Hard to do scapegoating when people's needs are met.
Needs will just increase to meet the threshold for scapegoating.
We are the richest and most prosperous humans to ever walk the earth. Scapegoating still exists.
Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study
11–20 of 223 posts
Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study
#12The study sounds like a crock of horseshit:
"In this model, we assume that a large population of individuals comprises two distinct identity groups. These identities are assumed fixed, and thus correspond to a fixed feature of identity such as race, religious heritage, or socioeconomic background. Although such identities are fixed in the model, the salience of the identity, and therefore its impact on behavior, varies."
The model assumes only two distinct and unchangeable identity groups, and assumes that these identity groups are solely based on a few specific unchangeable traits. And that's before you get into some of the wacky assumptions in their actual math model.
Also of note, they mention Charlottesville and the capitol riot as examples of political polarization, but make no mention of comparable events on the left like the BLM riots, the GOP baseball shooting, etc. Gives you a good idea of where the politics of the authors sit and suggests there may be motivated reasoning behind their arguments. "Solve political polarization by doing more of what the left has wanted to do for over a century!"
Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study
#13I would note that there are centuries of political theory written on this topic with a famous document written in 1848. Unfortunately, most of this theory concludes that class war is required to create an equal society.
A far more informative document was written in 1894.
Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study
#14Very interesting! I've skimmed the paper and what the model seems to refer to is affective polarization (i.e. hatred towards the outgroup).
It gets much more complex when we begin to incorporate other forms (and potentially sources), such as elite, partisan, party and legislative polarization. As umvi mentioned, each of those may be a source or consequence of affective polarization. Or both at the same time!
We really need some long-term field experiments (or natural experiments), but this paper definitely seems like a good contribution regarding the dynamics (models of which often have been way too simple).
Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study
#15> The study says, “We see that sufficient redistribution can reduce both inequality and polarisation, although a high degree of redistribution is required to prevent polarisation.” Have they factored in the act of wealth redistribution itself being polarizing? From a statistical/theoretical perspective it checks out, but I bet practically speaking if you actually tried "a high degree of [wealth] distribution", the mi…
>it would probably be good to investigate alternative methods of reducing inequality as well.
The serfs will always outnumber the lords. It's just a matter of keeping them pacified to sufficient levels so that revolting isn't a serious concern.
As you've suggested, other things to keep the masses pacified can come in many forms other than direct payments of cash. Stop reducing spending on public schools, public transport. Stop tearing down low rent housing in order to gentrify it with new housing that the original residents can no longer afford. Eliminate food deserts in populated areas.
Just a few off the top of head
Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study
#16I would note that there are centuries of political theory written on this topic with a famous document written in 1848. Unfortunately, most of this theory concludes that class war is required to create an equal society.
And when it fails to do so (and leaves behind a new mountain of skulls in the process), it "wasn't real communism" that time.
Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study
#17The study sounds like a crock of horseshit: "In this model, we assume that a large population of individuals comprises two distinct identity groups. These identities are assumed fixed, and thus correspond to a fixed feature of identity such as race, religious heritage, or socioeconomic background. Although such identities are fixed in the model, the salience of the identity, and therefore its impact on behavior, vari…
I think you're coming at the paper from a very particular angle.
This is fundamentally a mathematical simulation, so it's bound to be simplified. Assuming fixed identities is not completely unreasonable, given that affective and ideological polarization in the US has been increasing over decades. Yes some people switch, but not as many as you may think.
Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study
#18The study sounds like a crock of horseshit: "In this model, we assume that a large population of individuals comprises two distinct identity groups. These identities are assumed fixed, and thus correspond to a fixed feature of identity such as race, religious heritage, or socioeconomic background. Although such identities are fixed in the model, the salience of the identity, and therefore its impact on behavior, vari…
You say "wanted to do for over a century" yet "the left" has been reducing inequality for several centuries now, abolishing monarchy, aristocrary, slavery and such, introducing voting and democracy and human rights and all that kind of thing. People seem to generally like it.
Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study
#19Yes can confirm, in the USSR we had no political polarization. Everyone was always satisfied with the ruling party all the time. It was great joy.
You are joking, right? And everyone was equal except some who were more equal.
Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study
#20Worth reading Robert Sapolsky on the topic of inequality here[1]. Inequality itself (not poverty, and accounted for the material disadvantages), causes about half of the difference in health and life expectancy outcomes in developed nations, makes people at a neurological level opportunistic and causes biological stress in populations which results in violence, crime, isolation, mental illness, and so forth.
That's empirically backed by research and stands in stark contrast to the technocratic myth of "we just have to make everyone wealthier" that's dominated for the last 30-ish years. It's not surprising at all that a population that is running on extreme levels of stress tends towards political polarization.
[1]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-economic-ineq...
edit: short video interview summarizing it because of the paywall: https://youtu.be/aNRPuBJ02MM