a political party and a choice for potential partner actively supports and votes for those people to gain or retain power, it's not an irrational decision to decide they're probably not compatible.
- gruez 5y ago
  seems like you can pull out this explanation for either side. Just replace "bodily autonomy" issue from "abortions" to "vaccine mandates"

dumbkidinsch 5y ago

I don't think you can, if the fundamental premises and values of different groups of people are too divergent. I've been noticing the greatest hates comes from actually knowing your neighbor rather than the myth hate comes from being ignorant. If I had to guess its knowing plus disgust leads to polarization.

buffalobuffalo 5y ago

I think one way to massively reduce polarization in the US at least is to mix up the parties. That is to say, get left leaning people into the republican party and right leaning people into the democratic party. (just having them vote in the primaries would be sufficient). This would at least dampen the political effect of extreme polarization. The funny thing is that from a game theory perspective, it seems like it would be in both parties’ interest to encourage this. If you push your supporters into the opposing party for the primary but they don’t follow suit, your voter base/platform can remain static but your opponent’s voter base/platform shifts towards you. This would make it easier to pass legislation you want. Allow this to continue and eventually both parties would have to encourage this until we reach nash equilibrium with both parties being fairly heterogeneous.

snovv_crash 5y ago
If it was about getting legislation through that would make sense. If it's about getting certain individuals into positions of power, however, the opposite is true. /cynical

edmcnulty101 5y ago

The media calling January 6th an 'insurrection' is a perfect example of the problem. It's pure sensationalism. There were no guns, there was no centralized organization to indicate an insurrection, the 4 people who died were all protestors, mostly from being dumbasses. Clearly those people who damaged the capitol should be punished, just like the Black Lives Matter protesters who damaged the Foley Federal Building. But calling it an INSURRECTION is just pure disingenuous sensationalism by the media. What story will make the media more money: A protest that got very heated? Or an insurrection? And of course the more extreme opponents of either side will seize on the identity politics and propagate this narrative and we continue down the path of polarization. I have no idea how to fix this issue of media propaganda other than teaching people statistics and critical thinking, but that starts with education from an early age. I don't know if most people even have the time to research alternative views so they just trust their news sources, which worked up until the past decade(?) or so.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Why were they there? To support overturning the results of the vote. That's at least in intent an insurrection. Why did they bring a noose for Mike Pence? Isn't that insurrection? Or is it "merely" assassination? (Or just an over-the-top prop that they didn't intend to use?)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
TomSwirly 5y ago
A group of people publicly proclaimed that the election was fake. They announced they were going to advance on Congress and Stop The Steal. They showed up in the thousands with weapons and restraining devices, broke into the Capitol building, broke a lot of things, literally wiped their shit on the walls, and were finally repulsed. Sounds like an "INSURRECTION" to me. What part is missing? Do you only count it as an "INSURRECTION" if it fails? Hmm... --- Hey, I heard a joke: Q: How do you know Trump was running the January 6 insurrection? A: It failed. :-D

dragonwriter 5y ago

Both ideological and effective polarization are exacerbated by electoral and political structures like those in the US that promote factional duopoly; comparative study of modern democracies has shown this. Reducing it is simple, adopt an electoral system which has greater legislative proportionality and a political system less heavily tilted to a unitary executive.

lamontcg 5y ago

What if the polarization is the result of the economic system becoming bankrupt and that large structural changes are actually necessary? There's a baked in idea here that compromise and centrism is always right, when it may be that during periods of history when centrism is the wrong path that political polarization naturally increases. By trying to avoid deeper structural change it becomes like pressure building up on a fault line and the longer it goes on the worse the resulting political Earthquake becomes.

watersb 5y ago

I am in the process of reading all of these comments, so I know I have a ways to go. If we are in fact talking about strange beluefs becoming a matter of identity, then any attempt to talk someone out of that identity will not help anyone. It's certainly important to acknowledge our own beliefs, and to check those beliefs against the facts on the ground. You can sure start to feel like you are surrounded by crazy people, and get pulled into arguing "the facts" anyway. That's how I usually screw it up. So what happens if, instead of pushing back on facts, when someone in personal conversation insists that (for example) the current president was illegitimately elected... what happens with a responsing by questions that signal my interest in their point of view? "Ok, what is the most important thing for Americans to do right now?" Usually people will think I am agreeing with them. I might have to assert my point of view, I don't want to lie to people. I don't know if anything will work, at this point.