Social relationships more important than hard evidence in partisan politics: study
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The basic human need to get along with others results in the formation of extreme political groupings, according to a study from Dartmouth College.
The findings, published in the journal Royal Society Open Science, add to the widening body of research on the behavior of social and political networks.
The Dartmouth research demonstrates that individuals often ignore essential information when forming opinions, resulting in partisanship and division. By explaining the underlying factors responsible for societal splits, the study provides a deeper understanding of current divides in the United States.
Three factors drive the formation of social and political groups according to the research: social pressure to have stronger opinions, the relationship of an individual's opinions to those of their social neighbors, and the benefits of having social connections.
A key idea studied in the paper is that people choose their opinions and their connections to avoid differences of opinion with their social neighbors. By joining like-minded groups, individuals also prevent the psychological stress, or "cognitive dissonance," of considering opinions that do not match their own.
"Human social tendencies are what form the foundation of that political behavior," said Tucker Evans, a senior at Dartmouth who led the study. "Ultimately, strong relationships can have more value than hard evidence, even for things that some would take as proven fact."
Tags
Who is online
38 visitors
Matches my intuition perfectly. The multi-dimensional clustering and distancing is obvious for those of us participating on forums such as this. The relationships sometimes are complex, sometimes fragile but they are quite clear to behold. At least in my observations (for years).
Or that the old expression that "Birds of a feather, flock together". But where does that leave those of us that are independents? How do we cope with the cognitive dissonance? Of course, I say that kind of tongue in cheek, but seriously, since we don't seem to need confirmation bias, our relationships are based on what?
We have our relationships too - they are just not drawn on ideological / partisan lines.
I would agree with that.. so does that mean that we find other things to bond over? And if so, why don't partisans have these things to bond over? Say like music? Why does politics trump everything else (no pun intended)?
Absolutely!
They do. It is just that for partisans and ideologues (and others) those relationships are a higher priority than others.
It does not for me (and many others of course). To me, truth (or the closest to it) and that which best meets the need of life on the planet is what is important.
I find i bond with both sides, depending on where i stand on the issues at hand. The only ones who you can't really bond with are the extremist and both side have them. Inflexible and unrelenting in pushing their narrative and only their narrative. Screw everyone else.
Fortunately i find they still are the minority. Albeit with a tendency on being a very LOUD minority on both sides.
In my experiences one can work well with others in areas of common interests such as music, hobbies, etc. but if there is a partisan difference it is as if those other commonalities mean nothing. Not being in agreement on partisan issues is often the deal breaker which preempts everything else and turns an ally into an enemy.
It is beyond absurd, but I am fully convinced that partisanship / political ideology is one of the heaviest weighted affinities (even more than religion).
Another aspect of the partisan binding is a demand for absolute fidelity. One might agree with another on most issues that would be consider partisan, but disagree on one (just one) issue and one is immediately deemed to be on the other side. For example, a liberal (by most measures) who favors stronger immigration law enforcement or a pro-choice conservative. It really takes only one point of disagreement to cause what seems (to me) to be a knee-jerk reaction which cavalierly deems an ally an enemy. Very strange behavior ... but very common too.
Its all a choice. I have several friends, good friends, that i disagree with vehemently on numerous issues but we remain good friends.
For the most part we each respect each other enough and value our friendships enough to look past it. Pretty easy to do if one can check their ego at the door and consider all the "other" common ground that one does have.
Not enough people do that these days. Especially on places like NT.
Personal (real world) relationships are somewhat different than those on social sites like NT. My comments were limited to social sites. The stakes are much higher in real life and that, I think, causes people to be less likely to condemn so quickly.
Agreed, no doubt its much easier to be a prick when one isn't face to face.
It is a shame too. I think quite a few people use social media to unleash certain demons.
Yep. And I'm a pretty firm believe that many on sites like this have an agenda driven by someone/something other than themselves.
That said I've been accused of things like picking on people simply when i had a differentiating opinion from theirs. Yeah right ...... for some, one is a bully when they simply have a differing opinion. Attitudes like that are pretty telling actually ....
What a bunch of baloney this discussion is.
We have the worst president in the 240 year history of this country, and, rather than take part in the rallying against him, "independents" and "moderates" and "non-partisans" talk about how unfortunate it is that many people have an opinion about him that is "one-sided".
You're damn right it's one sided, because there is only one side of this particular issue worth considering. Getting his criminal, immoral, lying ass out of office asap.
I have had just about enough of nose in the air independents being blase about the damage Trump is doing to this country every fricking day.
John how many voters minds do you think slamming trump for every little discrepancy changes ?
I agree trump is not what I want as a president , slamming him constantly isn't going to change that.
IMO: As long as trump says he will do what many americans want he will have power unless he really screws up really horribly. Which he may.
Till then hating what we have does not change that but hate isn't good for us as individuals so I refrain from going there, especially when its not something I can personally change.
Good luck to you in your endeavors though.
But we are not discussing Trump. We are discussing group dynamics and the nature of relationships.
What I boldfaced there strikes me as the meat and gravy of it all, and I think it applies to religion as well. Family relationships, friendships, even work relationships can be seriously affected by expressing views in opposition to an expected norm. Connections can be so important to some that they will even deny hard, objective evidence that challenges an important socially-held view or belief (or at least a strongly professed, socially-asserted one).
Tribe trumps reason all too often, it would seem.
Is it simply a psychological survival mechanism we got from evolution? Familial and tribal connections were surely essential for life among early humans. Being rejected and banished from your paleolithic tribe (for example) would have likely been a death sentence, if you were unable to find and join up with another group, that is.
Could we be evolutionarily predisposed to profess agreement with ideas or beliefs, whether we genuinely hold them or not, if the social connections we perceive as being necessary for the lives or livelihoods we are accustomed to (or dependent on) demand it?
Relationships are of critical importance. I understand why people would kid themselves in order to preserve select relationships.
For example, I often wonder how many socially religious people are putting on a pretense (at some level). That they really do not buy much of what is being sold but go along because doing so is a much easier social route. Prime example ... look at politicians.
it seems that it's "better to be liked than to hold up the truth" ... facts fly out the window sometimes because those whom you associate with disagree with those facts and could "throw you out of the group", so emotional belief takes over as "fact" it seems.. this happens in quite a few situations/relationships including the religious.
That is why I usually avoid partisan topics. As an anti-partisan I will sometimes agree / disagree with every side. Since partisan / ideological relationships seem to preempt all others on social media sites it is an ugly business offering non-partisan opinions. One disagreement (for many) means 'ah ha, you are one of them - my enemies'. It is a very peculiar dynamic.
I agree, I recently had a friend of over 20 years freak out and basically hang up on me when we were talking politics lately. He hasn't called back.
His loss.
Politics have always been divisive and in this age of instant media and social gratification it is only going to become more so.
Politics have always been divisive yep and this friendship had endured 20 years of it, till now. Whats changed ? It's getting worse thats whats changed. the saddest part is the top politicians are still promoting the division.
Power and profit is their motive and pay offs.
It sucks !! And I dont look for this to change anytime soon. It will probably get even worse. If the change doesn't come from the top it will take longer to happen. If it ever does.
sad
It is sad that y'all would let a friendship that's lasted that long end because of politics, which probably had 0-.001% to due with your friendship to start with.
I agree. I didn't end it. And this was not the first time this person couldn't handle ANY even light criticism of his idol trump and basically hung up on me. We went thru this crap about a year ago, after about 6 weeks I called him. Not this time.
Immaturity isn't unattractive when ya get to our age. Until trump took over we could talk about pretty much anything, now I'm sick of constantly watching what I say when talking with him anyway. so...
If he calls me OK but, I've decided I'm not calling him again this time though.
Enough is enough. One way streets Suck !
i completely agree with you. It's difficult at times, especially - but not limited to - social media. I have found opinions on this site from both sides of the spectrum that i agree with and vote up accordingly.
Perception has been completely overlooked here. How we perceive ourselves -vs- how others perceive us is a contributing if not a major factor.
!00% agree. IF aliens invaded the earth Americans would instantly unite.
Barring that, we may be in trouble.
Aliens automatically get a bad rap. Maybe they will be friendly aliens and bring us snacks.
Then everyone would be fighting over who got the snacks
I don't think that would matter much to many till it was proven over time. O we'd have some folks rushing to great them. But most of us would be leary as hell for quite some time. Myself included. We have too much too lose if they are not.
Just like advertising we are here. IMO: What a stupid move on humanities part. I think we'd be best served by finding them first ... If there is any one out there. Then we decide whether or not to expose our presence.
Nope we advertise we are here and where we are. In Hope of finding something, anything hopefully though something that does destroy us. Not that we know even what that might be.
Duuuu
Good plan.
sarc !
That would be an intelligent life form for sure then !
I can see why. I live in a bright red county, and grew up in a bright red state. Life would be a lot easier for me if I always agreed with my family and neighbors.