Who is funding this calibre of research, they also found dogs are more likely to bite if you kick them in the head.
science
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
In the western scientific model, this is how we differentiate truths from anecdotes and assumptions. Not sure why this needs to be repeated in every thread about the results of research.
No one is casting aspersions on the scientific method or the value of research, what is questionable in this case is that the conclusion simply follows naturally from the hypothesis. The proposition here is that people who have opposing political views are more likely to be antagonistic to each other, that is a tautology.
And yet, you’ll see many people posting elsewhere on social media that it shouldn’t be relevant.
Can’t imagine trying to share a life with someone who didn’t share my values, but there seems to be a contingent that think that other things should be more important.
No one is casting aspersions on the scientific method or the value of research
In your original comment, it seemed like you were questioning why the study was funded, then compared it to another obvious cause-effect about kicking a dog. Did I misunderstand?
the conclusion simply follows naturally from the hypothesis
The conclusion might have confirmed your personal hypothesis, but we don't assume that any conclusion "naturally follows" a hypothesis without measuring it.
The proposition here is that people who have opposing political views are more likely to be antagonistic to each other, that is a tautology.
The way you phrased it is a tautology, but the study didn't measure antagonism. It measured whether couples broke up or not.
Couples with opposing views on many things face higher risk of separation, is this a surprise to anyone?
I love the virtue signaling the OP triggered haha
Something something floor made out of floor
This sounds like something I would tell my friends as a "joke" when we where all very tired.
I get that people on lemmy are usually very political, and a big chunk of their lives orbit around politics.
But for most people that's not the case.
I think that's why I see so many comments of people shocked that someone would date other person who would vote for a different political party.
If politics is not a priority on your life it won't really have much an impact on their relationship.
Talking from experience, I've dated people that have voted both the right and the extreme right. And it really didn't burdened our relationship. You must understand that our conversations usually never pivot about politics, and when we talk about politics we don't get passionate about it it's just more like "you think that? Cool I think this other thing. So... what are eating today?"
I suppose in long term when you are all your life with a person overtime there can be frictions, specially if one or both become more passionate about politics.
Several comments on here read like prime examples of “anyone who opposes me is a fascist”. Of course in conservative forums it’s similarly “anyone who opposes me is a lunatic Marxist”. Try having a relationship across aisles in this climate!
The study took 30 years to conclude but I wonder whether the current political climate makes it even more unlikely that people across political divides can form really any kind of relationship. I know I have found it difficult to maintain a relationship with anyone staunchly conservative even if political leaning has never been a main criterion for me in mate selection or in friendships.
The current political climate is different than before. It not falls along the lines of empathy. I don't see how marriages survive that in a healthy way.
That isn't to say they'll all divorce. Divorce rates are very tightly coupled to economic well-being and children. But I do think a lot more people are staying in horrible marriages if their partner has no empathy.
GOOD