Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

thesaint.scot

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 223 posts

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#31

Post by tfigment »

Miner49er wrote: post #4
umvi wrote: post #3

> 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…

Maybe this very thing is what is already causing polarization? Many people are already trying to reduce wealth inequality. Maybe the upper classes are fighting back in a way that causes polarization.

Look at housing in the US. Every home owner gate keeps and many rent seek. It is expected that value does not go down and actually increases faster than inflation. That is rational per person but net detrimental and a significant part of increasing inequity as poor and young cannot keep pace generally. Wealth begets wealth. Its also arguable if home owners are the upper class. Maybe there will be another correction but the govt will likely step in to prevent it.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#32

Post by uniqueuid »

Having some experience with studies of polarization, maybe I can help clear up where this paper comes from.

Basically, there are at least four distinct types of polarization that are commonly studied:

* affective polarization (used in this study) measures hatred towards the outgroup. It is commonly measured with the feeling thermometer, alternatively with the gallup question "would you agree if your kid marries someone from X". This polarization has been increasing over time, and recently outparty antagonism in the US surpassed (for the first time) racial antagonism.

* ideological/partisan polarization measures diverging support for the two parties, i.e. voters drifting towards the edges of the political spectrum. Note that this does not require that parties also become more extreme.

* elite polarization occurs in politicians and can be identified from speeches etc., but also from co-sponsoring of bills

* perceived polarization is the perception of how polarized society is

Now, the interesting thing is that many of these phenomena have (at least) two distinct causes: Either sorting, i.e. people realizing which party they really want to vote for. This occurs when parties become more extreme and it therefore becomes easier to identify which party is ideologically closer. Alternatively, people themselves may (also) shift ideologically, creating a clearer gap between parties and their electorate.

Most research is done on the US due to its simple two-party system, but there is still some debate regarding the true scope and causes of polarization. For example, one paper could not find a clear causal relationship between internet penetration and different forms of polarization [1].

If you're interested, some good references are listed at the end.

[1] Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. (2017). Is the Internet Causing Political Polarization? Evidence from Demographics (No. w23258; p. w23258). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w23258

Abrams, S. J., & Fiorina, M. P. (2012). “The Big Sort” That Wasn’t: A Skeptical Reexamination. PS: Political Science & Politics, 45(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096512000017

Fiorina, M., Abrams, S., & Pope, J. (2004). Culture War?: The Myth of a Polarized America. Undefined. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Culture-War%3A-The-Myt...

Fletcher, R., Cornia, A., & Nielsen, R. K. (2020). How Polarized Are Online and Offline News Audiences? A Comparative Analysis of Twelve Countries. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(2), 169–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161219892768

Levy, R. (2021). Social Media, News Consumption, and Polarization: Evidence from a Field Experiment. American Economic Review, 111(3), 831–870. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191777

Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and Partisan Selective Exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x

Tucker, J., Guess, A., Barbera, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., & Nyhan, B. (2018). Social Media, Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3144139

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#33

Post by chroem- »

praxulus wrote: post #22
HideousKojima wrote: post #12

The 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…

Not to defend their methodology, but your attempt to equate the GOP baseball shooting with an attempted coup says a lot more about your biases than the study authors'.

No post body was provided.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#35

Post by umvi »

civilized wrote: post #23
Barrin92 wrote: post #20

Worth 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…

I don't believe it. I think it's woo. There's no reason for my health to be harmed just because someone has more than me. I'm open to being proven wrong, but I think this is another social science fad, another victim of academia's ideological blinkers and confirmation bias avalanche. It'll be in and out, just like how eggs and wine and chocolate are good for you on Tuesday and bad for you again by Thursday. EDIT: Yes…

> There's no reason for my health to be harmed just because someone has more than me.

You would think so, but I've read several articles that suggest this isn't the case. One example that comes to mind is that in some communities kids experience social stress/bullying if their SMS bubbles aren't blue (because it implies you are too poor to afford an iPhone and can only afford a "lesser" Android): https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-apples-imessage-is-winning-...

From the article:

> Apple’s iMessage plays a significant role in the lives of young smartphone users and their parents, according to data and interviews with a dozen of these people. Teens and college students said they dread the ostracism that comes with a green text. The social pressure is palpable, with some reporting being ostracized or singled out after switching away from iPhones.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#36

Post by Yoofie »

aivisol wrote: post #19
arrakis2021 wrote: post #10

Yes 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.

I think his sarcasm blew a gentle breeze over your head.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#37

Post by Natsu »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #27
civilized wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe it. I think it's woo. There's no reason for my health to be harmed just because someone has more than me. I'm open to being proven wrong, but I think this is another social science fad, another victim of academia's ideological blinkers and confirmation bias avalanche. It'll be in and out, just like how eggs and wine and chocolate are good for you on Tuesday and bad for you again by Thursday. EDIT: Yes…

It's not that they have more. It's that you know they have more, that it's not fair they have more because they are not better than you, and the path to get more is blocked / unfairly policed. And that eats you up inside. And that eating up is constantly firing stress hormones and heardening your heart. In short, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side.

The problem is that, no matter what the actual causes are, self interest bias generally makes it so that nobody can accept that another person worked harder or used better strategy or whatever.

For example, in games, it's always lag/bad teammates/etc. that keep them in "Elo hell" and they want to 1v1 you despite it being a team game and they ignore game winning objectives to score meaningless kills or whatever. Never mind everyone starts with exactly the same resources every time. Yes, yes, bad lag can have an effect on the margins, but some of the best players I knew were playing from another continent with terrible ping and bad lag doesn't have any effect on bad tactics.

I've been in, and climbed out of that Elo in plenty of games, and I know just how sharply the mindsets change as you climb.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#38

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

umvi wrote: post #3

> 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…

I don't know about the UK (where this study is based), but wealth distribution in the US is extremely top-heavy [1], and there are a bunch of surveys showing that most people drastically underestimate the inequality [2]. I think it's hard to predict the political effect because a lot of people have these unrealistic ideas of how income and wealth are distributed, and it's not obvious how durable those misconceptions would be in the face of a concrete redistribution policy. That is, how many people would still believe that the policy is bad for them if they could go to the IRS website and be told they're getting a bunch of money?

[1] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/mar/10/michael-mo...

[2] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130395...

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#39

Post by chinchilla2020 »

civilized wrote: post #23
Barrin92 wrote: post #20

Worth 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…

I don't believe it. I think it's woo. There's no reason for my health to be harmed just because someone has more than me. I'm open to being proven wrong, but I think this is another social science fad, another victim of academia's ideological blinkers and confirmation bias avalanche. It'll be in and out, just like how eggs and wine and chocolate are good for you on Tuesday and bad for you again by Thursday. EDIT: Yes…

Furthermore, none of these studies are reproducible.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#40

Post by brewdad »

civilized wrote: post #23
Barrin92 wrote: post #20

Worth 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…

I don't believe it. I think it's woo. There's no reason for my health to be harmed just because someone has more than me. I'm open to being proven wrong, but I think this is another social science fad, another victim of academia's ideological blinkers and confirmation bias avalanche. It'll be in and out, just like how eggs and wine and chocolate are good for you on Tuesday and bad for you again by Thursday. EDIT: Yes…

One obvious example is housing. Those that have more than you can afford to live in safer neighborhoods. Those less well off but still able to afford to own a home will be forced to live in neighborhoods with higher crime, higher levels of pollution, "food deserts", or any other number of negative factors. Sure, you can opt to drive til you qualify and avoid some of those problems but now you spend an hour or more each way in your car. That too comes with negative consequences to your health.
Post reply on HN