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

51–60 of 223 posts

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#51

Post by olliej »

This study is not a study - they created a mathematical model that has a bunch of behavioural assumptions, given those assumptions reducing inequality improves it. It seems completely plausible that a different set of assumptions could create the opposite.

A study would mean looking at actual people, and say directly reducing the inequality. Obviously such a study would be infeasible (time, money, ethics, etc), but that doesn’t mean giving this kind of “study” any credence is actually meaningful.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s huge amounts of evidence int the negative outcomes in environments of extreme inequality, but bullshit papers like this aren’t going to do anything except boost the authors H index rating.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#52

Post by wetpaws »

umvi wrote: post #35
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…

> 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/…

This is not inequality, this is tribalism

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#53

Post by civilized »

brewdad wrote: post #40
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…

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 ea…

That's poverty though, not inequality per se.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#54

Post by newbie789 »

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…

No post body was provided.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#55

Post by ModernMech »

chroem- wrote: post #33
praxulus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

Quoted post unavailable.

Some people were indeed just trespassing, and were charged with trespassing. Others were trespassing and also fighting with police, and they have been charged with more serious offenses. A third group went even further and was actually executing a plan to overthrow the government, and they have been charged with seditious conspiracy.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#56

Post by kiba »

brewdad wrote: post #40
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…

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 ea…

This has to do with extremely poor land use policies combined together with bad incentive in the housing market, hence "robust" housing market as if it's something to be celebrated.

I note that the San Francisco housing crisis has been ongoing for at least a few years if not longer according to the notes I have been taking.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#57

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#58

Post by dwater »

chroem- wrote: post #33
praxulus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

Quoted post unavailable.

Of the 700+ people charged for their participation in the January 6th Capitol riot, 11 have been charged with seditious conspiracy. 225 people were charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees. More than 75 of those were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon against police officers or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. 640 people were charged with entering a restricted federal building or its grounds. More than 75 were charged with entering a restricted area with a deadly weapon.

Re: Reducing inequality can reverse political polarisation: study

#59

Post by LouisSayers »

umvi wrote: post #35
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…

> 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/…

A great example of a first world problem...

I seriously think the better off we get the more "problems" people make up. It's ridiculous.

Yes, there are still some real issues in the world, but these types of "problems" seem almost like satire.

Post reply on HN