Personen, die Politik als ein Nullsummenspiel betrachten, bei dem der Gewinn einer Seite unweigerlich der Verlust einer anderen Seite ist, meiden Gespräche mit Menschen unterschiedlicher politischer Überzeugung eher. Dieses Muster war bei israelischen und amerikanischen Wählern zu beobachten, insbesondere in den Tagen vor großen Wahlen.
What is behind the growing reluctance to discuss politics? Researchers identify a potential factor
13 Comments
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00095-4
From the linked article:
A recent study published in Communications Psychology investigates how certain beliefs about politics influence people’s willingness to engage in political discussions. Researchers found that individuals who see politics as a zero-sum game — where one side’s gain is inevitably another’s loss — are more likely to avoid conversations with people of differing political beliefs. This pattern was observed in both Israeli and American voters, particularly in the days leading up to major elections in their respective countries.
Across both studies, the researchers found a clear link between zero-sum beliefs about politics and the avoidance of political conversations. In other words, the more participants saw politics as a zero-sum game, the more they tended to avoid talking about it with people who had different political views. This pattern held true for voters in both Israel and the United States, despite the significant differences in their political systems.
The researchers identified two key factors that mediated this relationship. First, people with strong zero-sum beliefs were more likely to expect political conversations to lead to conflict. Second, zero-sum thinkers were less receptive to opposing views, meaning they were less willing to consider perspectives that differed from their own.
Interestingly, the researchers found that this avoidance behavior was not influenced by political affiliation or ideology. Whether participants identified as liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between, their belief in zero-sum politics was the strongest predictor of their reluctance to engage in political discussions.
I am one of these individuals. I feel my belief is strongly influenced by the American political system: First Past the Post. In my eyes it removes much of the need for compromise and encourages digging your heels in; given the ubiquity of the Internet, it’s easier than any point in history to find echo chambers, increasing the difference and decreasing any desire for compromise. I would like to find common ground, but it’s not beneficial. Any consolation given is a point in their favor, and if I want my opinion to be represented I need to win. My stance is less about what I actually want and more about how my wants are represented.
Politics under capitalism is a zero-sum game though… One where rich people always win and workers and minorities lose.
First-past-the-post *is* a zero-sum game.
Did it take into consideration which topics of politics? I find I may be zero-sum on some topics but not others. When a politician is trying to further legislation that actively infringes on the rights of minorities and someone else supports that? No, I don’t see a point of discussing politics. There is nothing I can do as a person to try to convince you that other people deserve care, respect, and the freedom to be themselves. Also at that point it IS a case of the a win = loss for those who are targeted by the legislation.
If you want to discuss something such as how taxes should be spent, how regulations should fit in the market, or how differing the collection of taxes could work (ei, higher sales tax to offset a lower income tax) then yeah, we can discuss away and I’m way more likely to consider differing viewpoints and new perspectives. But, until the whole politics being able to police the rights of vulnerable people to even exist is off the table, it is kinda hard to come back to a civil conversation.
does anyone else feel patronized?
I think many people just want to have affordable healthcare.
It isn’t supposed to be. Peoples belief that it is drives the elections where people who believe the same are elected.
I really attribute it to a selfish belief that we as individuals get to tell other people how to live. The inability to imagine that other people can live a life in a completely different manner truly terrifies some because they see it as a direct threat to their own way of life. This inability to live and let live is driving these sentiments and I don’t see it stopping until more people reject this core belief.
I mean, elections are a zero sum game. Not all politics are tho. Guess the former has bled into the latter.
I wonder if this also colors perception of incremental legal change, which almost all change is.
Meaning I wonder if it begets a willing ignorance that incremental change has and will continue to occur, in exchange for an all/nothing internal narrative.
Also wonder how these views affect philosophies around and tension between individual liberty vs group identity.
American conservatives have spent all of our history pushing for zero sum policies. I have no choice but to give them what they want in opposition.
Unfortunately it is a zero-sum game. My political opposition wants a laundry list of frankly ghoulish policies, a total hollowing out of public education, the criminalization of poverty, to roll back rights for women and non-whites, to force the establishment of a state religion, the removal of regulations and laws that protect workers, and the reinstitution of child labor.
None of which are things anyone should ever compromise on.
Having discussions with these people isn’t just a zero-sum game, it’s like talking to a brick wall that actively hates and wants to crush you and anyone else it can.
Some issues are a zero-sum game. Some aren’t. Because of the extreme partisan divisions, more of them are. If changes to a policy ultimately poisons that policy, passing it is not a win for its original proponents, for example. Like the mandate in the ACA, and I’ll go as far as to say the lack of a public option already kind of ruined the ACA for all but a few specific measures that stand on their own.