11–20 of 171 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One might hope that a common enemy (say, a virus with no known vaccine) would act to reduce polarisation in a society.
It has done that in most societies across the world. Except in one country that is heading into elections this year.
> It ultimately ends in total polarization," illustrates co-author David Garcia Actually, I think it's more likely to end with violent conflict between the groups. The horsheshoe theory simply won't die[1]. At this point in time the extremes have more in common with one another than they do with the center. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory#:~:text=In%20... .
The Nazis and communists had a lot in common in 1930's Nazi Germany. They even made jokes about how often people switched parties...
"In some cities, the numeral strength of party-switching beefsteak Nazis was estimated to be large. Rudolf Diels (the head of the Gestapo from 1933 to 1934) reported that "70 percent" of the new SA recruits had been Communists in the city of Berlin"
People are polarized because they don't like being not polarized isn't really a theory, it's a tautology.
People are polarized because they don't like being not polarized isn't really a theory, it's a tautology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has done that in most societies across the world. Except in one country that is heading into elections this year.
I'd put more of the blame on the leader with no interest in uniting a nation under threat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One might hope that a common enemy (say, a virus with no known vaccine) would act to reduce polarisation in a society.
Many people don't see COVID as a crisis anymore with better numbers out now and if anything saw people become more self center rather than coming together in this time of trouble.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism
Historical materialism is the idea that politics comes from changes in the material conditions of a population. When people need something and aren't getting it, then they meet others in the same situation and compare notes, then you get a political formation.
The United States is refusing to adapt to the needs of the bottom strata of society, and as they learn they can't change the system by voting or protesting, more and more radical steps are taken until the goals of the majority of people will be achieved. The refusal of the government to give even an inch is causing this to happen. Just look at the Bernie Sanders campaign that was talking about state funded medical care for all people, how popular it was and is, and how the DNC merc'd it.
Then we had a pandemic happen that showed definitively how beneficial that policy would be, and the state still refuses to lift a finger to help anyone other than the business community with the exception of a paltry one time $1200 and some unemployment benefits. It took pushing to get Joe Biden to even call for free testing let alone free care!
Edit: To be clear, my objection to this paper is that even though it is authored by physicists, people who should have a clear understanding of materialism (!!) they merely build computer models of ideas, and in that they are merely pontificating on liberal idealism. Their models will be flawed because ideas only "catch" when they find fertile soil. That soil is material reality.
People are polarized because they don't like being not polarized isn't really a theory, it's a tautology.
This is an interesting observation, because while we think of all these things as related ideologically, they aren’t necessarily. For example, both Denmark and New Zealand have liberal new Prime Ministers who are women, pro-LGBT, pro-welfare state, and quite strongly anti-immigration. (New Zealand’s PM, Jacinda Ardern, has received very positive media coverage in the U.S., but is part of a ruling coalition with the “New Zealand First” Party, such that her deputy PM is an anti-immigration right-winger.) So the issues on which the “left” and “right” have formed coalitions aren’t necessarily ideological but are to some extent the artifact of history.
> It ultimately ends in total polarization," illustrates co-author David Garcia Actually, I think it's more likely to end with violent conflict between the groups. The horsheshoe theory simply won't die[1]. At this point in time the extremes have more in common with one another than they do with the center. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory#:~:text=In%20... .