Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
Partisans only have to look at idiots on one side, while assuming people on their own side are not idiots. Independents are literally surrounded by idiots.
Partisans only have to look at one ideology they hate, and one they love. Independents are offered two ideologies that don't work for them, and none they love.
The world is literally a more negative place for people that don't like extremes.
Independents are usually not centrists but people who don't want to admit they're uninterested in politics. So yeah, politics is dumb and to them it also seems unnecessary, and they understand little enough to have really dumb, aggressive ideas when made to speak up.
What's the evidence for that?
I have you covered! https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/
For whatever my experience is worth it also lines up with this. Centrists exist, but they're extremely rare somewhere as asymmetrically polarised as America, and even otherwise are just a small part of the minority of people who have a strong ideology of any kind.
Thanks for the link. However, it doesn't seem to support the assertion that "independents are people who don't want to admit they're uninterested in politics."
Rather, it seems to support that those (Americans) who refuse to pick a side are unpredictable in their preferences.
It even says:
The upshot of all this is that if you’re a campaign trying to appeal to independents, moderates or undecided voters — or a concerned citizen trying to make sense of these groups in the context of an election — policy and ideology aren’t good frames of reference. There just isn’t much in terms of policy or ideology that unites these groups.
The closest thing to your assertion in here is this opinion:
As the political scientists Donald Kinder and Nathan Kalmoe put it, after looking at five decades of public opinion research, “the moderate category seems less an ideological destination than a refuge for the innocent and the confused.”
NB: "the moderate category," as distinct from independents. The article even takes pains to separate them:
Moderate, independent and undecided voters are not the same, and none of these groups are reliably centrist. They are ideologically diverse
Well, they aren't interested enough in politics to come up with a consistent viewpoint, and they don't admit it, but I guess that doesn't explicitly show a motivation.
What kind of data would convince you?
I mean I hear you but that's still an unsupported extrapolation. What would convince me is evidence of the claim itself.
Like what? We do not have mind reading technology yet (well, technically we do, but not like this), so motive is hard to see on an instrument readout.
This is interesting but also seems like common sense. If I was a strong supporter of something I wouldn’t be independent. If given more than a binary option I am more likely to select based on what I prefer than what I dislike least, it has only been recently that I felt it was important enough to work against a truly bad side.
Outside of politics, there are things I like but I would say there are very few things I strongly support or would say I’m a fan of.
It's possible to feel strongly and still be independent. Partisan politics package often inconsistent ideology together. You don't have to be milquetoast to want an a la carte approach to politics.
Milquetoast? I don’t think I described that at all. By strong support I am talking about supporting a party that somehow “most closely aligns”, not strong political opinions of which I have many. If they were more closely aligned it would be some third party candidate, generally.
To put it simply, I don’t really do fandoms. It doesn’t mean I don’t have preferences or strong feelings about things, but I’m less likely to be part of some group about it.
Makes sense to me. I consider myself independent because both parties piss me off, and I think the duopoly and polarization is ridiculous. Democrats say Republicans are stupid, Republicans say Democrats are stupid. I say they're both idiots. 😆
So what do you think should happen?
Lol seems like you're here to pick fights. What do I think should happen to what?
I think the question is what policy do you want?
Yes, what are your policies.
Hey, you're the one calling people idiots.
I think that taking a hard-line "policy" on something is inherently stupid. Everything has nuance, and having very strong, rigid opinions about the hot-button issues of the day doesn't make you smarter or better than those that are more apathetic.
I'm generally pro-choice, but I fully understand why many people have issues with abortions and I don't really blame them for wanting to outlaw the practice. I'm in favor of SOME increased gun control, but I also think that people are wayyyy too obsessed with guns in general. There are other things that kill a lot more people than guns but nobody's freaking out about those. So honestly I think there isn't much to be gained here by trying to make guns harder to buy, or taking people's guns away, or whatever.
So basically, you're on the sidelines criticising but have nothing helpful to offer instead.
My advice would be to stop fucking fighting about shit that doesn't actually matter, like religion and guns. Focus on things that are actually more likely to end our civilization, like accelerating climate change.