pull down to refresh
360 sats \ 3 replies \ @SwearyDoctor 15 Dec 2023 \ on: Why Are Corrupt Politicians and Governments Believable in Movies? culture
One of the most important rules in sociological interviewing is, "don't ask people straight questions and believe their answers." There is this weird fallacy that when people say things, it comes from a direct pipe from their innermost beliefs. This is, of course, BS. We all know it is, really.
What happens here is this: People do very well know these people are corrupt. But there's a difference between knowing it implicitly, knowing it explicitly, and SAYING it. because saying it out loud commits you to things. Acknowledging things out loud comes with the pressure of having to change one's behavior toward the thing you just named.
There's an old experiment about violence on a bus. When ypu ask someone about witnessing, say, someone being cornered and robbed on a bus, many people would say they'd so something. In reality, nobody ever does. What actually happens is that people find alternative points of attention and concentrate on those, ignoring what's going on: looking very intently out the window, reading their newspaper (not so much looking at phones, for.. obvious reasons). They're creating this super forced impression "I'm too busy seeing other things, I don't notice". Of course they do, it's obvious that they do, any denial is completely unbelievable - but if you engaged with it, looked at it, others SAW you looking at it, you'd communicate: I know. Any inaction now becomes a stain on the person's character.
if you make it known, openly, that you believe in their corruption, you now have to openly live with the knowledge of living in a broken system; that becomes the narrative, and going on as before is a stain on your character. Openly clinging to the narrative that things are fine lets you go on about your day, toil away in your fiat job, do the rounds a good citizen is supposed to do.
(By the way, the USSR did not fall like this. There was actually a referendum in the USSR on the continued existence of it; 3/4 voted yes. https://external-preview.redd.it/hC4EpQm9Y2BEiVXD1Z1xG36NIiWtFBBES-eYgY70bGo.jpg?auto=webp&s=331162370f81b2422fc456a7cf625f81aba50573)
I don't know as much about how sociologists get around "cheap talk" issues, but it is interesting how psychologists and economists have adopted radically different methodological approaches to it.
Psychology experiments notoriously depend on deception. They get the subjects doing one activity and convince them that it's the experiment, but in reality something else is going on that the researchers are interested in observing. The idea is that if the subjects are unaware of the true experiment they won't be dishonest in their responses.
Econ experiments explicitly eschew deception and instead rely on designing incentive compatible experiments. Where true responses are elicited through a payment structure that rewards them.
reply
What you referenced is known as the Bystander effect:
Thinking of or applying this effect to fiat usage is interesting.
reply
Very solid logic.
On the USSR, I'm not arguing that a majority wanted it to fall. I'm saying that enough lost faith that it crumbled. Of course why they lost faith is obvious. It was terrible.
You just got through saying asking people what they want/believe doesn't work. Then you cite results of a vote. In a communist nation no less. They aren't gonna be honest.
My point is that the people were lying to themselves until they could no longer do that. Enough people wanted change and the system fell.
These are my impressions at least.
reply