Date: April 14, 2025 Source: Washington State University Summary: Wealth inequality began shaping human societies more than 10,000 years ago, long before the rise of ancient empires or the invention of writing. That's according to a new study that challenges traditional views that disparities in wealth emerged suddenly with large civilizations like Egypt or Mesopotamia

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/30972521

"Without public trust, effective climate policy is impossible," warns Vincent de Gooyert, sociologist and lead scientist of a paper jointly authored with several researchers from the Dutch Radboud University published this week in Earth System Governance.

"You see this, for example, in the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS). This technology is essential for achieving climate targets, but it is still barely off the ground. Industry wants government subsidies, the government says there is no public support for this, and society wants to see industry take responsibility first. But then you're stuck in a vicious circle."

...

The climate debate is currently often framed from a techno-economic perspective, explains De Gooyert. “Every solution must have direct market value. If that is lacking, no one is willing to take the first step. But a solution such as CCS has no direct market value. In addition to technology, regulations and subsidies, you really need that support, because a policy without support mainly results in resistance.”

De Gooyert collaborated with colleagues Senni Määttä, Sandrino Smeets and Heleen de Coninck on the article. Their recommendations are based, among other things, on extensive experience with discussions between government, business, citizens and other stakeholders on climate issues. They work with environmental organisations, industry and governments in European countries including Finland, Sweden, Spain and Belgium.

...

"What keeps coming back is that policy only works if there is mutual trust. People often think that if we explain it well, support will come naturally. But then you mainly have one-way communication, and research shows that this can be counterproductive. What you end up with is people thinking: there go those arrogant policymakers again, telling us what's good for us, and if we don't agree, they'll push it through anyway."

De Gooyert and his colleagues advocate the use of independent, scientific advisory councils, but also initiatives such as citizens' councils. "Citizens must be able to form an informed opinion independently, and there must be room for complexity and nuance. We must be honest with each other in such sessions: there are difficult choices to be made, but people must be given openness about the options and the consequences. Citizens deserve a say in their environment. To offer comfort to local residents, governments and businesses will also have to make sacrifices. We won't get there with the current method. Then we'll remain in the situation we're in now: no one willing to take big steps on climate policy, while time is running out."

Just a, maybe naive, question from a noob to this kind of topic, but I wondered what Elon Musk once did on a stage, holding a chainsaw as if it was Excalibur. Then later I stumbled upon the Milei incident ~(from 2023)~ and just now I came across a promo for gardening equippment (see the added pic above) and what was placed prominently their? Not gloves or a hosepipe, secateurs or a lawn mover, but a chainsaw and the phrase "STIHL One-Man Power Chain Saw since 1959" ~[Emphasised by me]~

Is it just me, correlation, or is this some new kind of … of masculinism or the like and if so: do you think, that it is promoted by some peer groups or rather happens "naturally"?

And last but not least: If this is the wrong place to ask such questions, then please feel free to just remove my post. 🙂

Abstract

A well-functioning society requires well-functioning institutions that ensure prosperity, fair distribution of wealth, social participation, security, and informative media. Such institutions are built on a foundation of trust. However, while trust is essential for economic success and good governance, interconnected mechanisms inherent in weakly governed market economies tend to undermine the very trust on which such success depends. These mechanisms include the intrinsic tendency for inequality to grow, media to boost perceived unfairness, and self-interest to gain rewards at the expense of others. These mechanisms, if left unchecked, allow wealth concentration to result in state capture where institutions facilitate further wealth concentration instead of the promoting the common good. As a result, people may become alienated and untrusting of fellow citizens and of institutions. Several democracies now experience such dynamics, the United States being a prime example. We discuss ways in which well-functioning democracies can design institutions to help avoid this social trap, and the much harder challenge of escaping the trap once in it. Successful cases such as the ability of Scandinavian democracies to maintain high-trust, and the US progressive era in the early 20th century provide instructive examples.

///

So great how this is paywalled, right? >_<

Link to the article (archived): Ripping the public apart? Politicians’ dark personality and affective polarization -- [February 2025]

New research shows that dark traits of a political leader have an effect when voters feel ideologically close to the politician in question, while the personality traits of political opponents have little to no effect on the degree of polarisation.

In a new study published in the 'European Journal of Political Research,' scientists from University of Amsterdam (UvA), the University of Lausanne and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, linked the personality profiles of over 90 prominent politicians worldwide with voter attitudes in 40 national elections. The results reveal striking patterns. Politicians who score high on the so-called Dark Triad – narcissism (excessive self-focus), psychopathy (emotional coldness and lack of empathy), and Machiavellianism (a tendency toward manipulation and deception) – are associated with greater hostility toward political opponents among their followers.

[The] results suggest that the dark personality of top politicians can be associated with heightened affective polarization in the public – but only for candidates of voters’ in-party (that is, their preferred party), and only for high levels of ideological proximity between the candidate and the voter. The other personality traits have weaker effects, and the personality of out-group candidates (that is, candidates of voters’ most disliked party) seems overall rather marginal. In other terms, what our results suggest is a proximity effect for dark personality in elites.

According to the study, this is somewhat at odds with the popular idea that people might become cynical and radicalized due to how much they dislike the character of their political opponents:

What [...] results suggest is that dark traits in elites have an ‘in-house’ effect. It is ‘our’ candidate, in particular if we feel close to them, that drives our partisan animosity the most – specifically, their dark traits. In other terms, our models predict that it is in particular among very close supporters of dark candidates that we find the highest levels of affective polarization.

The trends shown in our analysis come with some notable limitations, the study says:

Allthough they stem from a large-scale analysis and should thus be more resistant towards critiques of low external validity, they nonetheless build on evidence that is essentially observational in nature, with the inherent risk of endogeneity. Specifically, our data and results cannot exclude the fact that voters self-select into being close to darker candidates because they are affectively polarized – and not the other way around. That is, we cannot prove that it is the dark personality of politicians that cause affective polarization to move upwards.

Democratic risks

The findings cast a critical light on the global rise of ‘dark’ leaders. According to the researchers, the confrontational and uncompromising personality traits of such leaders pose clear risks to democratic processes. ‘When the personal traits of leaders poison public discourse, the public’s willingness to cooperate weakens, social cohesion suffers, and ultimately democratic norms erode,’ says co-author Katjana Gattermann of the UvA.

The researchers call for greater awareness of the role (dark) personality plays in political leadership, in particular when these traits appear in strongmen. Nai concludes: ‘We have shown in previous research that dark personality traits are particularly frequent in authoritarian leaders and populists; the evidence seems thus to be piling up that narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism are important phenomena if we want to understand why politics, today, seems so confrontational.’

These limitations notwithstanding [...] the findings discussed in our article are furthermore worrisome in light of dynamics of democratic backsliding [...]. Dark traits seem to be particularly prevalent among autocrats and populist [...], suggesting a potentially nefarious intersection between uncompromising leaders, democratic deconsolidation and affective polarization. Further research should investigate these dynamics more in detail, including regarding the intervening role of (dark) communication strategies linking elites and voters directly.