University of Penn. and Beyond Conflict research psychology behind polarization and misperceptions about each other

[TestyTestospherson]

I heard an interesting segment on NPR's Health and Science about research conducted by the University of Pennsylvania and a group called Beyond Conflict that investigated polarization and the psychology behind it. Definitely worth the quick listen/read.

From Beyond Conflict's web site on the findings:

Quote

Americans incorrectly believe that members of the other party dehumanize, dislike, and disagree with them about twice as much as they actually do. In short, we believe we’re more polarized than we really are—and that misperception can drive us even further apart. The divide is correlated with outcomes that are consequential for democracy and represent a new degree of toxic polarization in America.

I wonder what your thoughts are on the findings of the study, and what it means for people from different political viewpoints trying to understand each other, when we apparently have a tendency to misperceive how people different than us see the world.

The full report is available here.

[Libby1]

14 hours ago, TestyTestospherson said:

I heard an interesting segment on NPR's Health and Science about research conducted by the University of Pennsylvania and a group called Beyond Conflict that investigated polarization and the psychology behind it. Definitely worth the quick listen/read.

From Beyond Conflict's web site on the findings:

I wonder what your thoughts are on the findings of the study, and what it means for people from different political viewpoints trying to understand each other, when we apparently have a tendency to misperceive how people different than us see the world.

The full report is available here.

Well, I think the report is bang on.  The psychological concepts it refers to are all pretty well known I think, and I'm sure on a board like this - where people are spending a fair bit of time analysing human relationships and conflicts - they'll be quite familiar.  Unfortunately when it comes to politics, we often throw our knowledge of these concepts (and of the factors that escalate conflict and drama) aside.

I got a sense of political activism really beginning to rise round about 2013.  I remember a professional associate saying in 2014 (when we were having  an independence referendum) that it was wonderful to see how politically engaged young people had become.  I think social media has played a major role in that...and it is good in some ways, but a lot of political discussion takes place on Twitter - which doesn't provide much scope for in depth discussion.  So too often discussion is replaced by repetition of political slogans or ideological beliefs, and slanging matches.

One aspect of activism that really concerns me, and which I think ties in with your article, is the extent to which people will encourage a sense of victimisation among members of the group they've appointed themselves as allies to...and I think this is quite classic Toxic Rescuer stuff.  When I say encouraging a sense of victimisation, I mean that they encourage members of a marginalised or discriminated against group to feel that they are hated by many in the mainstream.  The concept of hate speech, and its very indiscriminate application in recent years, exacerbates this problem in my view. 

[preraph]

I have an unfounded belief that most people are moderates but that it's only the extremists who get all the media. and this is why in real life I never have any conflicts with anyone but as soon as I step on a website online and talk any kind of politics it's just a huge divide.

[Emilie Jolie]

This report was interesting in the way it illustrates concretely how toxic polisarisation affects democracy, though a few important elements are missing (imo):

- the causes / origins of toxic polarisation.

- who benefits from it.

One of the examples given by the report (on gun control) is particularly telling, and I'm pleased to have seen it there because that's one example I think about often: there is a lot of common ground between Reps and Dems on gun control. That tallies with decades of opinion polls clearly showing Americans in their majority want the same thing, regardless of party politics. And yet it's one of the most polarised, or rather instrumentalised, topics of discussion...

My personal opinion, that I have held since I started getting involved in politics (principally since the Iraq War) is that 'toxic polarisation' is an active tool used by those who benefit from maintaining the status quo. The culture of toxic polarisation has been seen to have actively been promoted by some senior political figures and mainstream media - that's not a coincidence.

A vs B, Good vs Evil, Heroes vs Villains, Us vs Them etc is interwoven in the fabric of a society that has been more at war than at peace in its recent history. It's a familiar dichotomy that works well to maintain things just as they are.

Plus clickbait culture and sensationalism have become an economic necessity for mainstream press, in their quest to compete with social media where the concept of 'freedom of speech' has been somewhat hijacked and not always regulated accordingly.

As a solution, the report advocates talking to opinion leaders to make them aware of toxic polarisation-but what if they already know? What if it comes from the top? What if it's  being purposefully used to maintain a decaying 2-party stronghold?

[elaine567]

1 hour ago, Emilie Jolie said:

the report advocates talking to opinion leaders to make them aware of toxic polarisation-but what if they already know?

This is a common problem with "reports".
The people to which the report refers are often very aware of where  the "wrong" lies, but have been loathe to do anything about it for various reasons.
Sometimes that reason is simply they don't want to do anything as it suits them fine the way things are.

It suits political parties to emphasise the divide.
Are you for us or against us?
Black and white.
It is not in an political party's interest to have voters in the middle, voters who are swing voters, voters who are unclear where their loyalty lies, voters who think for themselves...

Humans love tribes.

[Emilie Jolie]

15 minutes ago, elaine567 said:

This is a common problem with "reports"

The problem doesn't come from reports like these, though. This type of report should be circulated as widely as possible so people can discuss the findings and make their own minds up freely, without 'top down' input or feeling they have to subscribe to what their 'tribe' says. Unfortunately vested interested will sometimes bend over backwards to discredit the findings of these things as 'academic nonsense' when it's very obviously apolitical. 

Thanks for sharing this, OP! 

[elaine567]

I did not say the problem lies in the report itself, but that these reports pointing out issues are often ignored, buried or repeated ad infinitum as nothing really changes.
It is not rocket science to suggest polarisation occurs, but what can be done about it when there are big political machines dedicated to stir up division in the populace.
They know all the psychological tricks already.

[Emilie Jolie]

I think the wider point is that things can change the more people (voters) actively engage with reports like these, and use their newfound knowledge accordingly.

Looking at discussions on gun control as an example, it would be simple to find common ground. So I guess the idea is to bypass 'the powers that be' and use these reports as a port of call to bring like-minded people together regardless of political affiliation.

The bottom line is, in a real democracy, it's up to 'we the people' to ensure we enact change if we can't trust the powers that be to do it for us.

[Zona]

Great discussion. Shows off the strength of loveshack - minimal to no flaming or insults when discussing hot button issues.

Now my $.02 as it relates to the United States.  Part of the problem is the lack of conservative voices in the media and in academia. How can you get a balanced view of things when you only hear one side? I went all the way through undergrad and then grad school and only had a handful of conservative professors. The media and academia are not representative of America as a whole, and therefore creates people who lack a balance in their understanding of things.

Edited July 4, 2020 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
Removed group berating.

[Emilie Jolie]

1 hour ago, Zona said:

Part of the problem is the lack of conservative voices in the media and in academia.

I don't think it's a political problem in a lack of balance / too much influence from one political party kind of way, or you'd only ever have liberal administrations in power, for instance - which is demonstrably not the case! Mainstream media is, for the most part, an echo chamber of the power in place, or its direct mainstream opposition - whatever position they take will reflect that (either A or B, essentially).

And as demonstrated by this report alone  and scores of studies just like this, academics are overwhelmingly apolitical. 

We, as humans, have more in common than what divides us. We know that.

If change won't come from the top (regardless of the political party) it will have to come from the bottom.

That's the go-to video that I watch whenever I forget what I've just typed! 

 

 

 

 

[pepperbird]

On 6/30/2020 at 12:51 AM, preraph said:

I have an unfounded belief that most people are moderates but that it's only the extremists who get all the media. and this is why in real life I never have any conflicts with anyone but as soon as I step on a website online and talk any kind of politics it's just a huge divide.

People make so many assumptions about others.

[pepperbird]

6 hours ago, Zona said:

Great discussion. Shows off the strength of loveshack - minimal to no flaming or insults when discussing hot button issues.

Now my $.02 as it relates to the United States.  Part of the problem is the lack of conservative voices in the media and in academia. How can you get a balanced view of things when you only hear one side? I went all the way through undergrad and then grad school and only had a handful of conservative professors. The media and academia are not representative of America as a whole, and therefore creates people who lack a balance in their understanding of things.

One of my daughters goes to one uni that puts the 'liberal' on "liberal arts" and the other attends one that's more science focused. They are about ten minutes walking distance from each other, but they are as different as night and day. The science based one has a more conservative bent, while the arts based one is far more liberal.
I'm not exactly sure why they're this way.

[pepperbird]

Something I don't understand about the USA is how it seems to need to rail against something- anything external to itself. If it doesn't have that, it turns inward. It could be that people need a common enemy, and if one doesn't exist, it become very polarized.
Back in 2003 ( I think I have the year right) I watched news reports about the second gulf war. They were showing footage of people waiting for the first shot to be fired( so to speak) and there were all races/ economic status standing together, some hugging, some crying, lots cheering etc.

[Zona]

1 hour ago, pepperbird said:

One of my daughters goes to one uni that puts the 'liberal' on "liberal arts" and the other attends one that's more science focused. They are about ten minutes walking distance from each other, but they are as different as night and day. The science based one has a more conservative bent, while the arts based one is far more liberal.
I'm not exactly sure why they're this way.

I was a "hard science" major and graduate student. Politics just never really came up. If you are a liberal arts major, you will hear a lot more about it.

There is also Hollywood. If you add academia, the news media and the entertainment media together, you get a very one-sided outlook. It is definitely having an effect out our culture here in the United States.

I have lost a few Democrat friends when they found out I was a conservative, but in most cases, politics just never comes up.

[Piddy]

19 hours ago, Zona said:

Great discussion. Shows off the strength of loveshack - minimal to no flaming or insults when discussing hot button issues.

Now my $.02 as it relates to the United States.  Part of the problem is the lack of conservative voices in the media and in academia. How can you get a balanced view of things when you only hear one side? I went all the way through undergrad and then grad school and only had a handful of conservative professors. The media and academia are not representative of America as a whole, and therefore creates people who lack a balance in their understanding of things.

Not sure about academia, but the media certainly has conservative voices.   For example conservatives have taken over talk radio for the last 25 years or so.  Then you have Fox News.  Although Fox News isn't fair and balanced IMO. 🙄  About the only thing I believe from Fox News is their polls.  They do a good job polling.  

 

 

[lana-banana]

"Lack of conservative voices in the media"?? What? Fox News is the most popular television channel (although much of that is because of nursing homes), CNN is almost entirely right-wing or center-right blather, MSNBC is a centrist-establishment network that only supports pro-war, pro-oil industry candidates, mainstream channels have White House officials on every day even though they do nothing but lie. Where is anyone seeing a "leftist" media other than Means TV?

As for conservatives not being involved in academia, I think that's almost entirely self-selective. Having multiple degrees is strongly correlated to more progressive viewpoints. And moreover, not every world issue comes down to two sides. Sometimes things are just objectively true or false. 

[Zona]

1 hour ago, lana-banana said:

 And moreover, not every world issue comes down to two sides. Sometimes things are just objectively true or false. 

Objective truths are a little hard to come by. There are some laws in science that no one would question, such as the law of conservation of mass the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of momentum. In general, dissenting views are welcomed in science because ideas and theories need to be scrutinized to make sure they are correct. That is the whole point of peer review.

Outside the realm of science, I think objective truths are even more rare, so it pays to keep an open mind and listen to people that disagree with you. Nobody learns anything from echo chambers.

[Emilie Jolie]

To get back to the study quoted in the opening post:

Quote

One of the most corrosive dimensions of polarized psychology has to do with negative and hostile beliefs about members of other groups. Once we consider the other side as an enemy, we develop a range of negative perceptions and misperceptions about them and their intentions. We begin to believe that they cannot be reasoned with because they are motivated by irrational animosity toward us. We believe that they dislike us and dehumanize us, and that if we compromise some of our positions, they will immediately demand more. In turn, this leads us to further dislike and dehumanize them in a vicious cycle as they become more entrenched as our enemies. 

Quote

Republicans and Democrats believe that members of the other party dehumanize them more than twice as much as they actually do.

Quote

Since levels of dislike are already quite high, it is noteworthy that Republicans and Democrats both feel that the other side dislikes them nearly twice as much as they actually do.

On immigration and gun control

Quote

This is a pattern that has been found on a range of other issues, but despite these perceptions, Americans are not as divided as they believe

This fratricidal war is entirely avoidable, if stopped in time.