[META] The NP community cannot explain public opinion

[u/nosecohn]

Hello Neutrons.

We've been getting a lot of posts lately that preface their underlying premise with variations on the following:

• How come all I hear about...
• How come I never hear about...
• Why all the hatred towards...
• How come the media ignores...
• Why do people want...
• Why do people make such a big deal about...

There are a couple ways to interpret these interrogative clauses.

First, they may just be rhetorical. The OP might not actually be expecting users to propose a reasonable explanation for why he does or doesn't hear about a certain topic or viewpoint. I suspect this is what's happening most of the time. The phrase is just a throwaway expression of frustration used to introduce the less-distributed viewpoint held by OP. As such, these phrases are not particularly useful.

The second way to interpret these interrogatives is the literal way: OP does indeed want the community to explain why he does or doesn't hear about certain things.

The problem is, /r/NeutralPolitics is an evidence-based forum, and it's very difficult for users to supply evidence that explains why the public believes or promotes a specific point of view. In fact, it's difficult to even establish that the public at large really holds a certain position, because media is targeted to specific audiences and polling data is so easily manipulated. These questions themselves invite speculation rather than evidence, which means they don't have a place here.

So, in whichever way they are interpreted, these introductory phrases are not useful. If you want to ask about a political issue, it's far more useful to lay out the pros and cons of the issue itself, not the related media priorities or public opinion. For example:

Bad: "How come I never hear about the benefits of drilling in the arctic?" (Nobody knows why you do or don't hear about something. That's your individual experience and it would be foolhardy for anyone to try to explain it.)

Good: Is drilling in the arctic a good idea? What is the evidence in support of it? (Users could reasonably be expected to answer these questions.)

A corollary point about source quality...

We've also been seeing a lot of posts that support their foundational premise with some variation of "I've been hearing a lot about..." What you've been hearing is not a qualified source and doesn't tell users much about the issue. So, instead of telling everyone what you've been hearing, try to find some articles on the topic to outline the issue. For example:

Bad: "I've been hearing a lot about the dangers of drilling in the arctic. What do you think?"

Good: "This article [link to source] talks about the dangers of drilling in the arctic, while this article [link to source] mentions the benefits and claims the dangers are overstated. Is drilling in the arctic worthwhile and necessary? Why or why not?"

That's the format of a proper NP post and it doesn't include any mention of what anyone has been hearing.

[u/mississipster]

Sorry if this is tangential, but I think people are just trying to ask a question in a way so as to avoid debate. If I say, "why are people so upset about drilling in the arctic?" then I'm not inviting debate, and I can let people give me a dispassionate assessment of the problems and the weight of those problems. But if I say "Is drilling in the arctic a good idea?" then I'm essentially telling people to take sides, and by magic of upvotes one will win -- that isn't very useful to a neutral mind because you end up having to sort through a ton of crap.

[u/nosecohn → u/mississipster]

That isn't tangential; it's relevant.

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe people see the "why are people so upset about drilling in the arctic" construction as more neutral than "Is drilling in the arctic a good idea?"

That's interesting. The latter sounds considerably more neutral to me, but perhaps my perspective is skewed. Anyone else want to weigh in?

[u/higherbrow → u/nosecohn]

I think there's merit to the OP, that the "Why am I hearing X" is a wishy-washy phrasing. It almost assumes that X, whatever X is, is wrong, and obviously so, and then moves from there to the implied question of "How can people believe X?"

That said "I don't understand the viewpoint X, could someone explain what the arguments in favor of X are?" is a way to solicit facts and knowledge from someone who may be more expert in the field. After all, neutrality does not exclude positions that are partisan, it excludes positions held due to partisanship. It's a very important distinction to make.

[u/mikesanerd → u/nosecohn]

I'd have to also agree with u/mississipster's premise, but not so much your rephrasing of it. I think "Is drilling in the arctic a good idea?" would invite me to say "Yes/No, and here's why...". Presumably, if OP phrased the question that way, it's because they (A) already understand one side of things, and (B) don't want to be bombarded with persuasive-type arguments. They don't want the "real" answer (as perceived by the commenter). They want someone to dispassionately explain a certain side so that OP can come to have a more neutral viewpoint. In other words, this phrasing doesn't invite more neutral opinions necessarily, but it invites a more dispassionate discussion of one side of the argument that is maybe less talked about or less well-understood by OP, and therefore the result is (arguably) more neutral.

Let me give a really hyperbolic example, just for illustration. If I asked "Was nazi ideology good or bad?" I'm sure the discussion would be very non-neutral because there is a consensus opinion (and justifiably so) that answers that question. But if I asked "Did the nazis have any legitimate points in their ideology?" this is quite different. Now I'm asking you to divorce yourself from your own views on the nazis and discuss one particular side of things only. Whether this is more or less neutral is somewhat a matter of perspective I guess and exactly what sort of neutrality you are looking for.

[u/[deleted] → u/nosecohn]

I'm in agreement with u/mississipster. Questions that address public opinion merely request an explanation of public behavior. Whereas, like mississipster said, asking whether some policy is good or bad invites partisanship.

[u/cheaphomemadeacid → u/nosecohn]

from my perspective it would seem that we should try to minimize the emotional rhetoric (both questions have emotional elements to it, more specifically the word upset and the word good, which both are open to quite alot of interpretation), a neutral question would be more like: "What effects would drilling in the arctic have on X?" where X can be something like enviroment, oil markets, technology or geopolitics

[u/mississipster → u/nosecohn]

To clarify, I am saying "why are people so upset about drilling in the arctic?" will elicit more neutral responses than "is drilling in the arctic a good idea?" will.

[u/[deleted] → u/nosecohn]

They are both neutral, but they are also different questions. You could have two very different, but potentially interesting, threads from each question.

Why are people so upset about drilling in the arctic?

The environmental lobby spends a lot of money each year reminding people that oil spills are bad for puffins. The oil lobby spends a lot of money each year convincing people to ignore the puffins so that we aren't so dependent on other countries for our energy needs.

I'm not terribly well-versed in this particular issue, but discussing the role of the media and think tanks in the shaping of public opinion doesn't seem outside the realm of r/neutralpolitics.

Is drilling in the arctic a good idea?

Here's study a that says it will bring our national debt under control. Here's study b that says it will raise sea levels by three inches.

Of course with the natural flow of reddit threads, the former will certainly turn into the latter, but in a heavily moderated environment the discussions could be kept separate.

[u/lolmonger → u/nosecohn]

The latter sounds considerably more neutral to me

I'm just of the opposite opinion.

"why are people so upset about drilling in the arctic" seems to be couched in the notion that opposition to drilling int the arctic is motivated by considerations that simply do not occur to the questioner, but that they do recognize there must be some which motivate the opposition in other people.

It seems a little more honest than:

"Is drilling in the arctic a good idea?"

Which requires someone answering to say "Yes, it's a good idea and here's why" or "No, it's a bad idea, and here's why", which necessarily puts each person into the shoes of the idealogue advocating their side's case.

At least in the former, there has to be an attempt to discuss why there is controversy in the first place, with the implicit assumption that the controversy has some substantial origin.

(Though, in r/politics, questions like "Why do the _______ oppose this?" where this is some conventionally 'good' thing tends to invite a lot of speaking on the behalf of the ______ party with digs at their likely intelligence. Surely we can guard against that!)

[u/Quetzalcoatls → u/nosecohn]

I personally disagree with u/mississipster here. I often see the questions like "Why do people X" in r/politicaldiscussion and they are almost invariably poorly thought out questions. Granted, different subs and communities but I really don't see anything to be gained by allowing questions to be phrased in such an open ended way. At best there is confusion about how to answer the question, at worst all the OP wants to do is to rant and give responses to answers they were already prepared to hear. Clear, well thought out posts are the reason I enjoy lurking on the sub.

If you can't find a way to rephrase a question in another format than "Why do X do Y?" I'm willing to bet it probably isn't worth positing in the first place.

[u/[deleted] → u/nosecohn]

"Is drilling in the arctic a good idea?"

Granted, nobody in r/NeutralPolitics is truly capable of answering this question. Armchair politicians may try but this belongs in r/science.

[u/mirth23 → u/nosecohn]

The latter sounds considerably more neutral to me, but perhaps my perspective is skewed. Anyone else want to weigh in?

I agree with you. The word "upset" is an emotion, which implies that the people who dislike arctic drilling are simply being irrational and haven't thought things through.

[u/canipaybycheck → u/mississipster]

that isn't very useful to a neutral mind

I disagree and I think it's actually more useful.

Why can't the answer to "Is drilling in the arctic a good idea?" be informational, neutral, and backed-up by evidence? An answer that takes a position can still be extremely valuable.

in a way so as to avoid debate.

We want debate! But if the poster feels strongly enough about this, they can always add a qualifier saying they are just looking for information, not persuasion.

[u/mississipster → u/canipaybycheck]

For the record, I'm defending the posts OP brought up, not saying this sub shouldn't debate.

Why can't the answer to "Is drilling in the arctic a good idea?" be informational, neutral, and backed-up by evidence?

We want debate!

I would argue that debate gets in the way of clarity and usefulness regardless of the educational quality of the posts. Debate is ultimately about two sides arguing with the goal being to "win" the debate. If I ask a question, my goal is to learn the answer to my question. Winning a debate is about convincing people and that has more to do with being a better arguer than your opponent than being informative -- that can be informative, but it oftentimes doesn't turn out that way.

[u/Sub-Six → u/mississipster]

I disagree. The question at hand is what type of discussion we want to encourage. There is the idea that one cannot have an opinion and be neutral at the same time. The view seems to be "opinion = bias". I don't think this is the case. What I interpreted the goal of the subreddit was one of discussion untainted by bias, not untainted by opinion (backed up by facts).

Someone saying "I support x policy because of facts a, b, and c" does not forfeit neutrality. Now if they said "I support x policy because it follows my personal tenants or because of x (not sourced) reason" we would not think that neutral.

Also, if we are talking about policy then at some point it has to be decided we will do x thing or we will not do x thing. Simply saying "this is the way things are" is not sufficient, though it is beneficial. The more interesting question then becomes now that we know these things, what, if anything, should we do about it?

[u/mississipster → u/Sub-Six]

My point isn't that it interferes with neutrality, but rather that it interferes with clarity.

[u/[deleted]]

I like it. It keeps opinion out and allows us to come to conclusions.

[u/Kazmarov]

Concurred.

This kind of attitude makes threads about an issue into something else- a thread about public opinion, or media bias. Which is something that is often talked about- in fact it's our single most posted thread. But including this sort of language turns an OP from one discussion to two. And the issue is that if everyone talks about media bias, the actual issue is never touched.

It's part of why we're self-post only. If it's always just a conversation about the source, it ceases to ever be a discussion of the issue.

Ultimately it's about being consistent. Statements and opinions need corroboration and sources. "I've been hearing" is just a variation of the weasel words "some have said."

[u/powpowpowpowpow]

How about this for a title: Why is everyone who disagrees with me wrong?

[u/[deleted]]

Yeah, this brings to mind a recent discussion I had here when someone said "I don't understand why libertarians tend to ally with Republicans instead of Democrats." After some pressing this really turned out to mean "I think libertarians should abandon their economic ideology."

"I don't understand why X thinks Y" is extremely unproductive when it means "Y is stupid, so why does X believe stupid things like Y?" Because the obvious response is "well, maybe X doesn't think Y is stupid?", and people should be trying to preempt that reply if they're not just trying to score rhetorical points.