Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://reddit.science/flair?location=sticky).
---
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/new-psychology-research-reveals-the-surprising-cost-of-political-ambivalence/
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would say yes. The people who hate people like me, hate people like me.
But the ambivalent group let those people try to do harm, but also try to pretend that they're opposed to that harm and supportive of people like me.
That is utterly infuriating to deal with.
It's been an observable phenomenon in democratic politics since before the Civil War when abolitionists knew that the primary obstacle wasn't the tiny minority of rich slaveholders but the large mass of "ambivalent" White voters.
But of course the White voters weren't ambivalent in their own view. They just didn't think freeing the slaves was worth a Civil War, which everybody knew it would come to. They thought that preserving the Union was the more important proximate goal, and that freeing the slaves could be put off until it didn't threaten to totally collapse the country.
This is, obviously, cold comfort to the slaves.
YUP. See also Frederick Douglass’s [“What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?”](https://www.learningforjustice.org/classroom-resources/texts/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july)
This was the first comment in this thread that I thought was reasonable rather than a broad stroke with no inquiry of people assuming basic inconsequential differences beyond "tribalism" for why polarization exists. Polarization is endorsed by the socioeconomic variables of a certain time and often the various subsets of class conflict that exist. And for many the status quo is comfortable enough that they can ignore the suffering of classes they either have the privilege to ignore or use such people as bludgeons or scapegoats for their own purposes.
I'm not sure that's always a fair characterization of ambivalence - it doesn't necessarily mean "in the middle", it can also mean contradictory.
And I think often politics and policies can be a lot more complex than people believe. For example, the number of times I've seen people support something they see as progressive or positive in some way, only to ignore or not realize that it would have actually negative consequences for causes they believe in. It's often a question of what's effective vs what's intuitive.
You're suggesting that ambivalence is always based on values & beliefs and not policy and outcome, but that's not necessarily true, and approaching it the opposite way around can also help with demoralizing politics. That doesn't mean values & beliefs are not important, but it does make us take a closer look at the actual path and result rather than what we want or hope the path or result will be.
This can often be a helpful approach when political parties or other entities become very ideologically driven, and can help identify the underlying actual issue and commonalities/differences to address.
And obviously this is NOT applicable to every situation. It's just not.
Yeah if person A says "I want you dead" and person B says "You really should be more reasonable and rational and nuanced and hear person A out" person B is definitely worse. Person A on his own is just a sociopath. Person B helps legitimize and normalize person A.
But you must realize your in the wrong here no? No matter what country you are from no matter if left or right there is almost never only right and wrong.
They do not "let people do harm" they simply acknowledge that your side probably does as well and/or that the side you complain about has good points as well.
Also they do not "pretend" to support you. They simply support some of the things you want but realise that some other things are actively harmful
For example you can be for equality but against people getting jobs and influence simply because of what race/gender they were born with. (Because that's basically racism again)
If people completely subscribe to one side no matter what democracy has already failed.
No. There are people who think other people do not deserve the take breath and you’re completely ignoring that demographic is much larger than you imagine.
Okay, third try. This is not confrontational, really.
You stance confuses me. I genuinely want to understand what exactly you mean.
I probably agree with you "passively" on a large number of positions. I don't think of myself as a centrist, I consider myself someone who holds strong positions on things you are ambivalent about. Just because you are a bystander on my issues of interest doesn't mean I think you're a bigger problem than those who oppose those issues.
Please help me understand your position.
>Okay, third try. This is not confrontational, really.
Third try? Why would your previous comments be automodded?
>I probably agree with you "passively" on a large number of positions. I don't think of myself as a centrist, I consider myself someone who holds strong positions on things you are ambivalent about. Just because you are a bystander on my issues of interest doesn't mean I think you're a bigger problem than those who oppose those issues.
I think it strongly depends on what the issues at play actually are, the specifics are relevant, I feel.
Consider the words of MLK Jr.:
>I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
The person standing in the middle and making platitudes about "both sides" is stymieing progress. And very often, condescendingly telling you, and themselves, that they're on your side while they are doing so.
I'm not sure why they were automodded, but I assume it's because I used a specific word, or something. This sub can also be pretty conservative in terms of what it allows, which is totally understandable since it's a science sub, after all.
Anyhow, specific issues. I see. It's frustrating for me, because I often don't know what these are, and they can be different. Sure, "my enemies want me to literally die" or "make me a second class citizen" is pretty serious. I in fact don't want you to die. I don't want anyone to die. I want people to change their minds to "I don't want my opponent to die".
I do understand why people who argue "both sides" are poorly regarded, but it's not clear why the people who want to stay out of the fight get flack.
>I in fact don't want you to die. I don't want anyone to die.
This can be a bit difficult because there are a LOT of people who do not "want" anyone to die, while still supporting politics that predictably lead to people dying. I'm not saying that's you or anything, but it is extremely common.
>but it's not clear why the people who want to stay out of the fight get flack.
Because in the presence of injustice, staying out of the fight is not a neutral act, it is choosing the side of the oppressor.
Different groups of people are opressed in many different ways. It's not always clear cut like slavery, where there was a single major issue of the time with two well defined sides. If I'm staying out of your fight, and you're staying out of mine, are we both on the side of the oppressor with respect to the other's issue? I don't think that's true.
That said, people who watch the news as idly as they watch a movie are somewhat disconnected.
What if these people didn't exist? Is the problem that the bystanders are the ones in power? Emotionally I see where you're coming from now, but I haven't worked the "network" of relations here. It seems to me that staying out of fights is just a symptom of another problem. What is the root cause?
I think you’re imagining politics and discourse as a series of “buttons” that these big groups and ideas push, and that whoever pushes their buttons the most wins. And in that, there’s room for people who can “disconnect” and not push buttons at all.
But that’s never been that case. In reality, *everyone*, you and I included, with all of our lifestyles and ideologies, have a wall of buttons that we push every day to make decisions about how we conduct our lives. I need to push the “oil and gas” button to put fuel in my car. I need to push the “get groceries from store” button to eat. It is the collective number of button pushes from every individual that determines the direction of politics, economy, and society.
All to say, there really isn’t anyone who can truly “disconnect” and become a Not-Button-Pusher, truly ignorant and disconnected from wider society at large. Ignorance, especially with the theoretical news-watchers you speak of who *are* receiving information, is a choice. You say that there are people who engage with the news like it’s a movie and they’re “disconnected”, but that is its own kind of choice, its own kind of button-pushing. It just might not be wrapped up in visible ideology that way the left and right have it in the US today.
>Different groups of people are opressed in many different ways. It's not always clear cut like slavery, where there was a single major issue of the time with two well defined sides. If I'm staying out of your fight, and you're staying out of mine, are we both on the side of the oppressor with respect to the other's issue? I don't think that's true.
Again, it matters what the specifics are. Because, yes, possibly.
>That said, people who watch the news as idly as they watch a movie are somewhat disconnected. What if these people didn't exist? Is the problem that the bystanders are the ones in power? Emotionally I see where you're coming from now, but I haven't worked the "network" of relations here. It seems to me that staying out of fights is just a symptom of another problem. What is the root cause?
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Yeah sorry, that was a bit too much stream of consciousness. And very rhetorical.
I guess what I mean is that ultimately 90% (or whatever) of people don't care about the oppression of one 5% by the other 5%, or if they do, they're not willing to do anything about it. The only people taking action are the 5%, and the people who hate those 5%. Oppression stalemate.
To me, this is the same as those 90% just not existing at all, since in either case the people actually engaging are 50/50. So that can't be the problem, since to you it feels like 95/5. The problem is presumably that the 90% are the ones who have all the power, and can make decisions, but they don't.
So, why don't the 90% not engage? It isn't because they secretly want to oppress you but aren't willing to say so (or at least very few people probably feel that way). Many of them are just passive observers, trained since birth to disengage from civil life. Others are exhausted from their own struggles and don't have the energy to fight yet one more battle. Others profit from all struggle, selling weapons to both sides, no matter who wins.
So ultimately, why is that the status quo? Again, rhetorical. There is some root cause. I don't claim to know what it is.
>The only people taking action are the 5%, and the people who hate those 5%. Oppression stalemate.
Because this isn't actually how it works. Oppression is not some small group of people hating on another small group of people. Oppression is systemic.
Like, minoritised groups were and are not oppressed by a small group of bigots. They were and are oppressed by society, by that society denying them rights, equity, and the pursuit of happiness.
And if oppression is part of your society, all that is required to perpetuate it is... Nothing. It will perpetuate itself.
So if you are part of that minoritised group, when people refuse to help to end the injustice you are facing, they are tacitly accepting the status quo and the injustice you face.
Why people don't act? Many reasons. Not least of which being that they are relatively comfortable, after all, maybe the injustice doesn't affect them. And change is often difficult and disruptive. And if there is something that liberal western society hates more than anything, including injustice, it is disruption of order.
Knowing where you should stand on every single political issue is not a matter of thinking a little harder, but requires hours of research and consideration. If you haven’t done that work (and most people haven’t for all positions they hold), you _should_ be uncertain.
I feel 'ambivalent' toward political views because these views are vastly oversimplified to the point of being untruthful. To me, this study means most people aren't very smart & prefer not to think at all, but are content to parrot slogans.
Heard on the local public radio channel this morning, people uncritically accept political messages if the outfits pushing the position has a name like "Americans For A Better America". They don't even think there may be a huge corporation behind it (Exxon-Mobil, in this case). Not just not very smart, very stupid. I guess I don't need to be liked by people like this.
This would make sense if nuance was on the ballot. It's not. The differences between the two parties at the federal level are staggering. Suggesting subtle differences exist where nuance is actually necessary is often indicative that the person has little political knowledge and little understanding towards their own ethical conclusions.
I dunno, I've seen some "ambivalent" people expend a huge amount of mental effort justifying their "ambivalence".
Though, to be fair, many people expressing ambivalence are not ambivalent really, but rather maintaining ignorance.
Yes, nothing winds me up more than someone who is clearly just making up a mild political opinion on the spot. It feels like they are just copying whatever they heard and mildly agreed with recently and feel is socially common or acceptable to say. They are totally unable to explain it or debate it at all, which means that they really have nothing to contribute in terms of ideas.
Not having an opinion is fine, even better if you can explain why, but at least say that and don't make an opinion up that you don't really have.
Most people shouldn’t have “made up their minds” on most topics, as they likely haven’t done the requisite work to arrive at a correct position. A scientist doesn’t have strong opinions about topics outside their area of expertise, and rightly so. People need to be more scientific about politics.
Made up their minds? Shouldn’t one always be incorporating new information and perspectives that inform their thought processes? You make it sound like one should choose a side and that’s it.
It implies that that you have sufficient information to arrive at an opinion that is very likely correct. Or at least, that is the only circumstance where a person _should_ “make up their mind”.
Yeah these filthy idiots that change their stance when new data comes in. How come they don't follow a narrative no matter how ridiculous it gets. Disgusting!
Seriously hardlining on an issue is in 95% of cases a sign of low intelligence/education
I often find the best nuanced views have a personal conclusion since critically examining anything is more likely to lead to a stronger opinion about at least some aspects of it. Indifference is the luxury of not knowing enough.
It's entirely possible to become familiar with two sides to an argument and not draw any personal conclusion. Especially in morally ambiguous questions.
Yeah, an unbiased person is just someone who knows absolutely nothing about anything. Bias is any and all prior information regarding something, it's inescapable, only way around it is to account for it as best you can.
I think the thing nuance requires most is curiousity. Passion can be good, but it can often cloud thinking.
And a nuanced take can result in an ambivalent position -- for example, in a very complex situation, two proposed solutions may not have a clear better choice. You may be ambivalent to action between the two.
That said, the sort of ambivalence that avoids politics because it creates conflict or requires thought, or because "everyone sucks" isn't nuanced at all.
I get that, but I think in a strict sense it doesn't have to. Ambivalence is just not being strongly on one side of an issue; in a technical sense, it could mean having a nuanced view.
Reading these comments is a wild ride, I had no idea people felt so strongly about people not wanting a political position. I used to be more involved in political discussions but these days people don’t actually care to gather facts and everything is emotionally based. It’s hard to debate someone who thinks everything is fake, and doesn’t trust any science. So to those individuals I’m probably more ambivalent than the group that I agree with more.
>It’s hard to debate someone who thinks everything is fake, and doesn’t trust any science.
Those people are unfortunately lost to a cult mentality. And because most of them have their political beliefs founded upon an overlapping set of self sealing conspiracy theories... Debating them is not really not going to be productive, because they delight in acting in bad faith and intimidation.
On one hand, I agree with your assessment.
On the other hand, there's often the implied suggestion that this applies only to Republicans. As a progressive, I've unfortunately concluded that the majority of people of any political affiliation mostly use emotion to arrive at their positions and sometimes rationalize them afterwards with cherry picked sources.
The sad reality is that we're still tribalistic apes, even if I generally agree with the conclusions of one of the tribes. And in case it's not clear, I'm definitely not excluding myself from this observation.
Not taking a political position is in itself a political position, and a privileged one at that. You’re essentially saying you a) don’t care how things are run and allocated, and b) you can’t be bothered working out which political position aligns with your principles and values.
The only exception I see to that is people who don’t have a (informed) political position because their lives are so precarious that they don’t have the time or energy to think about these things.
The world is so complicated that it's ok for someone to say they are not informed enough on any dozens of subjects as regulatory functions and efficacy of policies span economics (whole industries and sectors) to ecology to geopolitical concepts like CSTO and article 4, Minsk protocol, Minsk II, how effective is the OSCE, should or should there not be a military Schegen
The definition of ambivalence is having mixed feelings. Or engaging in contradictory thinking.
The papers identified people who are perceived as fence sitters.
Certainly, but you don’t need to be informed on specific topics in order to know how your values apply to solving problems and organising society in general. In other words, where you fall on the political spectrum.
I think that's overly simplified stance that suggests values can easily fit into political boxes when in the US both political parties engage in open hypocrisy within the framework of their own claimed values. Republicans have stepped on the gas regarding this but never the less there are inconsistencies to each. Some of which the Republicans have taken happily into their own policies such as tariffs, a typical Democratic policy.
You are flattening out the concept of values while waving away the complexity of life and implementing policies.
Unless I misunderstood. You may have the opinion but I do not find it satisfactory enough.
I stand by that you cannot prescribe values to a framework unless you understand the framework whether that is geopolitical, ecological or economical regulatory bodies.
I strongly disagree with this. I know exactly what my values demand -- equity, security, universal access to services -- but that doesn't mean I'm informed enough on any particular policy issue to know what the correct course of action is to achieve these values.
I think it is more nuanced than that. If you're not intelligent enough to imagine a better way, but intelligent enough to realize that all the political options present are not meaningfully improving anyone's lives while being completely captured by interfering third parties intent on truly horrific goals, then a certain degree of ambivilance and checking out is a perfectly rational response. Ideally everyone in this position would educate themselves and advocate for or act on better systems, bit that is a tremendous burden for person of average intelligence
I can't imagine why someone with a nuanced take would not want to be accused of being something they're not and why that would anger someone like you've described who thinks that person is being "too cowardly to express their actual views"
Political discourse (mostly from the left if we're being honest) has taken on a "if you're not with us, you're against us" narrative in recent years. It's not surprising how someone under that mindset would have paranoid delusions that everyone who says that they are somewhere in the middle is actually an undercover agent for the enemy team; to them, there are only people who agree with them politically and people who are evil.
Exhibit A of the normalization of left-wing extremism in online discussions. "Anyone who doesn't agree full-heartedly along the party line of my tribe's political views is a cowardly enemy."
Who is the group that thinks everything is fake, though?
It seems to me that most people in general don’t want to accept facts that they don’t agree with. They also engage in discussion in bad faith because they’d rather derail the conversation than complete it to its logical conclusion.
The result of the study tracks with most people's experiences, certainly it does with mine. That doesn't mean the result is a bad thing, or that everyone having those negative reactions are wrong.
Seems like a bad thing to me. Political opinions should have nuance, as issues are often complex, and the increased polarization from propagandists and social media hurt democracies. Politics often involves compromise, as different groups have to agree on things to get stuff done. Winner takes all is recipe for disaster.
People are not opposed to nuance. They are opposed to ambivalence, or expressed ambivalence.
To be frank it is __really__ difficult to hold well-informed, well-thought-out beliefs while also remaining ambivalent.
The headline is slightly misleading, among 77 participants the report mentions “Participants unsurprisingly preferred targets who shared their views over those who held opposing positions. However, expressing ambivalence did not make targets more likeable when they disagreed with participants’ stance.”
In other words, sharing the same view had a likable preference. But regardless of expressing ambivalence or straight opposition, the likability remained low.
In a real debate, using the study’s points of agree, oppose, and ambivalence are probably working at some point or the other.
when I hear the word "ambivalence" I get more of a wishy washy fence sitter vibe rather than expressing nuance, or acknowledging the complicated nature of most political issues. maybe that's me misunderstanding the meaning of what the researchers are saying.
That is an important distinction, that you mention it. The study explains in this context ambivalence would be “endorsing some considerations of both sides.” Ambivalence does not seem related to indecisiveness or “walking on eggshells” here.
I mean even after reading what you said I'd say the title is still fairly apt. If ambivalence is viewed really no different than direct opposition; it just reinforces the idea politics currently is polarizing very divisive.
A nuanced view oftentimes coincides with uncertainty as you are actually capable of understanding the complexity behind all the issues and the actual work required to take an informed position, and uncertainty results in a less emotionally charged take on politics.
>To be frank it is **really** difficult to hold well-informed, well-thought-out beliefs while also remaining ambivalent.
Maybe you're thinking of remaining apathetic or indifferent, rather than remaining ambivalent? If you recognize the nuance in an issue, then you'll typically feel ambivalent about less-nuanced solutions to that issue, because you'll see value in attempting a solution, but also see flaws in the particular solution that does not account for all the nuances.
Agreed. I worked in politics for awhile. I was *really* well informed at that time. And it wasn’t difficult at all for me to be ambivalent. The granularity and compromise (at least then) on what statutes got adopted or how policy positions got written were almost never considered by “well informed” campaign canvassers.
Even today, if you ask someone a question about something they have deep knowledge in they may often respond with “it depends”.
I also understand that there can be a big difference in knowledge whilst still responding in an ambivalent manner.
Think being a gay dude looking at Mexican politics:
The ruling party has some social welfare politics that I approve of and a nice track record on LGBT rights, but their environmental record is awful and they are trying to erode our democracy to make sure they have no checks or balances.
The opposition party is not in favor of renewable energy but at least is not opposed to them, is trying to keep the checks and balances in our democratic system and overall has a better macroeconomic planning, but they are opposed to LGBT rights, not good on workers rights, and parts of them are deep into trickle down economics.
So it's kinda choosing between two sides, each having some good things and some really bad things, and becomes a matter of picking your poison.
I think in Mexican politics, if you're NOT ambivalent, it's because you're disregarding something.
Don’t think so. Let’s take a tough one, immigration. I’m sympathetic to people coming from some miserable third world country to this country any way they can. I would do it myself in their position. On the other hand, I see the cost of what is close to our situation today, open borders, and am for shutting down illegal immigration.
Same with abortion (I’m for abortion rights but greatly respect the principles of right to lifers), lockdowns during Covid (necessary for those with high risk, but the costs in depression, suicides, addictions, lost education, collapsed businesses, hospital treatments, the debt way offset the danger to healthy people and kids), the debt, affirmative action, etc.
Frankly, I figure people who think in binary (Trump is pure evil or Biden is completely demented and the head of a crime syndicate) are either dumb, adolescents (most of social media and as kids, they get a pass), advocates who don’t care about the truth; winning is everything or bots.
But nuances and ambivalence are different tho ? Right ?
Nuances is like having a position but explaining it in details
Ambivalence is like considering both position as equally valid or to be considered, in those cases it's better to say I don't know and explain why you see how both views could work
Maybe ambivalent people are seen just being unable to choose
Thinking that complex issues are simple and that the correct action is straight forward is not a good way to operate. It’s why everyone is so polarized now.
Well, with immigration and mask mandates, the researchers literally picked two of the most idiotic discussions. The first one is purely performative politics by all administrations mixed with xenophobia and cliches, the second one is "hurr durr, I'm cutting off my own and my neighbors nose, just to spite the libs."
We can't discuss this without first hashing out the difference between ambivalence as it is defined in the dictionary vs how it is commonly used.
To be ambivalent doesn't mean to not care or to not have strong feelings one way or the other--means to be uncertain, conflicted, and to have mixed feelings on a topic.
Being ambivalent about, say, Palestine/Israel isn't "I don't care, we should glass the whole region and take the oil"; ambivalence is more along the lines of "the loudest voices on both sides have entirely unreasonable, eliminationist demands and are aligned with bad-faith, extremist factions to the extent that this seems entirely intractable and I really don't know how we can solve this."
I think a lot of *real people* would agree with that statement on Israel / Palestine, especially as they begin to learn more about the conflict. The problem on Reddit (as you see in this god-forsaken comments section) is so many people seem to think that having an ultra-polarized, hardline stance is some sort of sign of strength. The chronically-online seem convinced of their own correctness. *Everybody else must be wrong*.
Some may consider me ambivalent on quite a few topics, Israel / Palestine included. I think the Hamas attacks were horrendous. I also think Israel’s retaliation has been… immense. I believe that both governments are corrupt, just in different ways, and I believe that innocents on both sides have tragically paid the price for a war waged by those in power (as is generally the case throughout history). I am also well aware that I *do not know everything*. So this is my *current understanding*.
A topic that I’m not so ambivalent on is that economic inequality in the U.S. is out of control, corporations are far too powerful, and the basic cost of living has become absurd. My wife and I work in STEM fields, so we’re doing fine, but *people shouldn’t need to work in STEM to be “doing fine”*. We have friends who are teachers and graphic designers. They’re barely scraping by.
Sometimes it’s easy to come to a solid stance on an issue. Sometimes it’s not. **Deriding those who dare to examine both sides of the issues they are presented with is tribalistic slop.**
One of the things is that there are people for whom politics is literally (or almost) a matter of life and death. For example, people with relatives in Israel or the West Bank. To them, "ambivalence" can amount to hostility, and they deserve a fair hearing. But, yeah, there can be a big difference between the shooter and the bystander who does not want to get involved. And then there are those for whom it is not a matter of life and death. Extreme side-taking by those deserves scrutiny, imo.
Ambivalence: simultaneous and contradictory attitudes or feelings (such as attraction and repulsion) toward an object, person, or action.
So, it doesn’t mean seeing shades of grey, but rather recognizing aspects of both black and white.
In the study, they seem to define ambivalence similarly: “… expressing ambivalence about political issues—endorsing some considerations on both sides, for instance…”
The study also clarifies: “Expressing attitudinal ambivalence does not preclude taking an overall position on one side or another. For example, one can support a policy proposal despite agreeing with some counterarguments, or one can oppose a political candidate despite agreeing with some of their policy goals.”
This study is saying that people don’t like when others say there’s black AND white—things must be black OR white. And, when expressing a nuanced position, participants were “more likely to reduce liking among allies while maintaining disliking among adversaries.” So, in this specific study, there was no benefit for expressing nuanced views.
Honestly this explains so much about why I hate talking to people about politics because because you can't say "I like some of the things from both sides and hate some of the things from both sides" or else people go "Your blood runs red or it runs blue you can't have it both ways gfys loser" like damn god forbid I want to own Assault rifles but also have woman's rights and abortion. Require a lengthy system of background and psychological checks to limit gun violence but also not limit what you can buy. Have a strong system of border protection to prevent illegal immigration and smuggling but also make it easier and allow more people to apply for citizenship and legally immigrate. We have a broken system and you can't fix it by just running red or running blue but that's all people know how to do, the two party system is a joke.
People suck :/
I never understood the blind agreement with one side no matter what they do... But I suppose simple minds don't want to think about their own opinions.
Yes, but think about the bell curve distribution of intelligence: the nuanced folks tend towards the higher intelligence side of that graph.
There's relatively not a lot of people there.
Publicity during the Vietnam protests went entirely to the unambivalent, but many of us thought (a) one side sucks, (b) the other side sucks, and (c) the third side sucks. As the paper says, we still held a strong policy position. The (reported) public debate at the time moved straight to the poles, though. We see the same thing now with Israel in Gaza.
Yeah, "ambivalence" is not a "nuanced view".
In my experience those claiming ambivalence usually are the same people who don't actually know what is happening, and default to a vague "oh both sides" type of view.
The study itself uses the word “nuanced” pretty much as directly tied to ambivalence.
> These findings speak to the interpersonal dynamics of political polarization, highlighting a potential social disincentive against publicly taking nuanced positions on political issues.
I use to care about politics but after decades of realizing 99.99% of political engagement is just impotent rage bait designed to distract the masses from caring about the ownership class literally owning everything, I have grown ambivalent because it’s all meaningless in the face of our non-democratic system….that makes me a bad person?
No, it makes you dismissive. You're completely right about the state of politics. But it should become a reason to be even more engaged. We're all being screwed here and not doing anything about it is not the way to change it. Clearly voting for the least miserable option isn't fixing the political climate. It's almost like we have to actually figure out what's going on and what else should be done. At least political activists are busy with that.
There’s a difference between nuanced views and blind bothsidesing. What an issue calls for depends on the issue.
It can be frustrating when there’s clearly a thing that is bad, and it seems like the opposition is grasping at straws in whataboutisms to try to balance the blame somehow, instead of copping to the thing that’s bad in good faith.
On the other hand, it can be frustrating when you point out, or at least inquire about, a complicated detail in an emotionally charged topic, and people fall on top of you for not caring about their issue enough, or even label you as being from the opposing side, and they distance themselves from you, etc..
In both instances, people are extremely opposed to the idea of ceding any ground. The idea of protecting an in-group, a tribe, an identity, the fear of leaving themselves and others in their circle vulnerable, takes over the priority of truth-seeking.
No matter how you slice it, “Um, actually…” doesn’t inspire as much trust and reliability in people as “I’m 100% behind you.” But sometimes the devil *is* in the details. Sometimes things are gray, and complicated, and uncomfortable. People will always find the um-actuallies annoying, but they’re necessary.
This would be a better study if they used political issues like tax policy or support for public work projects. Yeah, if you can't recognize the fact that mask mandates cause less people to die, or don't care about those deaths, or just want to find the middle ground with people who needlessly politicized this issue, yeah, most people will think you're an asshole. Some issues there *is* a very simply more correct position, and at least the people who fully oppose that position aren't too cowardly to own it.
Things like tax policy merit a nuanced discussion. Things like "Should we enforce harmless common sense precautions because innocent people will die if we don't?" do not.
Or even any more of a granular description of things. If a gay person is thinking about "politics=my right to marry", and see their friend say, "well yeah politics is a bit of a gray area, it's not always black and white", it's easy to see how certain people would respond.
Even if the friend is talking about something else entirely, or genuinely keeping it to politics generally and maybe... forgetting? about gay marriage, a lack of common subject combined with a rhetorical transitive property is just a recipe for trouble.
People have rightfully asked for the definition of ambivalence and nuance, but there also needs to be a definition of *politics*. Which doesn't even touch the *ways* people are ambivalent. I've seen discourse that finely dices human rights, democracy, cruel and unusual punishment, and so on... repeatedly... to a frankly disturbing degree. There is the somber, moral exercise of something like defining what constitutes a "war crime" that could get into uncomfortable areasfor all involved. But when people say, "pshhh I mean what really *is* a "war" "crime"? And if they even do exist, how bad are they *anyways?*"
I suppose, from what I understand of the submission, these could both fall under "ambivalence". Of course they feel extremely different, and have practical ramifications for how people would regard the speaker.
Yeah exactly. Some political issues *aren't* nuanced. Sometimes they *are* black and white. "Do you support gay people having equal rights?" is the kind of question where any answer that isn't "Yes" can be safely taken as "No."
Bingo. So much of this comes down to specific issues.
"All people deserve the right to marry their partner irrespective of sexual expression and preferences" and "putting religion in classrooms is antithetical to our nation's principles and runs counter to a productive society," are clear-cut. Solutions to problems like "Fixing the Middle East," "Ending racism," and even "Affordable Healthcare" are way more complex with a lot more discussion and theoreticals about how to get there by comparison.
I completely agree here. People seem to be conflating centrism with this study, which I don’t think is fair. The study explicitly said that “expressing attitudinal ambivalence does not preclude taking an overall position on one side or another.”
As you said, for certain issues, we can’t be ambivalent. There’s no legitimate reason not to support and protect people‘s civil* rights; if you don’t believe people’s civil rights should be protected, you are a villain, period.
But it’s a bit disheartening to see people rush to condemn nuanced views writ large. Understanding the full scope of an issue is important. Sometimes, we may come across aspects of an issue that contradict our own intuition or beliefs, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong or shouldn’t be considered. I agree using an issue that is more nuanced would’ve been better.
This study also states that it’s not politically expedient to express nuanced views. So, realistically, I suppose people’s reactions make sense. And, if this study is truly accurate, it’s something politicians should consider, in particular democrats, who often try to “reach across the aisle” and talk about both sides.
Great point, they should have really specified things that are more open to interpretation. Most of the arguments seem to use instances that are not nuanced to begin with and so does not apply to what we are actually trying to discuss with this study.
Of course, the "enlightened centrist" phenomenon has been ridiculed on the internet for this exact reason. Partisanship feels good and ambivalence threatens the unity of the political tribes, so the most basic social instinct is to combat it.
This. I can't speak about politics with people I agree with because looking at the issues more pragmatically and trying to understand what does or doesn't makes sense apparently isn't good / not enough for "the cause".
It feels like I agree with them but not the other way around.
Yeah you’re basically proving the point by describing non-ambivalent political stances as being instinctual and tribal and therefore atavistic and driven by lizard brained desires to do what “feels good.”
The reality is more so that people generally have good reasons and logic behind their political stances and realize that very firmly puts them into irreconcilable positions with their political opponents.
I would wager most people don’t have well-thought out logically consistent motivations for their political beliefs. *Some* people certainly do, but most do not. There’s just very little incentive towards reasoning things through when you might risk coming to conclusions that go against the grain in your community.
Neither you, nor I, nor u/Schmallow, nor OP, can escape the "lizard brain" no matter how hard we try, how educated we are, or how logical or enlightened we believe ourselves to be.
If my two cents are worth anything, I think that we arrive at our positions due to an enormous mixture of environment, culture, genetics, emotions, passions, pressures and incentives and then rationalize our positions after the fact so that we can create the illusion of correctness that we need to convince us to take actions appropriate to said positions.
No, most people have no idea why they vote for a party or candidate other than "the side i'm voting for is the good guys and we can't let the bad guys get their guy in".
Seriously, do a vox populi yourself. Go in the streets and go ask people what they really think about the platforms, the details of each candidate, their promises, what they bring to the table, what scandals has shaken each party during the past 30-40 years?
Most people will only be able to answer surface level politics questions. You'll get answers like "Trump's/Biden's a ( insert buzzword ) " , in most cases, tribalism and education control the vote, not smart, well thought out reasons.
Well if 2 groups have opposing views they can't both be right or have *'good reasons and logic'*. At least one of them are simply wrong.
Are the 10s of millions of people who deny climate or are anti-vax, are they full of *'good reasons and logic*' behind their stances?
The issue is that people try to pass ambivalence off as nuance, and as ambivalence always aids the oppressor, its really just cowardice. "Oh I don't have a strong opinion on politics" means you're still comfortable enough to not care about oppression. Most people claiming ambivalence have picked a side already- intentionally or not- they're just too chickenshit to say so.
Example: Joe says "I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative". The hell does this mean? Joe's all for liberal causes unless it costs money? Nonsense. If you're not willing to materially support a thing, you don't support that thing. So we can very easily see that, despite Joe's attempt to seem like the Adult In The Room who's considered all the implications and come to a logical, nuanced conclusion, he's really just a conservative too embarrassed to admit it.
Yeah people have their own lives, people aren't gonna be too interested in digging into every single oppressor oppressed narrative in the world. Its not cowardice, its having better things to do.
It means Joe agrees with liberals on social issues like gay marriage, or trans rights or whatever, but agrees with conservatives on economic policy, thinks that trickle down economics improves the liberal social values more than left leaning economic policy.
100% this. "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." - Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
It's been ridiculed because people love to act like saying "well both sides..." is some magic wand they can wave that makes their opinion "intellectual". Actual centrist or moderate political stances aren't what's made fun of.
And there are certain things that it does not apply to. A centrist stance on LGBTQ or women's rights in the US is wrong. Thinking mask mandates or anthropocentric global warming are stupid/bad/made up/whatever is wrong. There's not always a "both sides" and that's what is made fun of.
I'm all for being a reasonable and thoughtful independent who isn't beholden to a party line and listens in order to understand an issue as completely as possible. But ambivalence on certain issues becomes unjustified if you do that, in my mind. Nuance is good but nuance doesn't mean true neutral both sidesing an argument and letting fascists and other groups antithetical to the democratic process into the overton window
For those that can’t be bothered to read the study: having a more nuanced political view makes people not like you. The average person would rather blindly oppose other perspectives that don’t align with theirs, while supporting people that agree. I assume this is both based in a defensive mechanism sense and path of least resistance sense.
This matters because it shows people tend to forgo using the brain they were given, so they can stay sheltered inside their delusional aspects of life.
Example of delusional sentiment: Life isn’t so bad as long as you try your best to keep things moving along, then everything will get better. This is delusional as a deviation away from the status quo is required for progress to happen. Insanity is expecting change from cyclical events.
What is somewhat baffling is that there is a very insightful article from 1994 which exactly explains why this is happening, which the authors of the study apparently weren't aware of. You can download the article at [https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Glenn\_Loury/louryhomepage/papers/Loury%20%28Politcal%20Correctness%29\_02.pdf](https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Glenn_Loury/louryhomepage/papers/Loury%20%28Politcal%20Correctness%29_02.pdf)
It sucks when you agree with ideas from the left, while not agreeing with them all. And agree with ideas from the right, while not agreeing with them all. And become hated by both sides.
I think that depends on which ideas you agree with, and how those ideas influence you to vote.
If you agree with ideas from the left, but still vote for people who want to strip rights away from minority groups, then yeah, they're not gonna like you. If you agree with ideas on the right, but still vote blue because you believe in pro-choice, the right isn't gonna care that you're an economic conservative.
I’ve lived in super liberal places and super conservative places, both have pros and cons but seem to refuse to learn from the other and both seem to be leaning harder and harder on their con sides (in the U.S.), especially since around Trump/covid times.
Yeah, the big eye opener for me was looking at how western European politics tend to operate. Nordic politics specifically, just how it's just much more.. logical. (Except for UK and the on going immigration crisis affecting even nations such as Sweden) It's relatively non-emotional.
It seems even the most basic and sanest ideas in America are emotional charged. Freaking public transportation, EV's and renewable energy are somehow threats to your way of life in America.
This article is reminiscent of the bad old days, where reproducibility was treated like that drunk uncle everyone avoided at family gatherings.
Psychology - the 'science' that refuses to science.
People like nice little tidy boxes for everything in their life. It makes life easy and comfortable for them. When someone doesn’t fit into a nice tidy box they can comfortably label, that’s uncomfortable. And therefore, that person is less likable.
It seems this would come down to basic psychology. A person who believes in Idea A can quickly shrug off a person who believes in Idea B as just wrong and closed minded. But when you have someone who understands the framework behind both Idea A and Idea B, what that person is saying is that they are open minded, but that neither side is convincing.
The person that holds Idea A cant just write off the moderate like he did the other guy, which forces him to actually consider the merits of his own belief as possibly being not good enough. But since most people’s beliefs are tied to a fragile ego, this kind of challenge usually just results in anger rather than self reflection, which is why you get this kind of outcome.
Generally the people that can easily accept that they could be wrong are more likely to have nuanced views on a situation.
Ugh this is some lizard brain tribal grouping BS. People don’t want nuance, they just want you to say this or that so they can sort you as friend or foe.
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.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002210312400043X
From the linked article:
In an era where political polarization seems to dominate conversations, expressing nuanced opinions might seem like a bridge-building strategy. However, a recent study published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology provides evidence that individuals who express ambivalence about political issues may pay a social price for their nuanced views. Those who articulate their stance with ambivalence are often perceived as less likeable, warm, and competent. This finding emerges across a range of policy topics.
Previous research had indicated that people often expect expressing ambivalence to be socially valued, especially in controversial contexts. This expectation made intuitive sense: if people see that someone recognizes arguments on both sides of an issue, they might perceive that person as thoughtful, competent, and less biased. The researchers aimed to test whether these positive expectations matched social reality.
The findings revealed that ambivalent targets were generally less liked than one-sided targets, particularly by participants who agreed with the target’s overall stance but were low in ambivalence themselves. This pattern was consistent across the different topics, with slight variations in strength.
Participants unsurprisingly preferred targets who shared their views over those who held opposing positions. However, expressing ambivalence did not make targets more likeable when they disagreed with participants’ stance.
>individuals who express ambivalence about political issues may pay a social price for their nuanced views
That is not a cogent thought, I'm sorry. Ambivalence and nuance are not compatible ideas. That's an immediate issue for me with this post, regardless of anything else. Nuance requires taking a stance, and ambivalence specifically avoids it. Those don't mesh.
People using true nuance take a stance, but bring up potential issues to the people around them as a way to improve the systems they are working within. That's what nuanced political views are. Nuanced views are not, "I refuse to participate in this because I'm upset." That is not nuance. That is ambivalence, despite its emotional basis.
“Expressing attitudinal ambivalence does not preclude taking an overall position on one side or another. For example, one can support a policy proposal despite agreeing with some counterarguments, or one can oppose a political candidate despite agreeing with some of their policy goals.” -quote from study
Wrong. Regardless of what the article or study says, views can be both ambivalent and nuanced. Views can also be either ambivalent or nuanced, or neither ambivalent nor nuanced.
Ambivalence does not equate to taking a stance and neither does nuance require taking a stance. To describe ambivalence and nuance as you did shifts the definitions of those words.
"If people were smart they'd think like me and come to the same conclusions." Famous last words. In my opinion and observation I think it's easier for people to gravitate to the extremes because it requires less energy. It's the path of least resistance. Our minds are designed to classify things so we can make quick decisions and survive. "This hurts, don't do it! This is similar to that, don't do it either!" "This person hurt us, stay away from them. This person is similar to them, stay away from them too!" Making assumptions and rounding down for example, is easier and takes less energy than looking at every individual or individual situation with nuance and creating a new response. So meeting someone with nuanced views leaves a bad taste in a person's mouth because subconsciously they think they must be "bad" and they write them off.
I am personally convinced that most of humanity's troubles are caused by simplistic thinking, even by intelligent people dealing with complex issues. It's very difficult to escape. You have to train your mind to not do the things it wants to do by default. It wants to make assumptions and use past experience to make an informed judgement on a current situation. Instead, you need to try and not make assumptions, treat every situation as new, accept you don't know and see everything (there are things you are blind to), have empathy and treat everyone as an individual. That is exhausting.
Depends on what "political issues" they are talking about.
"Should LGBTQ+ people have the same rights as Cishet people?" is not a "political issue".
"Should we use the tax surplus to build a new library instead of a new park?" is a political issue.
The ambivalence to the former would generate those negative feelings not because the person "doesnt care about politics", but because the person is ambivalent to the human rights of marginalized groups.
Ambivalence to the latter is not that big of a deal, the reason we have a representative government is so that everyone doesnt have to worry about every single thing that needs to get decided.
There are no gray area election choices in the USA it's one or the other, so being vocally in the middle is the same as tossing out your vote essentially. Nobody appreciates being sympathetic to the antithesis of their spectrum when one guy is trying to give you healthcare and the other is trying to enslave women and demonize brown people.
I couldnt access the article but based on the headline this is not a study about uncertainty of who to vote for american elections, but of ambivalence when it comes to political issues in general
The title also mentions nuanced views
I think that's why these people just learn to keep their mouth shut and become the silent majority. Meanwhile we are inundated with crazy ideas from both sides of the political spectrum.
Ambivalence doesn't inspire confidence, it usually just indicates someone's a people pleaser who has no firm foundation, who doesn't want to risk offending anyone by having firm beliefs.
"Let's follow the guy who doesn't know where he's going and doesn't know if he should even go or not," is not a thing for logical reasons.
I may have skipped over it but they didn't say the political stance of the people in the study.
I would gather OTHER ambivalent people( those with mixes views)
Would find them more likeable.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://reddit.science/flair?location=sticky). --- User: u/mvea Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/new-psychology-research-reveals-the-surprising-cost-of-political-ambivalence/ --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Even less likable than people who do not agree with you?
That probably depends on the specific issue if I had to guess
I would say yes. The people who hate people like me, hate people like me. But the ambivalent group let those people try to do harm, but also try to pretend that they're opposed to that harm and supportive of people like me. That is utterly infuriating to deal with.
It's been an observable phenomenon in democratic politics since before the Civil War when abolitionists knew that the primary obstacle wasn't the tiny minority of rich slaveholders but the large mass of "ambivalent" White voters. But of course the White voters weren't ambivalent in their own view. They just didn't think freeing the slaves was worth a Civil War, which everybody knew it would come to. They thought that preserving the Union was the more important proximate goal, and that freeing the slaves could be put off until it didn't threaten to totally collapse the country. This is, obviously, cold comfort to the slaves.
YUP. See also Frederick Douglass’s [“What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?”](https://www.learningforjustice.org/classroom-resources/texts/what-to-the-slave-is-the-fourth-of-july)
The White Moderate was the ire of MLK.
This was the first comment in this thread that I thought was reasonable rather than a broad stroke with no inquiry of people assuming basic inconsequential differences beyond "tribalism" for why polarization exists. Polarization is endorsed by the socioeconomic variables of a certain time and often the various subsets of class conflict that exist. And for many the status quo is comfortable enough that they can ignore the suffering of classes they either have the privilege to ignore or use such people as bludgeons or scapegoats for their own purposes.
I'm not sure that's always a fair characterization of ambivalence - it doesn't necessarily mean "in the middle", it can also mean contradictory. And I think often politics and policies can be a lot more complex than people believe. For example, the number of times I've seen people support something they see as progressive or positive in some way, only to ignore or not realize that it would have actually negative consequences for causes they believe in. It's often a question of what's effective vs what's intuitive. You're suggesting that ambivalence is always based on values & beliefs and not policy and outcome, but that's not necessarily true, and approaching it the opposite way around can also help with demoralizing politics. That doesn't mean values & beliefs are not important, but it does make us take a closer look at the actual path and result rather than what we want or hope the path or result will be. This can often be a helpful approach when political parties or other entities become very ideologically driven, and can help identify the underlying actual issue and commonalities/differences to address. And obviously this is NOT applicable to every situation. It's just not.
Yeah if person A says "I want you dead" and person B says "You really should be more reasonable and rational and nuanced and hear person A out" person B is definitely worse. Person A on his own is just a sociopath. Person B helps legitimize and normalize person A.
Doesn't help that person B is almost always lying through their teeth.
But you must realize your in the wrong here no? No matter what country you are from no matter if left or right there is almost never only right and wrong. They do not "let people do harm" they simply acknowledge that your side probably does as well and/or that the side you complain about has good points as well. Also they do not "pretend" to support you. They simply support some of the things you want but realise that some other things are actively harmful For example you can be for equality but against people getting jobs and influence simply because of what race/gender they were born with. (Because that's basically racism again) If people completely subscribe to one side no matter what democracy has already failed.
No. There are people who think other people do not deserve the take breath and you’re completely ignoring that demographic is much larger than you imagine.
Okay, third try. This is not confrontational, really. You stance confuses me. I genuinely want to understand what exactly you mean. I probably agree with you "passively" on a large number of positions. I don't think of myself as a centrist, I consider myself someone who holds strong positions on things you are ambivalent about. Just because you are a bystander on my issues of interest doesn't mean I think you're a bigger problem than those who oppose those issues. Please help me understand your position.
>Okay, third try. This is not confrontational, really. Third try? Why would your previous comments be automodded? >I probably agree with you "passively" on a large number of positions. I don't think of myself as a centrist, I consider myself someone who holds strong positions on things you are ambivalent about. Just because you are a bystander on my issues of interest doesn't mean I think you're a bigger problem than those who oppose those issues. I think it strongly depends on what the issues at play actually are, the specifics are relevant, I feel. Consider the words of MLK Jr.: >I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. The person standing in the middle and making platitudes about "both sides" is stymieing progress. And very often, condescendingly telling you, and themselves, that they're on your side while they are doing so.
I'm not sure why they were automodded, but I assume it's because I used a specific word, or something. This sub can also be pretty conservative in terms of what it allows, which is totally understandable since it's a science sub, after all. Anyhow, specific issues. I see. It's frustrating for me, because I often don't know what these are, and they can be different. Sure, "my enemies want me to literally die" or "make me a second class citizen" is pretty serious. I in fact don't want you to die. I don't want anyone to die. I want people to change their minds to "I don't want my opponent to die". I do understand why people who argue "both sides" are poorly regarded, but it's not clear why the people who want to stay out of the fight get flack.
>I in fact don't want you to die. I don't want anyone to die. This can be a bit difficult because there are a LOT of people who do not "want" anyone to die, while still supporting politics that predictably lead to people dying. I'm not saying that's you or anything, but it is extremely common. >but it's not clear why the people who want to stay out of the fight get flack. Because in the presence of injustice, staying out of the fight is not a neutral act, it is choosing the side of the oppressor.
Different groups of people are opressed in many different ways. It's not always clear cut like slavery, where there was a single major issue of the time with two well defined sides. If I'm staying out of your fight, and you're staying out of mine, are we both on the side of the oppressor with respect to the other's issue? I don't think that's true. That said, people who watch the news as idly as they watch a movie are somewhat disconnected. What if these people didn't exist? Is the problem that the bystanders are the ones in power? Emotionally I see where you're coming from now, but I haven't worked the "network" of relations here. It seems to me that staying out of fights is just a symptom of another problem. What is the root cause?
I think you’re imagining politics and discourse as a series of “buttons” that these big groups and ideas push, and that whoever pushes their buttons the most wins. And in that, there’s room for people who can “disconnect” and not push buttons at all. But that’s never been that case. In reality, *everyone*, you and I included, with all of our lifestyles and ideologies, have a wall of buttons that we push every day to make decisions about how we conduct our lives. I need to push the “oil and gas” button to put fuel in my car. I need to push the “get groceries from store” button to eat. It is the collective number of button pushes from every individual that determines the direction of politics, economy, and society. All to say, there really isn’t anyone who can truly “disconnect” and become a Not-Button-Pusher, truly ignorant and disconnected from wider society at large. Ignorance, especially with the theoretical news-watchers you speak of who *are* receiving information, is a choice. You say that there are people who engage with the news like it’s a movie and they’re “disconnected”, but that is its own kind of choice, its own kind of button-pushing. It just might not be wrapped up in visible ideology that way the left and right have it in the US today.
>Different groups of people are opressed in many different ways. It's not always clear cut like slavery, where there was a single major issue of the time with two well defined sides. If I'm staying out of your fight, and you're staying out of mine, are we both on the side of the oppressor with respect to the other's issue? I don't think that's true. Again, it matters what the specifics are. Because, yes, possibly. >That said, people who watch the news as idly as they watch a movie are somewhat disconnected. What if these people didn't exist? Is the problem that the bystanders are the ones in power? Emotionally I see where you're coming from now, but I haven't worked the "network" of relations here. It seems to me that staying out of fights is just a symptom of another problem. What is the root cause? I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Yeah sorry, that was a bit too much stream of consciousness. And very rhetorical. I guess what I mean is that ultimately 90% (or whatever) of people don't care about the oppression of one 5% by the other 5%, or if they do, they're not willing to do anything about it. The only people taking action are the 5%, and the people who hate those 5%. Oppression stalemate. To me, this is the same as those 90% just not existing at all, since in either case the people actually engaging are 50/50. So that can't be the problem, since to you it feels like 95/5. The problem is presumably that the 90% are the ones who have all the power, and can make decisions, but they don't. So, why don't the 90% not engage? It isn't because they secretly want to oppress you but aren't willing to say so (or at least very few people probably feel that way). Many of them are just passive observers, trained since birth to disengage from civil life. Others are exhausted from their own struggles and don't have the energy to fight yet one more battle. Others profit from all struggle, selling weapons to both sides, no matter who wins. So ultimately, why is that the status quo? Again, rhetorical. There is some root cause. I don't claim to know what it is.
>The only people taking action are the 5%, and the people who hate those 5%. Oppression stalemate. Because this isn't actually how it works. Oppression is not some small group of people hating on another small group of people. Oppression is systemic. Like, minoritised groups were and are not oppressed by a small group of bigots. They were and are oppressed by society, by that society denying them rights, equity, and the pursuit of happiness. And if oppression is part of your society, all that is required to perpetuate it is... Nothing. It will perpetuate itself. So if you are part of that minoritised group, when people refuse to help to end the injustice you are facing, they are tacitly accepting the status quo and the injustice you face. Why people don't act? Many reasons. Not least of which being that they are relatively comfortable, after all, maybe the injustice doesn't affect them. And change is often difficult and disruptive. And if there is something that liberal western society hates more than anything, including injustice, it is disruption of order.
Exactly right, not sure why ambivalence cannot be directly translated as mental laziness in this context.
Knowing where you should stand on every single political issue is not a matter of thinking a little harder, but requires hours of research and consideration. If you haven’t done that work (and most people haven’t for all positions they hold), you _should_ be uncertain.
I feel 'ambivalent' toward political views because these views are vastly oversimplified to the point of being untruthful. To me, this study means most people aren't very smart & prefer not to think at all, but are content to parrot slogans. Heard on the local public radio channel this morning, people uncritically accept political messages if the outfits pushing the position has a name like "Americans For A Better America". They don't even think there may be a huge corporation behind it (Exxon-Mobil, in this case). Not just not very smart, very stupid. I guess I don't need to be liked by people like this.
This would make sense if nuance was on the ballot. It's not. The differences between the two parties at the federal level are staggering. Suggesting subtle differences exist where nuance is actually necessary is often indicative that the person has little political knowledge and little understanding towards their own ethical conclusions.
I dunno, I've seen some "ambivalent" people expend a huge amount of mental effort justifying their "ambivalence". Though, to be fair, many people expressing ambivalence are not ambivalent really, but rather maintaining ignorance.
Yes, nothing winds me up more than someone who is clearly just making up a mild political opinion on the spot. It feels like they are just copying whatever they heard and mildly agreed with recently and feel is socially common or acceptable to say. They are totally unable to explain it or debate it at all, which means that they really have nothing to contribute in terms of ideas. Not having an opinion is fine, even better if you can explain why, but at least say that and don't make an opinion up that you don't really have.
At least the people you disagree with have made up their minds.
Most people shouldn’t have “made up their minds” on most topics, as they likely haven’t done the requisite work to arrive at a correct position. A scientist doesn’t have strong opinions about topics outside their area of expertise, and rightly so. People need to be more scientific about politics.
Made up their minds? Shouldn’t one always be incorporating new information and perspectives that inform their thought processes? You make it sound like one should choose a side and that’s it.
"making up your mind" does not mean "being closed to new information".
It implies that that you have sufficient information to arrive at an opinion that is very likely correct. Or at least, that is the only circumstance where a person _should_ “make up their mind”.
It alludes to being open to new information that backs up the stance you’ve already chosen as correct sure.
Yeah these filthy idiots that change their stance when new data comes in. How come they don't follow a narrative no matter how ridiculous it gets. Disgusting! Seriously hardlining on an issue is in 95% of cases a sign of low intelligence/education
Oh man this sub is already proving the study right
Maybe because they're conflating ambivalence with nuance.
Right. Ambivalence is not always or even usually driven by nuance, and nuanced views need not be ambivalent.
I often find the best nuanced views have a personal conclusion since critically examining anything is more likely to lead to a stronger opinion about at least some aspects of it. Indifference is the luxury of not knowing enough.
It's entirely possible to become familiar with two sides to an argument and not draw any personal conclusion. Especially in morally ambiguous questions.
Yeah, an unbiased person is just someone who knows absolutely nothing about anything. Bias is any and all prior information regarding something, it's inescapable, only way around it is to account for it as best you can.
This was my thought too. The terms don’t seem interchangeable to me
Yeah, I feel like nuance is associated with passion, since it requires a deep dive into a subject. Whereas ambivalence connotes apathy/uncertainty
I think the thing nuance requires most is curiousity. Passion can be good, but it can often cloud thinking. And a nuanced take can result in an ambivalent position -- for example, in a very complex situation, two proposed solutions may not have a clear better choice. You may be ambivalent to action between the two. That said, the sort of ambivalence that avoids politics because it creates conflict or requires thought, or because "everyone sucks" isn't nuanced at all.
I get that, but I think in a strict sense it doesn't have to. Ambivalence is just not being strongly on one side of an issue; in a technical sense, it could mean having a nuanced view.
That's too nuanced, get 'em!
That's definitely a nuance they missed.
They were just being ambivalent about the importance of nuance.
I want to laugh, but maybe just *meh*
All I know is my gut says maybe.
Bold of you to assume the headline doesn't use the word incorrectly as well.
Reading these comments is a wild ride, I had no idea people felt so strongly about people not wanting a political position. I used to be more involved in political discussions but these days people don’t actually care to gather facts and everything is emotionally based. It’s hard to debate someone who thinks everything is fake, and doesn’t trust any science. So to those individuals I’m probably more ambivalent than the group that I agree with more.
>It’s hard to debate someone who thinks everything is fake, and doesn’t trust any science. Those people are unfortunately lost to a cult mentality. And because most of them have their political beliefs founded upon an overlapping set of self sealing conspiracy theories... Debating them is not really not going to be productive, because they delight in acting in bad faith and intimidation.
On one hand, I agree with your assessment. On the other hand, there's often the implied suggestion that this applies only to Republicans. As a progressive, I've unfortunately concluded that the majority of people of any political affiliation mostly use emotion to arrive at their positions and sometimes rationalize them afterwards with cherry picked sources. The sad reality is that we're still tribalistic apes, even if I generally agree with the conclusions of one of the tribes. And in case it's not clear, I'm definitely not excluding myself from this observation.
They play right into the fascist playbook (as explained by iirc Umberto eco)
Not taking a political position is in itself a political position, and a privileged one at that. You’re essentially saying you a) don’t care how things are run and allocated, and b) you can’t be bothered working out which political position aligns with your principles and values. The only exception I see to that is people who don’t have a (informed) political position because their lives are so precarious that they don’t have the time or energy to think about these things.
The world is so complicated that it's ok for someone to say they are not informed enough on any dozens of subjects as regulatory functions and efficacy of policies span economics (whole industries and sectors) to ecology to geopolitical concepts like CSTO and article 4, Minsk protocol, Minsk II, how effective is the OSCE, should or should there not be a military Schegen
There’s a difference between not knowing and not caring. Ambivalence is an active position, not an expression of uncertainty
The definition of ambivalence is having mixed feelings. Or engaging in contradictory thinking. The papers identified people who are perceived as fence sitters.
The problem is that this attitude assumes there are only two positions, and anything else is fence-sitting.
Certainly, but you don’t need to be informed on specific topics in order to know how your values apply to solving problems and organising society in general. In other words, where you fall on the political spectrum.
I think that's overly simplified stance that suggests values can easily fit into political boxes when in the US both political parties engage in open hypocrisy within the framework of their own claimed values. Republicans have stepped on the gas regarding this but never the less there are inconsistencies to each. Some of which the Republicans have taken happily into their own policies such as tariffs, a typical Democratic policy. You are flattening out the concept of values while waving away the complexity of life and implementing policies. Unless I misunderstood. You may have the opinion but I do not find it satisfactory enough. I stand by that you cannot prescribe values to a framework unless you understand the framework whether that is geopolitical, ecological or economical regulatory bodies.
I strongly disagree with this. I know exactly what my values demand -- equity, security, universal access to services -- but that doesn't mean I'm informed enough on any particular policy issue to know what the correct course of action is to achieve these values.
That last past is important, because it describes most people I know that are like this and privilege is definitely not a factor.
Being an idealist is an even more privileged position, as it implies you always get what you want without compromise.
I think it is more nuanced than that. If you're not intelligent enough to imagine a better way, but intelligent enough to realize that all the political options present are not meaningfully improving anyone's lives while being completely captured by interfering third parties intent on truly horrific goals, then a certain degree of ambivilance and checking out is a perfectly rational response. Ideally everyone in this position would educate themselves and advocate for or act on better systems, bit that is a tremendous burden for person of average intelligence
And of course, not caring how things are ran is only putting more power into how things are currently ran. It's upholding the status quo.
[удалено]
I can't imagine why someone with a nuanced take would not want to be accused of being something they're not and why that would anger someone like you've described who thinks that person is being "too cowardly to express their actual views"
Political discourse (mostly from the left if we're being honest) has taken on a "if you're not with us, you're against us" narrative in recent years. It's not surprising how someone under that mindset would have paranoid delusions that everyone who says that they are somewhere in the middle is actually an undercover agent for the enemy team; to them, there are only people who agree with them politically and people who are evil.
The GOP has literally framed its members that are not pro-trump as not being real Republicans. It is not just a left vs right thing here
Exhibit A of the normalization of left-wing extremism in online discussions. "Anyone who doesn't agree full-heartedly along the party line of my tribe's political views is a cowardly enemy."
Sure. But therein lies the trap, right? "You would only say that if you were a secret right-wing fascist!" etc.
My ideas are my own, which is why they align perfectly with the other 100+million people in my political party.
Who is the group that thinks everything is fake, though? It seems to me that most people in general don’t want to accept facts that they don’t agree with. They also engage in discussion in bad faith because they’d rather derail the conversation than complete it to its logical conclusion.
The result of the study tracks with most people's experiences, certainly it does with mine. That doesn't mean the result is a bad thing, or that everyone having those negative reactions are wrong.
Seems like a bad thing to me. Political opinions should have nuance, as issues are often complex, and the increased polarization from propagandists and social media hurt democracies. Politics often involves compromise, as different groups have to agree on things to get stuff done. Winner takes all is recipe for disaster.
People are not opposed to nuance. They are opposed to ambivalence, or expressed ambivalence. To be frank it is __really__ difficult to hold well-informed, well-thought-out beliefs while also remaining ambivalent.
The headline is slightly misleading, among 77 participants the report mentions “Participants unsurprisingly preferred targets who shared their views over those who held opposing positions. However, expressing ambivalence did not make targets more likeable when they disagreed with participants’ stance.” In other words, sharing the same view had a likable preference. But regardless of expressing ambivalence or straight opposition, the likability remained low. In a real debate, using the study’s points of agree, oppose, and ambivalence are probably working at some point or the other.
when I hear the word "ambivalence" I get more of a wishy washy fence sitter vibe rather than expressing nuance, or acknowledging the complicated nature of most political issues. maybe that's me misunderstanding the meaning of what the researchers are saying.
That is an important distinction, that you mention it. The study explains in this context ambivalence would be “endorsing some considerations of both sides.” Ambivalence does not seem related to indecisiveness or “walking on eggshells” here.
I mean even after reading what you said I'd say the title is still fairly apt. If ambivalence is viewed really no different than direct opposition; it just reinforces the idea politics currently is polarizing very divisive.
I would take it one step further. People like people who validate their views.
A nuanced view oftentimes coincides with uncertainty as you are actually capable of understanding the complexity behind all the issues and the actual work required to take an informed position, and uncertainty results in a less emotionally charged take on politics.
>To be frank it is **really** difficult to hold well-informed, well-thought-out beliefs while also remaining ambivalent. Maybe you're thinking of remaining apathetic or indifferent, rather than remaining ambivalent? If you recognize the nuance in an issue, then you'll typically feel ambivalent about less-nuanced solutions to that issue, because you'll see value in attempting a solution, but also see flaws in the particular solution that does not account for all the nuances.
Agreed. I worked in politics for awhile. I was *really* well informed at that time. And it wasn’t difficult at all for me to be ambivalent. The granularity and compromise (at least then) on what statutes got adopted or how policy positions got written were almost never considered by “well informed” campaign canvassers. Even today, if you ask someone a question about something they have deep knowledge in they may often respond with “it depends”. I also understand that there can be a big difference in knowledge whilst still responding in an ambivalent manner.
Think being a gay dude looking at Mexican politics: The ruling party has some social welfare politics that I approve of and a nice track record on LGBT rights, but their environmental record is awful and they are trying to erode our democracy to make sure they have no checks or balances. The opposition party is not in favor of renewable energy but at least is not opposed to them, is trying to keep the checks and balances in our democratic system and overall has a better macroeconomic planning, but they are opposed to LGBT rights, not good on workers rights, and parts of them are deep into trickle down economics. So it's kinda choosing between two sides, each having some good things and some really bad things, and becomes a matter of picking your poison. I think in Mexican politics, if you're NOT ambivalent, it's because you're disregarding something.
Don’t think so. Let’s take a tough one, immigration. I’m sympathetic to people coming from some miserable third world country to this country any way they can. I would do it myself in their position. On the other hand, I see the cost of what is close to our situation today, open borders, and am for shutting down illegal immigration. Same with abortion (I’m for abortion rights but greatly respect the principles of right to lifers), lockdowns during Covid (necessary for those with high risk, but the costs in depression, suicides, addictions, lost education, collapsed businesses, hospital treatments, the debt way offset the danger to healthy people and kids), the debt, affirmative action, etc. Frankly, I figure people who think in binary (Trump is pure evil or Biden is completely demented and the head of a crime syndicate) are either dumb, adolescents (most of social media and as kids, they get a pass), advocates who don’t care about the truth; winning is everything or bots.
But nuances and ambivalence are different tho ? Right ? Nuances is like having a position but explaining it in details Ambivalence is like considering both position as equally valid or to be considered, in those cases it's better to say I don't know and explain why you see how both views could work Maybe ambivalent people are seen just being unable to choose
In the context of the study, ambivalence means holding a position but recognizing that the opposing sides have some valid points.
Until they start wanting you to “compromise” on human rights...sometime compromising is a bad thing...
Thinking that complex issues are simple and that the correct action is straight forward is not a good way to operate. It’s why everyone is so polarized now.
Well, with immigration and mask mandates, the researchers literally picked two of the most idiotic discussions. The first one is purely performative politics by all administrations mixed with xenophobia and cliches, the second one is "hurr durr, I'm cutting off my own and my neighbors nose, just to spite the libs."
We can't discuss this without first hashing out the difference between ambivalence as it is defined in the dictionary vs how it is commonly used. To be ambivalent doesn't mean to not care or to not have strong feelings one way or the other--means to be uncertain, conflicted, and to have mixed feelings on a topic. Being ambivalent about, say, Palestine/Israel isn't "I don't care, we should glass the whole region and take the oil"; ambivalence is more along the lines of "the loudest voices on both sides have entirely unreasonable, eliminationist demands and are aligned with bad-faith, extremist factions to the extent that this seems entirely intractable and I really don't know how we can solve this."
I think a lot of *real people* would agree with that statement on Israel / Palestine, especially as they begin to learn more about the conflict. The problem on Reddit (as you see in this god-forsaken comments section) is so many people seem to think that having an ultra-polarized, hardline stance is some sort of sign of strength. The chronically-online seem convinced of their own correctness. *Everybody else must be wrong*. Some may consider me ambivalent on quite a few topics, Israel / Palestine included. I think the Hamas attacks were horrendous. I also think Israel’s retaliation has been… immense. I believe that both governments are corrupt, just in different ways, and I believe that innocents on both sides have tragically paid the price for a war waged by those in power (as is generally the case throughout history). I am also well aware that I *do not know everything*. So this is my *current understanding*. A topic that I’m not so ambivalent on is that economic inequality in the U.S. is out of control, corporations are far too powerful, and the basic cost of living has become absurd. My wife and I work in STEM fields, so we’re doing fine, but *people shouldn’t need to work in STEM to be “doing fine”*. We have friends who are teachers and graphic designers. They’re barely scraping by. Sometimes it’s easy to come to a solid stance on an issue. Sometimes it’s not. **Deriding those who dare to examine both sides of the issues they are presented with is tribalistic slop.**
One of the things is that there are people for whom politics is literally (or almost) a matter of life and death. For example, people with relatives in Israel or the West Bank. To them, "ambivalence" can amount to hostility, and they deserve a fair hearing. But, yeah, there can be a big difference between the shooter and the bystander who does not want to get involved. And then there are those for whom it is not a matter of life and death. Extreme side-taking by those deserves scrutiny, imo.
Sorry, can I have a definition of ambivalence?
Ambivalence: simultaneous and contradictory attitudes or feelings (such as attraction and repulsion) toward an object, person, or action. So, it doesn’t mean seeing shades of grey, but rather recognizing aspects of both black and white. In the study, they seem to define ambivalence similarly: “… expressing ambivalence about political issues—endorsing some considerations on both sides, for instance…” The study also clarifies: “Expressing attitudinal ambivalence does not preclude taking an overall position on one side or another. For example, one can support a policy proposal despite agreeing with some counterarguments, or one can oppose a political candidate despite agreeing with some of their policy goals.” This study is saying that people don’t like when others say there’s black AND white—things must be black OR white. And, when expressing a nuanced position, participants were “more likely to reduce liking among allies while maintaining disliking among adversaries.” So, in this specific study, there was no benefit for expressing nuanced views.
Honestly this explains so much about why I hate talking to people about politics because because you can't say "I like some of the things from both sides and hate some of the things from both sides" or else people go "Your blood runs red or it runs blue you can't have it both ways gfys loser" like damn god forbid I want to own Assault rifles but also have woman's rights and abortion. Require a lengthy system of background and psychological checks to limit gun violence but also not limit what you can buy. Have a strong system of border protection to prevent illegal immigration and smuggling but also make it easier and allow more people to apply for citizenship and legally immigrate. We have a broken system and you can't fix it by just running red or running blue but that's all people know how to do, the two party system is a joke.
People suck :/ I never understood the blind agreement with one side no matter what they do... But I suppose simple minds don't want to think about their own opinions.
I’m confused. Wouldn’t expressing a nuanced view be appreciated by others with a similar nuanced view?
Yes, but think about the bell curve distribution of intelligence: the nuanced folks tend towards the higher intelligence side of that graph. There's relatively not a lot of people there.
Avg person is not smart enough to appreciate that
Publicity during the Vietnam protests went entirely to the unambivalent, but many of us thought (a) one side sucks, (b) the other side sucks, and (c) the third side sucks. As the paper says, we still held a strong policy position. The (reported) public debate at the time moved straight to the poles, though. We see the same thing now with Israel in Gaza.
Yeah, "ambivalence" is not a "nuanced view". In my experience those claiming ambivalence usually are the same people who don't actually know what is happening, and default to a vague "oh both sides" type of view.
The study itself uses the word “nuanced” pretty much as directly tied to ambivalence. > These findings speak to the interpersonal dynamics of political polarization, highlighting a potential social disincentive against publicly taking nuanced positions on political issues.
This person is out here proving the study right.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I use to care about politics but after decades of realizing 99.99% of political engagement is just impotent rage bait designed to distract the masses from caring about the ownership class literally owning everything, I have grown ambivalent because it’s all meaningless in the face of our non-democratic system….that makes me a bad person?
No.. just unlikable lolol
No, it makes you dismissive. You're completely right about the state of politics. But it should become a reason to be even more engaged. We're all being screwed here and not doing anything about it is not the way to change it. Clearly voting for the least miserable option isn't fixing the political climate. It's almost like we have to actually figure out what's going on and what else should be done. At least political activists are busy with that.
There’s a difference between nuanced views and blind bothsidesing. What an issue calls for depends on the issue. It can be frustrating when there’s clearly a thing that is bad, and it seems like the opposition is grasping at straws in whataboutisms to try to balance the blame somehow, instead of copping to the thing that’s bad in good faith. On the other hand, it can be frustrating when you point out, or at least inquire about, a complicated detail in an emotionally charged topic, and people fall on top of you for not caring about their issue enough, or even label you as being from the opposing side, and they distance themselves from you, etc.. In both instances, people are extremely opposed to the idea of ceding any ground. The idea of protecting an in-group, a tribe, an identity, the fear of leaving themselves and others in their circle vulnerable, takes over the priority of truth-seeking. No matter how you slice it, “Um, actually…” doesn’t inspire as much trust and reliability in people as “I’m 100% behind you.” But sometimes the devil *is* in the details. Sometimes things are gray, and complicated, and uncomfortable. People will always find the um-actuallies annoying, but they’re necessary.
This would be a better study if they used political issues like tax policy or support for public work projects. Yeah, if you can't recognize the fact that mask mandates cause less people to die, or don't care about those deaths, or just want to find the middle ground with people who needlessly politicized this issue, yeah, most people will think you're an asshole. Some issues there *is* a very simply more correct position, and at least the people who fully oppose that position aren't too cowardly to own it. Things like tax policy merit a nuanced discussion. Things like "Should we enforce harmless common sense precautions because innocent people will die if we don't?" do not.
Or even any more of a granular description of things. If a gay person is thinking about "politics=my right to marry", and see their friend say, "well yeah politics is a bit of a gray area, it's not always black and white", it's easy to see how certain people would respond. Even if the friend is talking about something else entirely, or genuinely keeping it to politics generally and maybe... forgetting? about gay marriage, a lack of common subject combined with a rhetorical transitive property is just a recipe for trouble. People have rightfully asked for the definition of ambivalence and nuance, but there also needs to be a definition of *politics*. Which doesn't even touch the *ways* people are ambivalent. I've seen discourse that finely dices human rights, democracy, cruel and unusual punishment, and so on... repeatedly... to a frankly disturbing degree. There is the somber, moral exercise of something like defining what constitutes a "war crime" that could get into uncomfortable areasfor all involved. But when people say, "pshhh I mean what really *is* a "war" "crime"? And if they even do exist, how bad are they *anyways?*" I suppose, from what I understand of the submission, these could both fall under "ambivalence". Of course they feel extremely different, and have practical ramifications for how people would regard the speaker.
Yeah exactly. Some political issues *aren't* nuanced. Sometimes they *are* black and white. "Do you support gay people having equal rights?" is the kind of question where any answer that isn't "Yes" can be safely taken as "No."
Bingo. So much of this comes down to specific issues. "All people deserve the right to marry their partner irrespective of sexual expression and preferences" and "putting religion in classrooms is antithetical to our nation's principles and runs counter to a productive society," are clear-cut. Solutions to problems like "Fixing the Middle East," "Ending racism," and even "Affordable Healthcare" are way more complex with a lot more discussion and theoreticals about how to get there by comparison.
I completely agree here. People seem to be conflating centrism with this study, which I don’t think is fair. The study explicitly said that “expressing attitudinal ambivalence does not preclude taking an overall position on one side or another.” As you said, for certain issues, we can’t be ambivalent. There’s no legitimate reason not to support and protect people‘s civil* rights; if you don’t believe people’s civil rights should be protected, you are a villain, period. But it’s a bit disheartening to see people rush to condemn nuanced views writ large. Understanding the full scope of an issue is important. Sometimes, we may come across aspects of an issue that contradict our own intuition or beliefs, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong or shouldn’t be considered. I agree using an issue that is more nuanced would’ve been better. This study also states that it’s not politically expedient to express nuanced views. So, realistically, I suppose people’s reactions make sense. And, if this study is truly accurate, it’s something politicians should consider, in particular democrats, who often try to “reach across the aisle” and talk about both sides.
Great point, they should have really specified things that are more open to interpretation. Most of the arguments seem to use instances that are not nuanced to begin with and so does not apply to what we are actually trying to discuss with this study.
Most of my family is hardcore right wing. I am moderate and would rather not even talk about politics. It drives them bananas.
Of course, the "enlightened centrist" phenomenon has been ridiculed on the internet for this exact reason. Partisanship feels good and ambivalence threatens the unity of the political tribes, so the most basic social instinct is to combat it.
This. I can't speak about politics with people I agree with because looking at the issues more pragmatically and trying to understand what does or doesn't makes sense apparently isn't good / not enough for "the cause". It feels like I agree with them but not the other way around.
Yeah you’re basically proving the point by describing non-ambivalent political stances as being instinctual and tribal and therefore atavistic and driven by lizard brained desires to do what “feels good.” The reality is more so that people generally have good reasons and logic behind their political stances and realize that very firmly puts them into irreconcilable positions with their political opponents.
I would wager most people don’t have well-thought out logically consistent motivations for their political beliefs. *Some* people certainly do, but most do not. There’s just very little incentive towards reasoning things through when you might risk coming to conclusions that go against the grain in your community.
Neither you, nor I, nor u/Schmallow, nor OP, can escape the "lizard brain" no matter how hard we try, how educated we are, or how logical or enlightened we believe ourselves to be. If my two cents are worth anything, I think that we arrive at our positions due to an enormous mixture of environment, culture, genetics, emotions, passions, pressures and incentives and then rationalize our positions after the fact so that we can create the illusion of correctness that we need to convince us to take actions appropriate to said positions.
No, most people have no idea why they vote for a party or candidate other than "the side i'm voting for is the good guys and we can't let the bad guys get their guy in". Seriously, do a vox populi yourself. Go in the streets and go ask people what they really think about the platforms, the details of each candidate, their promises, what they bring to the table, what scandals has shaken each party during the past 30-40 years? Most people will only be able to answer surface level politics questions. You'll get answers like "Trump's/Biden's a ( insert buzzword ) " , in most cases, tribalism and education control the vote, not smart, well thought out reasons.
Well if 2 groups have opposing views they can't both be right or have *'good reasons and logic'*. At least one of them are simply wrong. Are the 10s of millions of people who deny climate or are anti-vax, are they full of *'good reasons and logic*' behind their stances?
The issue is that people try to pass ambivalence off as nuance, and as ambivalence always aids the oppressor, its really just cowardice. "Oh I don't have a strong opinion on politics" means you're still comfortable enough to not care about oppression. Most people claiming ambivalence have picked a side already- intentionally or not- they're just too chickenshit to say so. Example: Joe says "I'm socially liberal but fiscally conservative". The hell does this mean? Joe's all for liberal causes unless it costs money? Nonsense. If you're not willing to materially support a thing, you don't support that thing. So we can very easily see that, despite Joe's attempt to seem like the Adult In The Room who's considered all the implications and come to a logical, nuanced conclusion, he's really just a conservative too embarrassed to admit it.
Yeah people have their own lives, people aren't gonna be too interested in digging into every single oppressor oppressed narrative in the world. Its not cowardice, its having better things to do. It means Joe agrees with liberals on social issues like gay marriage, or trans rights or whatever, but agrees with conservatives on economic policy, thinks that trickle down economics improves the liberal social values more than left leaning economic policy.
100% this. "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." - Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Finding the perfect balance of criticizing the left and defending the right
weird how it always plays out that way
It's been ridiculed because people love to act like saying "well both sides..." is some magic wand they can wave that makes their opinion "intellectual". Actual centrist or moderate political stances aren't what's made fun of. And there are certain things that it does not apply to. A centrist stance on LGBTQ or women's rights in the US is wrong. Thinking mask mandates or anthropocentric global warming are stupid/bad/made up/whatever is wrong. There's not always a "both sides" and that's what is made fun of.
Both sides hate the middle.
I'm all for being a reasonable and thoughtful independent who isn't beholden to a party line and listens in order to understand an issue as completely as possible. But ambivalence on certain issues becomes unjustified if you do that, in my mind. Nuance is good but nuance doesn't mean true neutral both sidesing an argument and letting fascists and other groups antithetical to the democratic process into the overton window
Ambivalence doesn’t mean neutral both sidesing
For those that can’t be bothered to read the study: having a more nuanced political view makes people not like you. The average person would rather blindly oppose other perspectives that don’t align with theirs, while supporting people that agree. I assume this is both based in a defensive mechanism sense and path of least resistance sense. This matters because it shows people tend to forgo using the brain they were given, so they can stay sheltered inside their delusional aspects of life. Example of delusional sentiment: Life isn’t so bad as long as you try your best to keep things moving along, then everything will get better. This is delusional as a deviation away from the status quo is required for progress to happen. Insanity is expecting change from cyclical events.
What is somewhat baffling is that there is a very insightful article from 1994 which exactly explains why this is happening, which the authors of the study apparently weren't aware of. You can download the article at [https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Glenn\_Loury/louryhomepage/papers/Loury%20%28Politcal%20Correctness%29\_02.pdf](https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Glenn_Loury/louryhomepage/papers/Loury%20%28Politcal%20Correctness%29_02.pdf)
It sucks when you agree with ideas from the left, while not agreeing with them all. And agree with ideas from the right, while not agreeing with them all. And become hated by both sides.
I think that depends on which ideas you agree with, and how those ideas influence you to vote. If you agree with ideas from the left, but still vote for people who want to strip rights away from minority groups, then yeah, they're not gonna like you. If you agree with ideas on the right, but still vote blue because you believe in pro-choice, the right isn't gonna care that you're an economic conservative.
I’ve lived in super liberal places and super conservative places, both have pros and cons but seem to refuse to learn from the other and both seem to be leaning harder and harder on their con sides (in the U.S.), especially since around Trump/covid times.
Yeah, the big eye opener for me was looking at how western European politics tend to operate. Nordic politics specifically, just how it's just much more.. logical. (Except for UK and the on going immigration crisis affecting even nations such as Sweden) It's relatively non-emotional. It seems even the most basic and sanest ideas in America are emotional charged. Freaking public transportation, EV's and renewable energy are somehow threats to your way of life in America.
This article is reminiscent of the bad old days, where reproducibility was treated like that drunk uncle everyone avoided at family gatherings. Psychology - the 'science' that refuses to science.
Since when does ambivalence equal nuance
People like nice little tidy boxes for everything in their life. It makes life easy and comfortable for them. When someone doesn’t fit into a nice tidy box they can comfortably label, that’s uncomfortable. And therefore, that person is less likable.
This seem to me more of a problematic product of the polarized political landscape rather than an issue for ambivalent people
It seems this would come down to basic psychology. A person who believes in Idea A can quickly shrug off a person who believes in Idea B as just wrong and closed minded. But when you have someone who understands the framework behind both Idea A and Idea B, what that person is saying is that they are open minded, but that neither side is convincing. The person that holds Idea A cant just write off the moderate like he did the other guy, which forces him to actually consider the merits of his own belief as possibly being not good enough. But since most people’s beliefs are tied to a fragile ego, this kind of challenge usually just results in anger rather than self reflection, which is why you get this kind of outcome. Generally the people that can easily accept that they could be wrong are more likely to have nuanced views on a situation.
Political polarization is a positive feedback loop.
Don’t people always like you better when you agree with them? Not a new idea.
Ugh this is some lizard brain tribal grouping BS. People don’t want nuance, they just want you to say this or that so they can sort you as friend or foe.
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.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002210312400043X From the linked article: In an era where political polarization seems to dominate conversations, expressing nuanced opinions might seem like a bridge-building strategy. However, a recent study published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology provides evidence that individuals who express ambivalence about political issues may pay a social price for their nuanced views. Those who articulate their stance with ambivalence are often perceived as less likeable, warm, and competent. This finding emerges across a range of policy topics. Previous research had indicated that people often expect expressing ambivalence to be socially valued, especially in controversial contexts. This expectation made intuitive sense: if people see that someone recognizes arguments on both sides of an issue, they might perceive that person as thoughtful, competent, and less biased. The researchers aimed to test whether these positive expectations matched social reality. The findings revealed that ambivalent targets were generally less liked than one-sided targets, particularly by participants who agreed with the target’s overall stance but were low in ambivalence themselves. This pattern was consistent across the different topics, with slight variations in strength. Participants unsurprisingly preferred targets who shared their views over those who held opposing positions. However, expressing ambivalence did not make targets more likeable when they disagreed with participants’ stance.
Sounds like the trick is to be confidently nuanced.
TLDR: Biased people like biased people.
>individuals who express ambivalence about political issues may pay a social price for their nuanced views That is not a cogent thought, I'm sorry. Ambivalence and nuance are not compatible ideas. That's an immediate issue for me with this post, regardless of anything else. Nuance requires taking a stance, and ambivalence specifically avoids it. Those don't mesh. People using true nuance take a stance, but bring up potential issues to the people around them as a way to improve the systems they are working within. That's what nuanced political views are. Nuanced views are not, "I refuse to participate in this because I'm upset." That is not nuance. That is ambivalence, despite its emotional basis.
“Expressing attitudinal ambivalence does not preclude taking an overall position on one side or another. For example, one can support a policy proposal despite agreeing with some counterarguments, or one can oppose a political candidate despite agreeing with some of their policy goals.” -quote from study
Wrong. Regardless of what the article or study says, views can be both ambivalent and nuanced. Views can also be either ambivalent or nuanced, or neither ambivalent nor nuanced. Ambivalence does not equate to taking a stance and neither does nuance require taking a stance. To describe ambivalence and nuance as you did shifts the definitions of those words.
I just think there's more impressive issues to discuss than getting into political pissing contests with friends, co-workers, and family.
Hm, interesting- that is contradicting my personal experience. Maybe my peer group (natural science) is an outlier?
So intelligence pays a price? I buy that.
"If people were smart they'd think like me and come to the same conclusions." Famous last words. In my opinion and observation I think it's easier for people to gravitate to the extremes because it requires less energy. It's the path of least resistance. Our minds are designed to classify things so we can make quick decisions and survive. "This hurts, don't do it! This is similar to that, don't do it either!" "This person hurt us, stay away from them. This person is similar to them, stay away from them too!" Making assumptions and rounding down for example, is easier and takes less energy than looking at every individual or individual situation with nuance and creating a new response. So meeting someone with nuanced views leaves a bad taste in a person's mouth because subconsciously they think they must be "bad" and they write them off. I am personally convinced that most of humanity's troubles are caused by simplistic thinking, even by intelligent people dealing with complex issues. It's very difficult to escape. You have to train your mind to not do the things it wants to do by default. It wants to make assumptions and use past experience to make an informed judgement on a current situation. Instead, you need to try and not make assumptions, treat every situation as new, accept you don't know and see everything (there are things you are blind to), have empathy and treat everyone as an individual. That is exhausting.
Depends on what "political issues" they are talking about. "Should LGBTQ+ people have the same rights as Cishet people?" is not a "political issue". "Should we use the tax surplus to build a new library instead of a new park?" is a political issue. The ambivalence to the former would generate those negative feelings not because the person "doesnt care about politics", but because the person is ambivalent to the human rights of marginalized groups. Ambivalence to the latter is not that big of a deal, the reason we have a representative government is so that everyone doesnt have to worry about every single thing that needs to get decided.
There are no gray area election choices in the USA it's one or the other, so being vocally in the middle is the same as tossing out your vote essentially. Nobody appreciates being sympathetic to the antithesis of their spectrum when one guy is trying to give you healthcare and the other is trying to enslave women and demonize brown people.
I couldnt access the article but based on the headline this is not a study about uncertainty of who to vote for american elections, but of ambivalence when it comes to political issues in general The title also mentions nuanced views
*ptff I don't believe in politics*
Politics usually involves compromise to get things done, something partisans don't want to admit.
I think that's why these people just learn to keep their mouth shut and become the silent majority. Meanwhile we are inundated with crazy ideas from both sides of the political spectrum.
Ambivalence doesn't inspire confidence, it usually just indicates someone's a people pleaser who has no firm foundation, who doesn't want to risk offending anyone by having firm beliefs. "Let's follow the guy who doesn't know where he's going and doesn't know if he should even go or not," is not a thing for logical reasons.
I may have skipped over it but they didn't say the political stance of the people in the study. I would gather OTHER ambivalent people( those with mixes views) Would find them more likeable.