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

51–60 of 316 posts

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#51

Post by RandomLensman »

soco wrote: post #46
RandomLensman wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conflicting belief systems and views with massive real world consequences far predate current social media, hence I struggle with the idea of social media being the sole causal agent/accelerant. And social media also do seem to impact different societies differently. On top, the US has had a real world "violence problem" for a long time (even compared to societies with similar levels of gun ownership), i.e., I would…

The "sole" - that's what nobody said.

Fair enough: should have said "strongly relevant" instead

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#52

Post by bellyfullofbac »

fallingknife wrote: post #41
RandomLensman wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That still does not explain why such identity beliefs appear to be spreading. My own hypothesis is that most things are now too complex for most people, i.e., how things work is largely "magic". This then might allow people to actually belief a lot more things as a lot of how the real world works is already untethered from reality for them.

That has been the case since the industrial revolution, though. My theory is that political affiliation has taken the place of religion. Particularly on the left, but you can see a lot of it happening on the right now too since Christianity has declined in influence in the Republican party.

As a leftie, but who can't relate to the many demands they now have (e.g. cancel culture), did Christianity influence the GOP? Or is it more the GOP saying "We are Christians" and what "Christianity" means to them is whatever they say it is?

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#53

Post by Rucadi »

The problem is not polarization of ideas, the problem is the lack of freedom and the imposition of the ideas over the others.

I love that you think that a big ass state is the best for everybody, I don't think so, so don't forefully make me pay a lot of taxes for a lot of services I don't want and I can't decide. Group yourself with people happy with that and let the others live their life without imposing them that shit.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#54

Post by rmbyrro »

ptsneves wrote: post #33
kstenerud wrote: post #22

It's an interesting paper, but unfortunately it misses the point. Polar dissimilar political beliefs are not the problem. Many countries have this, and even have lively political discussions that remain civil, rallies that remain civil, and elections that remain civil. The actual problem is psychological, specifically dealing with identity beliefs. Once a person takes on a belief as part of their identity, any attack…

Not dismissing your point, but you may be hitting at words that have ambiguity when translated. I am not a german speaker but would it be grammatically correct to say "Ich bin CDUer"? From my elementary school german it does not feel right. On the other hand you can perfectly say "Ich bin christdemokrat" and here you are back to the American case with political support equaling identity. An equivalently polarized cou…

In Brazil people say "I'm Petista" and they're extremely polarized, very similar to how the US looks like.

It's amazing that both sides' (right and left) ideas, at this point, lead to the same results in the long run, but they vehemently fight eachother like they were extreme opposites. Just because the short term presentation of the ideas is different.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#55

Post by emteycz »

collaborative wrote: post #47
fallingknife wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has been the case since the industrial revolution, though. My theory is that political affiliation has taken the place of religion. Particularly on the left, but you can see a lot of it happening on the right now too since Christianity has declined in influence in the Republican party.

Spot on. At the end of the day it's a lot less harmful to worship an invisible being than an idealised visible entity

Hard disagree. The visible entity is still human, and can be wrong, even if it takes a lot to recognize it. God's can't be wrong whatever they do, however inhuman it is.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#56

Post by Freak_NL »

Rucadi wrote: post #53

The problem is not polarization of ideas, the problem is the lack of freedom and the imposition of the ideas over the others. I love that you think that a big ass state is the best for everybody, I don't think so, so don't forefully make me pay a lot of taxes for a lot of services I don't want and I can't decide. Group yourself with people happy with that and let the others live their life without imposing them that…

The usual solution to this is to move to a country that is more in line with your life philosophy (i.e., “group yourself with people happy with that”). Or you could accept that paying taxes in order for a government to provide certain services is a situation the majority of people find beneficial, and that changing this may be untenable.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#57

Post by Lhiw »

locallost wrote: post #38
kstenerud wrote: post #22

It's an interesting paper, but unfortunately it misses the point. Polar dissimilar political beliefs are not the problem. Many countries have this, and even have lively political discussions that remain civil, rallies that remain civil, and elections that remain civil. The actual problem is psychological, specifically dealing with identity beliefs. Once a person takes on a belief as part of their identity, any attack…

I agree with you 100% on the "backfire effect", and I think it's not really difficult to understand the mechanism behind it. But I don't think the US is really much different in that regard than anyone else, the differences there are maybe cultural at best, but in any case superficial. E.g. when I was looking at a flat in Germany, a landlord told me he subscribes to many newspapers, including the Süddeutsche Zeitung,…

They don't clearly identify with the right though, that's the point. They might always vote that way but they're not spreading their identity around and you attacked Ng who they vote for isn't an attack on their tribe.

And also one anecdote is hardly evidence.

In my country I'm not a green or a Labor or a national. I vote green, I vote Labor, or I vote national.

That is entirely different from saying "I'm a Greenie" or "I'm a conservative".

Votes can change next year, identities can't.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#58

Post by pydry »

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.

The easy way to avoid people from accidentally getting too far outside of the spectrum is to dial up the "liveliness" of the debate and double down wedge issues.

It's staggeringly effective and quite depressing to watch. It's quite one thing watching strangers explode in response to divisive propaganda designed to drive a wedge between them and people with fundamentally similar interests.

It's quite another to watch your own friends and family be manipulated this way.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#59

Post by dosmarder »

kstenerud wrote: post #22

It's an interesting paper, but unfortunately it misses the point. Polar dissimilar political beliefs are not the problem. Many countries have this, and even have lively political discussions that remain civil, rallies that remain civil, and elections that remain civil. The actual problem is psychological, specifically dealing with identity beliefs. Once a person takes on a belief as part of their identity, any attack…

I agree with you but I think you are a little harsh regarding the conclusions which are drawn by the authors of the paper. There are actually two types of polarisation: ideological and affective. The paper, as far as I understood it (and you seem to agree), mainly concerns itself with ideological polarisation (i.e. polarisation on policy issues). Affective polarisation on the other hand describes animosity against a certain group because members of that group are members of that group (= "identity"). The authors of the paper clearly state how to incorporate affective polarisation in their model and I am very interested whether someone actually takes up that challenge and what the outcome is.

Re: Preventing extreme polarization of political attitudes

#60

Post by rmbyrro »

idontwantthis wrote: post #49

Polarization in America: One side invaded the capital building in a violent attempt to overthrow democracy, and the other side wants to make voting for whoever you want as easy as possible. Guess which pole I’m at and tell me how I should meet the other pole in the middle.

That's how bad the situation is...

To be fair, though, the left also has been associated with violent and anti-democratic behaviors.

Post reply on HN