Social Science Breakthrough… Is It?

What’s your problem? Is it the smells?

The cloud of exhaust combined with burning rubber, stale beer, armpits in muscle shirts, and fried snickers barfs at the tractor pull? Or is it the incandescent veil of simmering patchouli, lit by kombucha slugging, tree huggers, wearing Jesus sandals, that triggers you?

Can you surmise a person’s political party affiliation by their appearance and personal lives?

A Washington Post article discusses the results of a study by social scientists that purports to reveal “why American politics are so intensely polarized;” Political psychologists have discovered that each party has given way to contempt for the other side. Sometimes scientists are so far removed from the real world that they believe what we all knew is a breakthrough they unearthed. Can the super sciency, thinky political psychologists tell us something we didn’t know?

Is there anything in this study that can help us understand one another so we can live in the same harmonious ignorance we did before #45?

https://apple.news/Av0QGw0FnR_63Cd0II9M2CA

Social Scientists have studied my feelings. The summary of the 👆🏼 feature employs words like “tribalism.” It also makes use of a modern academic term, “affective polarization” which means we divide naturally into similarly inclined groups.

An example by Lilliana Mason, a political scientist from Johns Hopkins University, asserts, that if we dress young children in t-shirts of a limited variety of colors, and wait, the palette will determine how the group segregates itself.

Social scientists have deduced we seek people with whom we share commonalities. What a genius, groundbreaking revelation! [Sarcasm]

I’m disappointed in myself for feeling the need to qualify my remarks in those brackets. I do it to head off insults hurled by readers who lack humor, dark or otherwise. By cutting them off, I have proven the theory of the social scientist whose work I just scorned. I choose to segregate myself and write for like-minded readers.

You know me by now. I write with a sharp edge of bitterness, dusted in angst, sprinkled with irony, and glazed with sarcasm. Sounds delicious. How many new readers would I risk offending by not qualifying my words? Few if any. I’ve hit a plateau in my numbers, you and I have found each other, and none other exist.

Who pays for these studies? I would be willing to conduct t-shirt experiments with children, or better yet, I’ll do it with adults using red and blue baseball hats. Whatever these people charge, I will undercut their pay by $10. ☎️ me.

Anyone who ever entered a high school cafeteria renders the study unnecessary. Tina Fay nailed it in “Mean Girls.” The fetch-tarts, the cheat-chain, Napoleon Dynamite dorks, the indies, jockocrats, theater-weirdos, the EmoNotOkays, programming hipsters. Forgive me if I missed your table.

We have all chosen our teams. My words will persuade no one.

We need to talk to new voters: the generations raised with active shooter drills, those who still ovulate, and the entire group, young and old, who are shackled with predatory student loans.

Listen duckers, THE ONLY CHOICE IS BIDEN.

I’m feeling *sweary today, so I am taking a break to review and try to class this up. Done. What was an F is now a D- you’re welcome.

*neologism: I feel like swearing

The biggest threat is not Trump because regardless of polls, he doesn’t have the votes. We should be worried about third-party candidates who are intentional spoilers, funded by Republican donors. Grow up.

The rich don’t want us to have a return on our investment in Social Security. They hate the idea of raising the minimum hourly wage. It has been $7.25 since 2009. No one can live on that. Top earners have continued to collect raises. What happened to the middle class? We are working harder and longer for less. We are grunt workers, and many will never see retirement. It should not be normal to need two or three jobs to make ends meet.

Metaphor time:

Imagine constructing a pyramid of cheerleaders. Several people act as the principal support at the bottom. There are middle layers that must have both strength and balance. But the accolades don’t go to those straining and trembling. Only one person, the one who climbs over everybody else, scaling to the top, gets the glory. Shouldn’t we appreciate everyone?

Social scientists must justify their employment with studies, and in this case, they have oversimplified the subject. They have also ignored the risk we face. Comparing political polarization to t-shirt colors minimizes the existential threat to life as we know it, posed by the GOP. It is no longer a political entity; organized crime has taken the reins. Their goal is to keep their tax-exempt status and to give Ukraine to Russia.

I will never change my political views; we can say the same about Trump supporters. How do we persuade the undecided and new voters not to throw away their vote on a third party?

Philosophy. Duck the social scientists. I prefer to analyze our problems by considering and the ideas of one of my ancestors, (maybe not a relation) Greek philosopher Aristotle.

Ethos: Character, Trust, Credibility

• Can character exist in a group that lies about everything?
• How can you trust a group that states their intention to end Social Security?
• What credibility does a third-party candidate have, when they know they can’t win, but are in the race to spoil results by splitting Democratic votes?

Pathos: Emotions, and Imagination

• Do you have the empathy to believe everyone deserves healthcare? Do you care about child labor laws and child marriage? Shouldn’t we restrict gun sales—keeping them out of the hands of domestic abusers and the mentally ill, banning AR15 style weapons, requiring training and licensing for all guns, like we do with cars?
• Imagine you are a woman of childbearing years. Wouldn’t you consider it a basic human right to have bodily autonomy?

Logos: Logic, Evidence, and Consistency

• One political bloc works for the middle class and the poor, the Democratic Party of President Joe Biden. Isn’t it logical to choose that candidate who has proven himself to be fighting for your rights? The most affluent 1% among us is focused on their self-interests, which will be protected by the opposing nominee. The choice is to preserve your Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and regain your autonomy, or to ensure politicians bribed by the rich to help them avoid paying taxes turn us into an authoritarian nation. How will you vote?
• Do you want your ballot to hold the same weight as votes in other states? We will never abolish the electoral college unless democrats gain majorities in all three branches of government.
• Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, bodily autonomy, LGBTQ rights, border funding and reform are consistent in that they are basic human rights.

In conclusion, (Thank God, the end of this post is near, amIright?) your vote must be for Joe Biden.