Why Are Political Discussions More Heated Than Scientific Ones?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter klimatos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Scientific Threads
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the differences in the nature of political and scientific discussions within the forum, focusing on why political threads tend to become more heated and often lead to incivility. Participants examine the emotional intensity surrounding political beliefs compared to the objective nature of scientific discourse.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants observe that political discussions often devolve into personal attacks due to the emotional nature of beliefs, unlike scientific discussions which are more objective.
  • One participant suggests that a moderation system could help manage heated political discussions by delaying post visibility.
  • Another viewpoint highlights that political issues are often subjective and can have immediate, personal consequences, unlike scientific discussions which are based on established laws.
  • Some argue that the depth of knowledge in scientific topics is generally greater among participants compared to political issues, leading to more informed discussions in science.
  • A participant notes that misunderstandings in online communication can escalate conflicts, as the lack of non-verbal cues can lead to misinterpretation of intent.
  • There is a suggestion that certain political topics, such as global warming, could benefit from scientific scrutiny, indicating a potential overlap between the two domains.
  • Some participants express concern about proposed policies that would limit posting privileges based on post count, suggesting it could exclude less active members from discussions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that political discussions are more emotionally charged and prone to incivility than scientific discussions. However, there are multiple competing views on how to manage these discussions and the implications of proposed posting policies, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants express various assumptions about the nature of political beliefs, the effectiveness of moderation strategies, and the implications of proposed posting requirements, which remain unexamined in depth.

  • #31
Evo said:
That's another thing we are considering, in order to be allowed to post in P&WA, members will first need to have a minimum of 500 posts outside of the lounge. This will ensure that P&WA is a perk for dedicated members.

While I like this idea, the problem I see with this is that some people have a limited scope upon which they could comment outside of PWA, and this could encourage "spam" type posts. The nuclear engineering thread is not one of the more popular ones, and foe an Earth scientists, I imagine the number of threads that could be commented upon are even worse. True, I try to help out in physics and math when I can, but I prefer to leave that up to theose who have the PhDs, unless it's some aspect of undergrad.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
ThomasT said:
I take it that your OP is in response to the turn that the discourse in a recent thread (on whether the US should veto a Palestinian statehood resolution in the UN) took. I didn't see exactly why the thread was deleted or removed for moderation, as it was gone when I returned here tonight. Let me guess, were the Israeli and the Palestinian digressing to name calling and such? Too bad. But it's an understandably highly charged subject. On a positive (personal) note, each time I return to consider things in the ME I learn something.

Anyway, of course I agree with the theme of your OP.

let's just say that israel is always a touchy subject here.

----

and as for newbies and such, some of the worst offenders here are people with the most cred. and you will often see witch-hunts and such over what someone perceives as another person's true beliefs or motives.
 
  • #33
I did not insult anybody, but it seems the topics related to Israel are sensitive issue here.
 
  • #34
Bobbywhy said:
Since the topic of the OP was declared “temporarily off limits”, is there a place where members can see a list of off limits topics to check before posting a new thread?
It's the only specific "off limits" topic for P&WA.

The lists of other "closed topics" can be found by clicking the "Rules" link at the top of every page. But they're mostly to do with conspiracy theories from Skepticism and Debunking.
 
  • #35
Majd100 said:
I did not insult anybody, but it seems the topics related to Israel are sensitive issue here.
When posting crosses the line to hate mongering, it's not allowed.
 
  • #36
(evo, I've tried to pm you, but "Evo has exceeded their stored private messages quota and cannot accept further messages until they clear some space.")
Evo said:
When posting crosses the line to hate mongering, it's not allowed.

ah, but, to deal with hate mongering, is it better to delete it, or to publicly contradict it? :smile:

on some forums … or in some threads on this forum … such hate mongering goes uncontradicted

a deletion policy means that those who make up such things are in a "heads i win, tails i don't lose" situation …

their lies are never publicly contradicted :redface:

deletion may be intended to stop hate mongerers, but it actually helps them, since it both removes the downside of possible contradiction, and wastes the time of those who do contradict :rolleyes:

(and that's a lot of time … unfortunately, a lie that takes a few seconds to write can take up to an hour to investigate so as to be sure that it's completely made-up
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
tiny-tim;3501983 ah said:
hate mongering[/I], is it better to delete it, or to publicly contradict it? :smile:

In my opinion, it's better to delete it. Going into discussion with hate mongerers only gives them credibility.
 
  • #38
Evo said:
When posting crosses the line to hate mongering, it's not allowed.

you mean the way your anti-religion posts always go after a specific group?
 
  • #39
Proton Soup said:
you mean the way your anti-religion posts always go after a specific group?
Evangelical politicians? That's not hate mongering, that's posting articles of what politicians have said.
 
  • #40
Thread derails have been deleted. Let's all please stay on "this" OP topic.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Evo said:
Evangelical politicians? That's not hate mongering, that's posting articles of what politicians have said.

you rail against certain groups while giving protect status to an other. that's hate mongering.
 
  • #42
Heh, heh, think I have found an area to build up my post count if needed. As a former linguist, I was checking out the social sciences section, and lo and behold, it appears to be highly similar to P&WA.

More seriously, my impression was that many threads there ought to be moved in this direction.

...

Back to the OP: Here's a http://arstechnica.com/science/news...ured+Content)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher" on Science News interesting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
Proton Soup said:
you rail against certain groups while giving protect status to an other. that's hate mongering.

No, it's your opinion. And you're derailing the thread.
 
  • #44
micromass said:
No, it's your opinion. And you're derailing the thread.

no, it's exactly what this thread is about.
 
  • #45
tiny-tim said:
deletion may be intended to stop hate mongerers, but it actually helps them, since it both removes the downside of possible contradiction, and wastes the time of those who do contradict :rolleyes:

(and that's a lot of time … unfortunately, a lie that takes a few seconds to write can take up to an hour to investigate so as to be sure that it's completely made-up

on this we can agree.
 
  • #46
Proton Soup said:
no, it's exactly what this thread is about.

Is this thread about attacking Evo's posts?? I don't think so.

It's unfair to accuse Evo of hate mongering. She has her own opinion and she defends it. But she bases herself on facts and actual quotes.

You are making baseless accusation to another member, that is the derailing of a thread.
 
  • #47
Proton Soup said:
you rail against certain groups while giving protect status to an other. that's hate mongering.
People get posts deleted, edited, and warnings and infractions on all sides. Perhaps you fail to notice. I consider hate mongering when members here call for harm towards another group of people, or when they accuse them of false crimes.

Please stop derailing this thread. I don't know what your problem is, not long ago you accused me of giving you infractions just because I disagreed with you. I pointed out that I have never given you an infraction.

Keep derailing this thread and that might change. Just fair warning to stop.
 
  • #48
Proton Soup said:
no, it's exactly what this thread is about.

Might I kindly interject that the specific topics of other threads and personal styles in them is too specific for the broad notion of what it is that keeps many of us (myself certainly included) from seeking to be more objective and, at minimum, criterion-based? IMO the OP suggests we examine cognitive bias in general terms.
 
  • #49
Hlafordlaes said:
Might I kindly interject that the specific topics of other threads and personal styles in them is too specific for the broad notion of what it is that keeps many of us (myself certainly included) from seeking to be more objective and, at minimum, criterion-based? IMO the OP suggests we examine cognitive bias in general terms.

well, in that case, i guess a lot of it has to do with not being able to relate to groups and experiences outside your own. our own groups and experiences are axiomatically correct.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
23K
Replies
99
Views
26K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
9K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K