Do you expect that human brain adaptation occurs differently for some reason in environments where "individuals who share an ideology" happen to not be sharing "American" ideologies?
In non-media-hyped societies, voters of different parties can sit on the same table and talk about their lives without ever touching political issues. This kind of polarisation is a US phenomenon that is spreading worldwide like wildfire through mass-media outlets.
Yeah, I'm sure that would've gone over well in Germany in the 30ies, NSDAP members and KPD members discussing their lives without touching political issues.
Case in point from where I live: Bulgaria. Just 10 years ago I can remember a time when Facebook was used primarily for sharing family photos and journeys. Now it has become a toxic pit where grumpy and bitter aunties are reading fake news and writing insulting name-calling comments after anyone who expresses disagreement. Political figures are impulsively posting short write-ups, full of emotional hatred. Short memes and news-invented neologisms are circulating all over the societal discourse. Problems that were once non-existent in Bulgarian society, are now discussed with vehement enthusiasm and basic misunderstanding.
Unfortunately we don't have access to an alternate universe where Bulgaria has taken the same trajectory in all things but Facebook, Twitter etc had been banned.
But my guess is: it wouldn't have mattered. I don't believe that we get that behavior because Facebook enables us to be petty. I believe that we get that behavior because of the circumstances (i.e. rapidly changing economical and cultural environment that make people fearful and uncertain and will make them fall back on their core values) and people realizing that you can convince/manipulate others better if you deliver your messages in a short, meme-style format, appeal to their emotions, play into identity politics and "own" the other side. Even if you outlawed Facebook, once politicians, activists etc realize that this works, they'll use it in whatever media you allow.
The only winning move (individually) is not to play, at least that's my experience. You can tune out, concentrate on whatever you deem important and the world won't fall apart just because you're not spending your time and energy explaining to people that they're being manipulated, because after all, most things move slowly. Before each election, everybody speaks as if this was the one that matters. As if, should they lose this time, all is lost because they will destroy everything. And afterwards, everything just trots on as it always has (Yes, I'm sure there are exceptions, but in most countries the situation isn't exceptional). And if you do play and try to educate others about their manipulated intellects, all they'll see is that you are being manipulated and you're now trying to manipulate them. It feels great sometimes to tell them off and get applause, but you won't change hearts and minds, and you should be aware that it's a game.
On the other hand, I firmly believe: if you want to improve society, hug the bitter aunties, ask them how they've been and share some traditional food you can bond over, that'll make it much easier to communicate and find common ground.
Hmm, is the article talking about party members, or just people who identify with certain beliefs? Its seems to me like you risk comparing apples and oranges.
It was, but it wasn't "a US phenomenon that is spreading worldwide like wildfire through mass-media outlets". People don't need mass-media with a 24-hours news-cycle and social media bubbles to get polarized.
> it might be a case for societies where is a stronger group identification (e.g. identification for the nation)
Did you mean nation as in ethnicity? Because otherwise I think the US's identification with the nation is pretty strong across both camps.
> And again, American political system is rather unique in the Western world.
It is? Even with multiple small parties, you'll still largely get ideological camps. It's rare that you have parties that pick their ideas from all over the place.
> Nation can be seen as an consensus ideology and if you share some opinions you can get along better on other topics.
In some sense, it's the job of public education, particularly through the curricula of history and $local-official-language, to establish that consensus ideology - to create unity by exposing everyone to the same large landscape of stories, opinions and beliefs, so that any two people of a nation can quickly establish some common ground between themselves and get along.
> to create unity by exposing everyone to the same large landscape of stories, opinions and beliefs
Or, in other words: to the same reality (it doesn't matter whether it's factually accurate, only that it's widely shared).
Is there a way back to more shared reality without one side wiping out the other? A common threat that just makes the differences in perception meaningless next to the shared perception of that threat? Aliens invading would probably help, at least temporarily. Maybe, if you keep that up for two generations, they'll have forgotten most of the ideological identities that had divided them, and will only rediscover them after some amount of lasting peace?
Sure, and some political decisions have broad consensus in the US as well, e.g. Medicaid. But that really doesn't say much, because other topics are different and the NHS being broadly accepted doesn't help with collectivism vs individualism, pro/anti-EU etc.
to refer back to my original point: Other nations have a more common ground so the study result might not apply to other countries. I think I showed enough reasonable arguments for that potencial case.
Because American "ideologies" also correlate strongly to city vs rural, skin color and ethnicity, and other factors, which is not necessarily the case in many/most countries whereas there might be more choices, and the kind of people believing in each more equally diatributed...
I live in Germany and I would say, that is very much the case here, in fact probably more so than in the US.
And in any case, why would you expect this to not be the case? Should people in different living circumstances magically have the same beliefs, interests and desires?
>Should people in different living circumstances magically have the same beliefs, interests and desires?
Magically no, just practically. Which is often the case, because the ideologies concerned don't touch on rural vs urban "beliefs, interests and desires" but other divisions, like progressive vs conservative, environmental vs economic push, nationalist vs regionalist, and others. Sometimes the "beliefs, interests and desires" are even irrelevant, as dominant parties offer the same kind of programs, and it's just party loyalty that gets one to one or the other.
Germany has 5 parties in parliament (with sizable representation), the US has had two for a good while (with insignificant independent inroads). German party ideology is much more segreggated and divided among states than in Germany. Germany is much more homogeneous by population. And many other factors besides.
You obviously did not get around much, and never ventured out of your peer group abroad. If anything, humans are remarkably similar, and that similarity transfers even to the ugly of racism, sexism etc.
Just because some country has no empire to project the ugly, doesent mean its not there.
I've actually travelled all around the world (including the US), but thanks for the irrelevant ad-hominem...
>If anything, humans are remarkably similar, and that similarity transfers even to the ugly of racism, sexism etc.
Which is neither here, nor there.
Nor does every country/culture has the same levels of racism, sexism, etc. Same way they don't have the same levels of religiousness, mass shootings, and so on.
Naw, alot of the mass shooting is just empire violence, the individual thinking itself something elevated by virtue of being part of society, can no longer take insults/setbacks and goes on a rampage against the insulting other and its future.
Its all been there and it has been widespread, though not always in this shape and form.
Religiosity in the U.S. used to be a source of tolerance and even liberalism. That's because though predominately Christian, the U.S. was diversely Christian, composed of denominations and sects that were previously and in some cases contemporaneously killing each other in Europe.
I think it's a worthwhile reminder as it provides an example of two things: 1) religiosity is not synonymous with conservatism and balkanization, and 2) diversity is not synonymous with an inability to cooperate or share an identity.
