Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Politics Science

Study Shows Some Political Beliefs Are Just Historical Accidents (arstechnica.com) 237

An anonymous reader shares a report: If you've spent much time thinking about the political divide in the United States, you've hopefully noted how bloody weird it is. Somehow, just about every topic that people want to argue about splits into two camps. If you visualize the vast array of topics you could have an opinion about as a switchboard full of toggles, it seems improbable that so many people in each camp should have nearly identical switchboards, but they do. This can even extend to factual issues, like science -- one camp typically does not accept that climate change is real and human-caused. How in the world do we end up with these opinion sets? And why does something like climate change start an inter-camp argument, while other things like the physics behind airplane design enjoy universal acceptance?

One obvious way to explain these opinions is to look for underlying principles that connect them. Maybe it's ideologically consistent to oppose both tax increases and extensive government oversight of pesticide products. But can you really draw a straight line from small-government philosophy to immigration attitudes? Or military funding? A new study by a Cornell team led by Michael Macy approaches these questions with inspiration from an experiment involving, of all things, downloading indie music. That study set up separate "worlds" in which participants checked out new music with the aid of information about which songs other people in their experimental world were choosing. It showed that the songs that were "hits" weren't always the same -- there was a significant role for chance, as a song that got trending early in the experiment had a leg up.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study Shows Some Political Beliefs Are Just Historical Accidents

Comments Filter:
  • by packrat0x ( 798359 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @02:13PM (#59158234)

    Unlike indie music, the government uses threat of force to make you pay for it.

    • Breaking news - Research team at major university finds that they are right and those who disagree with them are stupid

      • Excuse me, I believe the scientifically correct term is not stupid, but poopy heads.
        • Re: indie music (Score:2, Insightful)

          by saloomy ( 2817221 )

          The thing about Climate Change or Global Warming that has always bothered me is the "consensus" argument. Scientists don't get to decide scientific fact by consensus. Otherwise Copernicus's heliocentric model would never have been accepted by the religious lot of the time.

          I think humans are having an impact on earths climate, and I think many of the models showing searise and increasing storms are by and large accurate. But if someone sees the data differently, that doesn't make them a daemon, stupid, or so

          • Re: indie music (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @03:18PM (#59158538)

            Scientists don't get to decide scientific fact by consensus.

            Yes, they do. For example, there is a consensus for the round Earth theory. There is a consensus for the global warming. Yet there are people who disagree with both.

          • Re: indie music (Score:4, Informative)

            by Patent Lover ( 779809 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @03:36PM (#59158634)
            Scientists have formed a consensus based on facts. It has nothing to do with what they "believe".
            • Historically scientists have not always formed consensus based on facts, and with the advantage of hindsight, we can now see they were wrong. It would be foolish to believe that scientists of today are any different.
          • Re: indie music (Score:5, Informative)

            by apoc.famine ( 621563 ) <apoc...famine@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @04:02PM (#59158768) Journal

            Some people believe there is dark matter causing galaxies to spin faster. Some people believe there are other forces we have failed to take into account, and that dark matter doesn't actually exist. We don't call them "Dark Matter Denyers". We don't demonize them.

            And for good reason. It's because "dark matter" is still a hypothesis with no clear evidence for what it is beyond its impacts. It's a placeholder. We know a lot of what dark matter can't be, but we haven't ruled out the physics being wrong. And nobody is saying that the observed effects don't exist.

            This is different than climate change. There are a surprisingly large number of people denying that the data showing climate change exists. When we have a winter storm, climate change deniers point to it as evidence that climate change doesn't exist. It's been explained to them over and over that weather isn't climate, but they persist in using it to deny climate change. It would be as if some cabal of astronomers claimed that the differential spin of galaxies that we use "dark matter" as a placeholder to explain doesn't exist because they can see quasars there. That's illogical and doesn't make any sense, and it shows a clear lack of understanding or outright denial of what's being talked about.

            This article is phrased as though climate change is scientific fact with all the maths worked out, like aero plane flight. It isn't. It's a "consensus" of scientists, which I'm sorry, isn't a bar for anything.

            You seem like you honestly want to engage with this and that you're not an outright climate change denier, so I'll do what I can to help.

            You are correct that consensus isn't a measuring stick. But when multiple different scientific fields all see changes which could be explained by climate change, and which could not really be explained by much else, Occam's razor is that it's climate change. Atmospheric CO2 is rising. We know from experiments that it's a greenhouse gas. 100+ years ago we knew exactly what the effect was and could calculate it. We know global average temperatures are going up. We know that the oceans are much warmer. We know that localized weather patterns which were stable for centuries have now shifted. We know that in the last 50 years a lot of species have started to migrate to habitats they have never before lived in. We know that a lot of species are dying out, when their populations have been around for thousands of years. We know that glaciers which have been stable for thousands of years are melting at a rate never before seen. We know that arctic sea ice is at its minimum point in thousands of years. And we know that humans put all of that CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere.

            This isn't just a group of climate scientists sitting around drinking beers and agreeing. It's atmospheric science, oceanography, ecology, meteorology, geology, limnology, etc., etc. Everyone that studies earth systems is seeing this. And nobody has a better explanation. The deniers who actually are skeptics and actually dig into the science end up on the side of climate change. It's only those who deny and refuse to engage that can stay on the side of it not happening.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Pulpits (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nitehawk214 ( 222219 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @02:18PM (#59158250)

    It's no accident. Whether they religious or political, there are people that use one widely held believe to help push another. "Jeebus loves us" and "we hate gays" and "don't touch my guns" seem to have a high level of correlation.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I've got many, many friends who are Christian and conservative. Never heard on espouse actual hate for gays. Conversely, it seems like acquaintances who are liberal who actually, viscerally hate Trump and believe it is 100% correct to use physical violence against conservatives. In fact, look no further than here at slashdot - outright violence against "right wing" positions is heralded and supported.
      • Re:Pulpits (Score:4, Insightful)

        by lactose99 ( 71132 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @02:36PM (#59158316)

        Yep, my side is in the right and the other side is the one with the problems.

        Never heard that one before.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          Can you point me to a well known conservative author or leader who espouses death for gays (outside of Islamists, who like to throw gays off of high buildings)? I can point you to several rather well-known individuals on the liberal side who espouse physical violence against conservatives and President Trump...
          • A rather well-known Member of Congress just held a fundraiser for the legal fees of antifa protestors who were arrested for attacking people at the satirical "Straight Pride" parade event in Boston last week. She called the entire event a white-supremacist gathering.

            https://twitter.com/AOC/status... [twitter.com]

          • Re:Pulpits (Score:5, Insightful)

            by AioKits ( 1235070 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @03:21PM (#59158562)

            Well you said well known but if you can name for me the individual(s) who threw the poor man off the building, I'll just assume it was some goal post moving since locating people who are xian and conservative asking for the death penalty for lgbt folks is rather common... SO....
            - Grayson Fritts (Pastor and Detctive)
            - Pastor Kevin Swanson (at Ted Cruz political rally)
            - Steven Anderson/Faithful Word Baptist Church
            - Paul Cameron/Family Research Institute
            - Scott Lively/Abiding Truth Ministries
            - American Vision (backs the death penalty for practicing homosexuals)
            - Chalcedon Foundation (backs the death penalty for practicing homosexuals)
            - Pastor Roger Jimenez/Verity Baptist Church
            - Major Andrew Craibe/Salvation Army Official

            That's just one parsed page of results. Your whole "my side is never wrong" shtick is old and tired. Enjoy.

            • (Note: I'm not conservative and don't really have a dog in this fight. I also generally disagree with LynwoodRooster, but...)

              The request was for "well-known conservative author or leader". While "well-known" is clearly a subjective standard, none of the names you listed pass muster for me -- because I've objectively never heard of any of them, despite living in Red Country. I suspect you haven't either, except from whatever web page you scraped that list.

              • Perhaps you missed the part about me stating I'm ignoring the "well-known" part since Rooster himself is unable to name the persons who threw the man off the building? The persons I listed might as well have been just as anonymous as the person(s) used in Rooster's example since you yourself admit you don't know them and at least meet the LOW LOW bar he originally set to prove that "people other than xian conservatives" hate the lgbt community. He gave an example, then moved the goal-posts. Now, my famil

          • by Cyberax ( 705495 )

            Can you point me to a well known conservative author or leader who espouses death for gays (outside of Islamists, who like to throw gays off of high buildings)?

            How about a sheriff: https://beta.washingtonpost.co... [washingtonpost.com] ? Or maybe Rep. Steve King: https://www.gaystarnews.com/ar... [gaystarnews.com] ?

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

            Can you point me to a well known conservative author or leader who espouses death for gays

            "I'll take hate groups for $100, Alex."
            "This extremist religious group is well known for their homophobia and protesting of military funerals."
            "What is Westboro Baptist Church?"
            "Correct."

            And right there on their web page, which I don't want to give them the satisfaction of linking to, you can find: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." - Romans 6:23

            Yup, sounds pretty close to saying gays deserve death, if you ask me.

            As for the conservative leade

        • This assertion is not about whether a particular viewpoint is right or wrong, but whether there is any evident logical connection between the apparently independent assertions, and whether they are, in fact, statistically correlated.

          To me it appears that both they are correlated and they are logically independent. This appears to mean that there is some non-obvious cause of the correlation. Historical happenstance is on argument that would fairly fit into the slot, as would suggestions about different dom

      • I've got many may gay friends who in their lives who have either been threatened or actually assaulted by those with conservative xian values. I mean, if we're going to offer opinions and personal experiences as points of data, I might as well throw mine in there too.

      • I've got many, many friends who are Christian and conservative. Never heard on espouse actual hate for gays. Conversely, it seems like acquaintances who are liberal who actually, viscerally hate Trump and believe it is 100% correct to use physical violence against conservatives. In fact, look no further than here at slashdot - outright violence against "right wing" positions is heralded and supported.

        So "it seems like acquaintances" who are liberal believe it is 100% correct to use physical violence against conservatives?
        Wow, quite the assumption there.
        I guess we can take your word for it then.

        "In fact"
        What fact? Your anecdotal bullshit.

      • by Holi ( 250190 )
        I've got many many friends who are liberals that never espouse hatred for any group, Conversely we have many white nationalist hate groups that side with the republican party.
    • Re:Pulpits (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @02:39PM (#59158334)

      The thing is the nature of the system is that you have to fall into one camp or the other. Most people just end up picking their most important issue and siding with the group that mirrors their stance on that issue.

      I don't have any problem with gay people. I have no issue with gay marriage. I do personally think trans people have a psychological disorder but that doesn't mean I "hate" them anymore than I'd "hate" people with OCD or bipolar disorder.

      I'm personally strongly agnostic with atheist leanings and completely support separation of church and state.

      I believe in man made climate change, though I don't necessarily think there's a whole lot we can do about it.

      I don't have any problem with immigrants or other cultures. Heck I love visiting new places/countries.

      I don't have a problem with our current system of healthcare, but I also don't really oppose single-payer either. Both systems can/could work. Similarly I don't have an issue with the current college system OR if we went to full state-supported schools. Either can work.

      I am 100% pro-gun. My position is that any weapon that can be carried and entrusted by a single infantryman in the army can be entrusted to a civilian. That includes machine guns but not things like nukes (ie, because even within the military that power is never entrusted to a single person).

      I totally believe and know that our country has plenty of racist people in it but in no way to I believe that the government is "systematically" racist. In general racism isn't dead but it's been DYING for a long time.

      Because of the specific issues I care about I end up voting Republican, but I certainly don't agree with them on every topic. In general I personally wish we could figure out how to vote on laws ourselves, so that essentially we go to a true Democracy and not a Republic. If our elected officials existed solely to implement the policies directly voted on by the people I don't think the party system would mean much anymore.

      • >>My position is that any weapon that can be carried and entrusted by a single infantryman in the army can be entrusted to a civilian

        So, you would limit access to M240 Bravo, it requires a two-man crew

        • Actually yes. Having thought about the issue a lot I'm fine restricting access to crew operated machine guns, but I'm fine with allowing select-fire infantry weapons.

          Basically what type of weaponry does your average military "grunt" carry? That's my line on what I support civilian ownership of. Given that the second amendment was drafted to allow civilian retaliation/rebellion against the government if needed, the it stands to reason that the level of weaponry you're allowed would be at least that much.

          • Select fire? Would you still require a Class 3 license to own one?

            Personally, I see little or no reason for 3-round burst or full auto, and I would shudder to think how these massacres would expand with a SAW in the hands of some jerk who does not value the lives of others.

            FYI, the 2nd Amendment was drafted when there was no standing federal army and the entire country was beholden to militias for defense.

            There are frankly no remaining Constitutional supports for the 2nd Amendment with the recognition of a

            • Re:Pulpits (Score:5, Informative)

              by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @03:23PM (#59158570)

              Select fire? Would you still require a Class 3 license to own one?

              No, I don't support the licensing of any constitutional rights.

              FYI, the 2nd Amendment was drafted when there was no standing federal army and the entire country was beholden to militias for defense.

              There are frankly no remaining Constitutional supports for the 2nd Amendment with the recognition of a federal Army.

              Not true. The federal army was established in 1789. The Bill of Rights including the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791.

              The militia specified in the 2nd amendment serves two purposes: to bolster the ranks of the regular army in the event of foreign invasion, AND to fight against the regular army if necessarily if the government has turned tyrannical.

              • >>AND to fight against the regular army if necessarily if the government has turned tyrannical.

                That has to be the funniest thing you have said all week

                FYI, simple armor overcomes all of the weapons that you just said the militias could own. Every person who 'thinks' they are about to take on the US government is simply delusional and operating at the level of a child who thinks Dukes of Hazard is a driving lesson.

                • Only problem with armor is a lot of it is not on US soil, it's a very big country, and there just isn't enough armor to protect everything at once. Add to that the reality that with our infrastructure in the shape it is in a lot of the armor couldn't easily move from point A to point B due to bridge weight restrictions and things get tougher. Certainly not insurmountable from the point of view of the Army, but not as easy as you make it appear - airlift is always an option - but still - it's a really big co

                  • Really?

                    You DO realize that the Interstate Freeway system is DESIGNED to move troops and equipment around the country... right?

                    Alas, I am left to wonder, where did all these dumbasses com from?

                • Very few levels of easily fieldable body armor do much against high powered rifle rounds. Once you get into .30-06 level ballistics only the highest level of armor will stop it and that is only rated to stop ONE ROUND. The US military was effectively beaten by simple infantry in Vietnam. At the end of the day though that's not the point. Not all revolutions are successful, but the 2nd amendment effectively states that the people maintain arms and the ability to try.

                  Nearly 1/3 of Hong Kong is marching in

                  • Stop being dense, I am referring to tanks and armored personnel carriers

                    • The point still stands. Those are not impervious from IED's, and the fact that you don't think such a revolution would be successful doesn't change the intent or legal force of the 2nd amendment.

                    • I see that you are absolute in your beliefs and I am unlikely to change them, but it is really fun mocking you since you leave yourself wide open to numerous attack vectors, which you fail to recognize.

            • There are frankly no remaining Constitutional supports for the 2nd Amendment with the recognition of a federal Army.

              Other than that pesky Amendment to the Constitution, eh? If you can get 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate, in the same year, to propose an Amendment saying something to the general effect of "The Second is NULL and VOID, as of DATE", and it's gone.

              Good luck with that.

              Alternatively, you can get 2/3+ (34+) of the legislatures of the States to call for a Constitutional Convention, and do t

            • The British felt the same way at the outset of WWII. Nobody in the general population should own a gun. And they pretty much didn't. Then came Dunkirk when the British Army had to evacuate and left most arms behind. The NRA ended up helping to re-arm the British people to protect the homeland. Just because Hitler decided not to cross the channel doesn't mean there wasn't significant fear that he would. And yes, of course the US government helped massively - lend lease and all that. But the trouble with havi

    • by Empiric ( 675968 )

      Stranger still is pushing a belief merely because it is the opposite of what another group says.

      Seems that many of the same people who will revile the validity "It's true because it's what the bible says" happily cling to "It's true because it's the opposite of what the bible says".

      Unfortunately, epistemology eventually catches up with you. "Not-X", where "X" is anything whatsoever, including religion, isn't something, it is nothing. You can't mentally integrate concepts with a negation as conceptual foun

    • Those are all conservative beliefs, no need for one to push another. In 1776, government was minimal, gays were invisible, and guns and god were necessary. Conservatism is largely about people who are content (even if they aren't "well off") wanting to preserving "the good old days". They cling to the "old ways" so strongly that it causes distress for those who don't fit in or who live in different environments (urban areas) where more flexibility is needed.
      Progressives are generally not content (even if

    • Whether they religious or political, there are people that use one widely held believe to help push another. "Jeebus loves us" and "we hate gays" and "don't touch my guns" seem to have a high level of correlation.

      They do, but the point of this article is to suggest that the reason why those beliefs correlate has little to do with anything inherent in those beliefs, and more to do with chance, historical trends, and the network effects of what basically amounts to peer pressure.

      For instance, you brought up guns. Up until the '60s, gun rights were a noncontroversial topic in the US. While there were an exceedingly small set of people on the fringe, historical polls and legal discourse at the time make it clear that th

  • Tribalism (Score:4, Insightful)

    by slinches ( 1540051 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @02:20PM (#59158256)

    People choose a tribe and conform to the collective identity of that tribe. In this case, it's centered on two political platforms that are driven to oppose each other in everything except the elimination of any potential third platform by the structure of our voting systems.

    • by MagicM ( 85041 )

      "People like us do things like this" is a very powerful technique for building tribes and marketing.

    • Re:Tribalism (Score:5, Insightful)

      by porkchop_d_clown ( 39923 ) <mwheinz.me@com> on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @05:55PM (#59159426)
      And people are willing to put up with huge amounts of cognitive dissonance before they'll risk their social standing/tribal membership. It's one of the reasons anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers just get more shrill when confronted with facts - it's not just about changing your mind, it's about abandoning a community that has been affirming to you.
  • by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @02:25PM (#59158274)
    Here's a podcast where the presenter talks to some experts & creates a synthesis of the research on why we're often divided on certain topics & tend to form opposing social groups: https://youarenotsosmart.com/2... [youarenotsosmart.com]
  • by mpoulton ( 689851 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @02:26PM (#59158278)
    The linked article claims that the study shows that political beliefs are subject to this effect. The actual study (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/311/5762/854) says no such thing. It relates only to music, and refers to a "cultural market". Politics are influenced by reason, philosophy, faith, and numerous other factors which are not involved in the purely aesthetic phenomenon of musical preference. Neither the study nor the article provide any basis to analogize the results of this experiment beyond artistic preference, and specifically fail to provide any valid basis to conclude that the results are applicable in politics. Perhaps they are - but this study doesn't say so. The article seems to bring politics into play just because it makes a better headline.
    • It's almost like the authors of the article were looking for something - anything - to justify their hatred and denigration of people they don't agree with (in this case, it appears to be skeptics about anthropomorphic based climate change). The study was about sound, and sound travels through air, and that's part of the climate, so thus is must apply to climate change!
      • I doubt there has ever been a more fitting example of "the pot calling the kettle black" than this comment.
        • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

          I doubt there has ever been a more fitting example of "the pot calling the kettle black" than this comment.

          He's not one "looking for something - anything - to justify their hatred and denigration of people they don't agree with." He's clearly a-OK with completely making it up. Looking would take actual work.

    • Did you even attempt to read the article? It is written about another study that was based on the music study. The article "brings politics into play" because it is an article about a political study.

      For your reference, this is the study:Opinion cascades and the unpredictability of partisan polarization [sciencemag.org]

      You can find it linked at the bottom of the article.

    • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

      The actual study (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/311/5762/854) says no such thing.

      The actual study [sciencemag.org] (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/8/eaax0754) indeed says that thing. The study that you linked was from the summary, and clearly disclosed in TFA as the inspiration for the actual study.

      A new study by a Cornell team led by Michael Macy approaches these questions with inspiration from an experiment involving, of all things, downloading indie music. That study set up separate "worlds" in which

  • humans are more tribal than we often admit to ourselves.

    Religious congregations are often about finding a 'tribe' to belong to
    Political parties are larger tribes

    Humans adopt the group think of their tribe, so that they fit in and are accepted

    Racism is tribal too. Defeating it is often about getting people to rethink about what tribe they belong to, ie American instead of "white american'

    Immigration debates could be looked at as tribal. One side trying to protect their 'American' tribe. The other side try

  • by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @02:31PM (#59158300) Journal

    But can you really draw a straight line from small-government philosophy to immigration attitudes? Or military funding?

    Both Democrats and Republicans have a number of incongruous political beliefs. Democrats always rally for things "for the children" (see here [slashdot.org]), but have no problem allowing the children to be killed in the womb (or shortly thereafter [dailymail.co.uk]). Republicans are anti-abortion, but largely support the death penalty. Democrats say they want to ban "assault style weapons" while simultaneously proclaiming that Trump is literally Hitler (Do you really want to disarm the populace with a dictator in office?). Republicans claim to be small government, yet increase spending and expand government [geekwire.com] whenever they're in power. The only political party that is fairly consistent is the Libertarian Party. You can argue if they are right or not, but it's hard to say they aren't mostly consistent in their beliefs.

    • (or shortly thereafter [dailymail.co.uk]).

      It's very easy to "draw contrasts" when you lie about a medical procedure that doesn't actually happen because it is already illegal, and then claim opposition to a dumb law "banning" it is the same as supporting the procedure.

    • by penandpaper ( 2463226 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @03:44PM (#59158668) Journal

      >Republicans are anti-abortion, but largely support the death penalty.

      The State should protect the rights we have and protect those that cannot protect themselves such as an unborn infant.

      The State can take away your rights through due process and there are crimes that will revoke your right to life.

      What is incongruous?

    • Both Democrats and Republicans have a number of incongruous political beliefs.

      If you believe that, you need to dig a little deeper. I highly recommend reading "Conflict of Visions" by Thomas Sowell. Yes, he's a conservative thinker, but he does a fair job[*] of presenting both sides and of painting a fairly believable picture of the visions that underlie the left and right perspectives. He thinks it boils down to a different set of beliefs about various aspects of human nature, including its malleability. Another good resource, a little more academic in perspective and from a more

    • an unborn child and a convicted cold blooded killer?

      The death penalty is for when the 2nd Amendment fails to protect the innocent.

      The government has the chance to right the wrong and protect society.

  • Climate change (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Experiment 626 ( 698257 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @02:37PM (#59158322)

    The rejecting of climate change is pretty easy to account for. A lot of people use climate change to push whatever their personal agenda is:

    The climate is changing so we need to...

    • Massively raise taxes
    • Adopt a socialist economy
    • Become vegetarians
    • Abandon privately owned vehicles
    • Switch to more expensive energy sources

    Instead of debating all the kooky non-sequitur solutions are being proposed in the name of climate change, it's easier to just throw the ball back in their court by questioning whether the climate is even changing at all. If debating an actual climate scientist, this might not work very well, but when confronted by people who know little about science and are just using it to lend urgency to their pet cause, this is effective at shutting down their rant about how we must do such-and-such in the name of global warming.

    People do this sort of thing in other areas as well. For instance, when faced with someone proselytizing religion, an agnostic might not want to get into some long discussion about what concepts of the divine they are and are not open to considering, and instead just say they don't believe in God at all, even if their private views on spirituality happen to be more nuanced.

    Sometimes people take a hard line position just to shut up people they don't want to deal with.

  • by pecosdave ( 536896 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @02:37PM (#59158324) Homepage Journal

    When you realize the polarization itself is a tool to manipulate us it looses power over you as an individual. You are then forced to sit there and watch as nearly everyone you know falls for the polarization scam, blind to the next layers.....

  • Somehow, just about every topic that people want to argue about splits into two camps. ...it seems improbable that so many people in each camp should have nearly identical switchboards, but they do

    Except for vaccination, GMO, Medicare, and a host of other areas where people's opinions don't always line up with a political affiliation.

    In fact, a study that shows how many areas where there isn't a two-sided division would be more interesting.

  • Fits. Apparently, to the average moron having an opinion is much more important than actually having a good reason for that opinion or even some understanding of the issue.

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @02:46PM (#59158386)
    are an accident. We've got the [wikipedia.org] reciepts [vox.com] for everything [wikipedia.org].

    Politics is a very carefully orchestrated game for anything above dog catcher. Your opinions aren't an accident. Someone has spent millions, often billions to put those ideas in your head.
    • Politics is a very carefully orchestrated game for anything above dog catcher. Your opinions aren't an accident. Someone has spent millions, often billions to put those ideas in your head.

      Quite true.
      Which is why I avoid "social media" like the plague it is.

  • In my lifetime, I have seen certain issues totally switch sides on the political spectrum. When I was about six, there were these people who railed against "chemicals" that "they" were supposedly putting in our food and water. One particular talking point was hating any use of dental fluoride. In city after city, they campaigned to prevent fluoride from being added to municipal water supplies.

    Of course you young whippersnappers know who I'm talking about. It was the envi-

    No, They called themselves the John

  • by Big Bipper ( 1120937 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @02:49PM (#59158404)
    There are two kinds of people. Those who let others, friends, media, religions ( not just theocratic ), form their opinions for them, and those who keep their eyes open and check the facts, even if just sometimes. If you're in the first group you tend to either go with the consensus ( loudest group ) or against it. If you're in the second group, you're probably not being heard.
    • There are people who lump people into groups of two people and then there's everybody else.

      I don't know who said it, but it's very true.

    • There are two kinds of people. Those who let others, friends, media, religions ( not just theocratic ), form their opinions for them, and those who keep their eyes open and check the facts, even if just sometimes. If you're in the first group you tend to either go with the consensus ( loudest group ) or against it. If you're in the second group, you're probably not being heard.

      I'm pretty sure there are groups that want you to believe large swaths of the public are sheep (who do not form their own opinions). This makes it so much easier to discount them.

      I am not intending to play devil's advocate here.

  • This honestly is a really interesting and engaging looking study. Looking at the data table they gave you can see how some statements seem to have a greater resistance to partisan bias/tribal signalling, (1 in particular seems to have broad base of support, 20 seems to be reliably conservative ) where as others seem to be thrown wildly to whatever side takes it up (4 and 15 are often the most polarizing questions even though who supports them changes)

    I'd like to see more variations done, to tease out how t

  • "And why does something like climate change start an inter-camp argument, while other things like the physics behind airplane design enjoy universal acceptance? "

    Because most people don't understand airplane physics so if there ever is an ideological divide regarding airplane physics it will only involve a small set of experts while the public at large remains indifferent. And physics can have ideological divides. See Tesla vs. Edison ak AC vs. DC.
    Also, the participants in an airplane physics discussion usu

  • The "hot button issues" are indeed connected. But boiling it down to small/big government is also incorrect. When you boil it down to government styles, there are 4 groups. You have leftist - they are basically all about big governments and government involvement in all aspects of life, you have progressives, they are about small government with large amounts of regulation. On the right you have libertarians, small government, little government control and conservatives, large local governments with little

    • I heard a great take on hot button issues that I wish I could trace back to the original source. Essentially all hot button issues exist because they aren't one issue with two sides, but one issue with two facets different enough that both sides can be "morally" correct.
  • Climate change denialism seems to trace its roots back to a combination of the religious right (Gawd gave us this planet, we can do what we like) and how much they hate hippies (which I understand). It's a weird sort of contrarianism. I'm pretty right wing on various topics, but the climate change denialism shit is a huge issue I have with Republicans, it's so absolutely absurd.

    By all means I agree we shouldn't panic and crush our standard of living immediately, but we should have started a planned, slow, s

    • Climate change denialism seems to trace its roots back to a combination of the religious right (Gawd gave us this planet, we can do what we like) and how much they hate hippies (which I understand).

      You're missing the critical component.
      Money.

      Pure greed is the real motive.

      • I think that's a motive of some, but not your rank and file talking-points regurgitating Republican climate denier. But the talking points they were spoon fed were certainly motivated by that to some degree for sure.
  • But can you really draw a straight line from small-government philosophy to immigration attitudes?

    Ah... yes? The most basic function of government is to keep the "outsiders" from getting inside. It's related peoples pulling together to defend themselves and provide for their common good. This is the reason the first such examples of towns and city states had walls. "Small government" by default has to accept that immigration constraints are real because if you toss that out you're tossing out the notion of a nation or extended family of people all together. So there is no "government". There is a

  • ...but of course why not just demonize one side instead?

    "can you really draw a straight line from small-government philosophy to immigration attitudes"
    Small government philosophy is grounded in the basis of self reliance and a revulsion at freeloaders. Attitudes about illegal immigration* have everything to do with not wanting people to come here and get free rides, line-jumping all the people doing it the LEGAL way in the process. Oh, and probably justifying expanded federal government aid programs to he

He who has but four and spends five has no need for a wallet.

Working...