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

Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

pnas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 316 posts

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#11

Post by colordrops »

yosito wrote: post #8
themodelplumber wrote: post #2

Fascinating paper. And nice job with the model! > Strictly limiting exposure to dissimilar views, however, is an effective mechanism for avoiding rapid polarization (Figs. 4 and 5). This may, at first, appear contrary to practical experience: Encouraging interactions among those with different views might be expected to decrease polarization by fostering increased tolerance. Lots of interesting points in there.

> Strictly limiting exposure to dissimilar views, however, is... ...not an effective mechanism for social media and news sites to make a profit, unfortunately.

We so easily give up our agency to debate, dissent, connect, and communicate a diversity of ideas. We will severely regret it one day.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#12

Post by denton-scratch »

kome wrote: post #4

Bad political science + virtuoso use of methodology but unsubstantiated + underlying US centrism Polarization is a problem when you let a political system polarize. In other words, while in Europe multiple parties represented in parliament are the norm; in the US - a two-party state, naturally exacerbate the risk of polarization. So, paradoxically, polarization is a problem of not enough variety in the political spec…

> Polarization is a problem when you let a political system polarize.

Aha. So that's the cause of polarization. Now I get it.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#13

Post by nopenopenopeno »

kome wrote: post #4

Bad political science + virtuoso use of methodology but unsubstantiated + underlying US centrism Polarization is a problem when you let a political system polarize. In other words, while in Europe multiple parties represented in parliament are the norm; in the US - a two-party state, naturally exacerbate the risk of polarization. So, paradoxically, polarization is a problem of not enough variety in the political spec…

Yes, this is absolutely the root of the problem. First-past-the-post voting has been well known as a flawed system for over a century now and voters use every chance they get to express their distaste for both parties, but we keep acting like it’s some fleeting mystery.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#14

Post by atoav »

kome wrote: post #4

Bad political science + virtuoso use of methodology but unsubstantiated + underlying US centrism Polarization is a problem when you let a political system polarize. In other words, while in Europe multiple parties represented in parliament are the norm; in the US - a two-party state, naturally exacerbate the risk of polarization. So, paradoxically, polarization is a problem of not enough variety in the political spec…

This point is not totally unfounded. The US (and the UK for that matter) have a two party system that heavily supports polarization. One side is for certain things only because the other side is against it, or against something because the other side is for it (same for the other side). I wonder however if this actually that bad in absolute numbers (if I understood US politics correctly the political representation is wildly lopsided towards the party with the rural voters, when compared to actual numbers of people).

Polarization is also an issue in Europe e.g. on certain topics like the pandemic response where the typical 25% of misinformed start to matter for everybody. Words like "polarized" or "divided" always suggest there is a split through the middle of the society, but quite often it is a loud minority who seeks to force their minority opinion onto the majority.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#15

Post by x86_64Ubuntu »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #7
DeathArrow wrote: post #3

We are past the point when preventing polarization was possible. Now we are near the end of the path one political side brought us, with the other fighting against that. One side will win and will establish the rules the society will follow for the next decades.

What would such a win look like from your perspective? Everything I have observed indicates the federal government operates as a pendulum. Voters for the party in power disappoint their base, while the opposition becomes more mobilized.

Probably like the US after the end of Reconstruction.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#16

Post by denton-scratch »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #7
DeathArrow wrote: post #3

We are past the point when preventing polarization was possible. Now we are near the end of the path one political side brought us, with the other fighting against that. One side will win and will establish the rules the society will follow for the next decades.

What would such a win look like from your perspective? Everything I have observed indicates the federal government operates as a pendulum. Voters for the party in power disappoint their base, while the opposition becomes more mobilized.

> the federal government operates as a pendulum.

That seems like wishful thinking, to me. Also, I think the federal government (I take it you mean the government of the USA) is rather weak; state governments seem to have a lot more power. Not saying whether I think that is good or bad.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#17

Post by denton-scratch »

kome wrote: post #4

Bad political science + virtuoso use of methodology but unsubstantiated + underlying US centrism Polarization is a problem when you let a political system polarize. In other words, while in Europe multiple parties represented in parliament are the norm; in the US - a two-party state, naturally exacerbate the risk of polarization. So, paradoxically, polarization is a problem of not enough variety in the political spec…

> in Europe multiple parties represented in parliament are the norm;

Not in the UK. There are multiple parties, but one party is the party of government, and another is the Official Opposition. Third parties are just third parties. This is the same in the USA, I believe.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#18

Post by atoav »

denton-scratch wrote: post #12
kome wrote: post #4

Bad political science + virtuoso use of methodology but unsubstantiated + underlying US centrism Polarization is a problem when you let a political system polarize. In other words, while in Europe multiple parties represented in parliament are the norm; in the US - a two-party state, naturally exacerbate the risk of polarization. So, paradoxically, polarization is a problem of not enough variety in the political spec…

> Polarization is a problem when you let a political system polarize. Aha. So that's the cause of polarization. Now I get it.

The UK (and the US) do have a hyperpolarization in their political system. This polarization is result of the way the system has been designed. While a democratic system this lasting is impressive, it is clear that those systems have been devised before mass media was a thing, which is filled by particularily bad actors both in the UK and the US (maybe because it is much easier to do populism if to every issue there are two sides).

Having two clear sides has also certain advantages, e.g. it is more comfortable to think about a world where the complexity is reduced to two factions. This is why Hollywood traditionally made clear division into good and evil, until they started to experiment with more complex representations of reality.

Not that polarization isn't an issue in Europe as well, but it is nowhere near as backed in as it is in the US (and quite frankly I am not sure the US doesn't play a involuntary role in this polarization at least since the cold war).

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#19

Post by atoav »

DeathArrow wrote: post #3

We are past the point when preventing polarization was possible. Now we are near the end of the path one political side brought us, with the other fighting against that. One side will win and will establish the rules the society will follow for the next decades.

Maybe counting actual people instead of representatives would be a start? While I get the whole idea behind giving the rural parts sith less population more of a say, when I first heard about it I intuitively felt that this was undemocratic. Where I grew up I learned that it is most important that everybody's vote counts the same. I was shocked when I learned this is not the case in the US and even more shocked when I learned to which degree of misrepresentation between rural and urban voters this lead.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#20

Post by shrimpx »

kome wrote: post #4

Bad political science + virtuoso use of methodology but unsubstantiated + underlying US centrism Polarization is a problem when you let a political system polarize. In other words, while in Europe multiple parties represented in parliament are the norm; in the US - a two-party state, naturally exacerbate the risk of polarization. So, paradoxically, polarization is a problem of not enough variety in the political spec…

> Looking from abroad, democrats and republicans are almost the same. And this is the core of the problem, and the deeper root of polarization.

Can you elaborate on this? How does similarity between the parties cause polarization?

Post reply on HN