A new theory about political polarization • Hacker News Board

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#71

Post by clairity » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 8:49 PM UTC

notafraudster wrote: post #57

In political science, the conventional view is that polarization observed in the US is not a product of the two camps drifting further apart (in the sense of having more extreme views), it's the product of issue divisions aligning more closely to partisan camps. Consider Kim Davis. Kim Davis was a county clerk who went to jail after illegally refusing to issue a same-sex marriage certificate after the court system ru…

the whole concept of party polarization is a non-sequitur to what's important, and that's how closely our representatives represent our collective interest balanced against the forward-thinking good of the nation. the labels are clearly holding us back, but we dearly want to fit in (be in the party) and be perceived as being in the right, no matter what's good, truthful, moral, generous, patriotic, etc.

the wisdom of the crowds covers this ground too--too much correlated thinking via information cascades often leads to bad decisions and outcomes. you want more independence, even if that increases the number of "wrong" opinions. having more wrong opinions is infinitely better than poor information cascades, as long as they're relatively independent and queried in a statistically sound manner for decision-making.

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#72

Post by fzeroracer » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 8:50 PM UTC

narrator wrote: post #59

I think what broke the political dialog in this country is the whole hearted embrace of the association fallacy[1]. For example. I was talking with someone about COVID-19 and why it could have been released from a lab accidentally. The person I was talking with then accused me of believing in conspiracy theories. I then said many prominent people such as Tom Cotton and Mike Pompeo said this theory is credible. She th…

I'm not sure why it matters if prominent people believe in what is ostensibly a conspiracy theory. Alex Jones was prominent, but that doesn't mean chemicals in the water are turning frogs gay for example. In fact you should be placing more scrutiny on prominent people (politicians especially) for pushing such a thing, because usually they have an agenda they're trying to push.

The fact that you chose to accuse someone of denying such a thing as parroting CCP propaganda indicates either your story is entirely fake or you're just an asshole.

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#73

Post by ChainOfFools » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 8:52 PM UTC

clairity wrote: post #71

notafraudster wrote: post #57

In political science, the conventional view is that polarization observed in the US is not a product of the two camps drifting further apart (in the sense of having more extreme views), it's the product of issue divisions aligning more closely to partisan camps. Consider Kim Davis. Kim Davis was a county clerk who went to jail after illegally refusing to issue a same-sex marriage certificate after the court system ru…

the whole concept of party polarization is a non-sequitur to what's important, and that's how closely our representatives represent our collective interest balanced against the forward-thinking good of the nation. the labels are clearly holding us back, but we dearly want to fit in (be in the party) and be perceived as being in the right, no matter what's good, truthful, moral, generous, patriotic, etc. the wisdom of…

at what point does groupthink suddenly flash over into the wisdom of a crowd? is there some kind of dunbar's number at work here?

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#74

Post by Faark » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 8:53 PM UTC

notafraudster wrote: post #57

In political science, the conventional view is that polarization observed in the US is not a product of the two camps drifting further apart (in the sense of having more extreme views), it's the product of issue divisions aligning more closely to partisan camps. Consider Kim Davis. Kim Davis was a county clerk who went to jail after illegally refusing to issue a same-sex marriage certificate after the court system ru…

All of this seems to have an unstated prerequisite: The US two party system where voting for a third party actively damages your own interest. It's not perfectly solved in other countries, but having more "evils" to choose from is a good start.

Obviously politicians have have little incentive to change the process they already had to master to gain power though in the first place.

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#75

Post by crazygringo » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 8:54 PM UTC

This is interesting mathematically... but false empirically.

The forces behind modern political polarization are extremely well-known and well-documented in political science, and they are:

1) The awareness by political parties that extreme views motivate extreme voters to vote, more than moderate views motivate moderate voters to vote, therefore parties and candidates are being pushed further away from the center than decades ago

2) Political primaries are now democratic, so less centrist candidates are being selected than from when candidates were selected by party leadership

3) The awareness by the media that politically polarized coverage is more popular than centrist/balanced coverage, thus the rise of right-wing and left-wing news

It really is that simple. Potential solutions include making voting mandatory (like Australia and many other countries) so extreme views aren't used to drive turnout, various strategies like eliminating primaries and using ranked voting for elections instead (allowing multiple candidates from all parties), and well there isn't really much we can do about the media, but if parties and candidates aren't pushing the polarization as much, the media probably won't as much either.

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#76

Post by ep103 » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 8:56 PM UTC

notafraudster wrote: post #57

In political science, the conventional view is that polarization observed in the US is not a product of the two camps drifting further apart (in the sense of having more extreme views), it's the product of issue divisions aligning more closely to partisan camps. Consider Kim Davis. Kim Davis was a county clerk who went to jail after illegally refusing to issue a same-sex marriage certificate after the court system ru…

Of the explanations you have given here, most of them appear to be good things. Voters learning more about and becoming more aware of the actions of their representative parties.

Except the hastert rule.

The hastert rule appears to be uniformly evil, and would appear to be an underlying reason for all of the other trends you've described in your post. Because it makes it impossible to govern, except in an extremely polarized manner. Leading to all of the other changes you've described.

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#77

Post by Tiltowait-- » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 8:59 PM UTC

notafraudster wrote: post #57

In political science, the conventional view is that polarization observed in the US is not a product of the two camps drifting further apart (in the sense of having more extreme views), it's the product of issue divisions aligning more closely to partisan camps. Consider Kim Davis. Kim Davis was a county clerk who went to jail after illegally refusing to issue a same-sex marriage certificate after the court system ru…

The White House and the Pauline Kael Syndrome. Short version: In 1973, all six major US class segments were centrist. Over the next 35 years, five of the segments moved slightly to the right, but "Intellectual Upper Class" moved far out to the left.

https://www.aei.org/publication/the-white-house-and-the-paul...

https://web.archive.org/web/20160221064932/http://heterodoxa...

The essay below makes an outstanding point about polarization. The thesis is that the Western Right's outgroup is people who aren't Westerners. BUT the Western Left's outgroup is the Right. It's the best explanation I've ever heard at this link. A bit long but worth reading every word because it answers SO many questions.

http://archive.is/QRJ6m

[links fixed, I need that extension that auto-archives your bookmarks]

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#78

Post by dane-pgp » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 9:00 PM UTC

narrator wrote: post #59

I think what broke the political dialog in this country is the whole hearted embrace of the association fallacy[1]. For example. I was talking with someone about COVID-19 and why it could have been released from a lab accidentally. The person I was talking with then accused me of believing in conspiracy theories. I then said many prominent people such as Tom Cotton and Mike Pompeo said this theory is credible. She th…

> I then said many prominent people such as [American politicians who stand to benefit from people supporting certain foreign policy positions] said this theory is credible.

Maybe that's the potential weakness in your reasoning she was trying to pick up on.

> She got very emotional and burst into tears at the accussation. I then explained the association fallacy,

I hope you also apologized.

Apart from that, I think your observation is mostly correct.

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#79

Post by jedharris » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 9:01 PM UTC

The paper doesn't help to answer: Why now? The model it proposes would have produced high polarization any time, but polarization is much higher now than 40 years ago...

If the model could help us analyze the dynamics of polarization it would be helpful. As a static analysis it is just a fairly obvious application of cognitive dissonance.

Re: A new theory about political polarization

#80

Post by Tiltowait-- » Mon, Jun 29, 2020, 9:03 PM UTC

dane-pgp wrote: post #67

ChainOfFools wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhapa shorter messages reach more targets' emotional activation potential with better propagation fidelity and much less energetic commitment per impression? Mass media is increasingly a battle of bottlenecked channel management and rationally persuasive content simply doesn't survive this infrastructure without being ground down into smooth, bite sized harangues. And if you are going to get massed support for an i…

Or, to put it another way, and at the risk of taking this discussion out of the abstract, "Lock her up!" only has to work as a tribal shibboleth, not as an actually deliverable policy (especially if your voters have already given up on the idea that politicians actually mean what they say).

Reality Winner was sentenced to federal prison for far less than Hillary Clinton did. She mishandled a single classified document while Hillary mishandled many, including top secret.

She's not in prison because the US has one justice system for us and another for establishment elites. Billionaires pay millionaires to tell the middle class that the poor are the problem. Punch up and fight the ruling class criminals.