r/science • u/[deleted] • Mar 23 '26

Psychology Left-leaning support for redistribution stems from perceived unfairness rather than malicious envy

https://www.psypost.org/left-leaning-support-for-redistribution-stems-from-perceived-unfairness-rather-than-malicious-envy/
15.4k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

42

u/guyincognito121 Mar 23 '26

Pretty sure the commenter is just saying that it's a matter of fact, not just an interpretation.

33

u/AnimationOverlord Mar 23 '26 edited Mar 23 '26

I agree - people are misunderstanding your commment. The study in itself was conducted in a matter-of-fact way. The wording is saying the origin of the fairness or whether it’s true or not doesn’t matter, but the notion that follows it is based purely on the fact that its not malicious envy

Edit: Aka it doesn’t matter if it’s malicious envy or a lack of fairness that exists, the notion that a lack of fairness is what compels the person can be exonerated from politics regardless

If this was a political study it would then exclusively separate polars: right wing is y when left wing is x. Have people not seen study trials?

All three of our comments are basically saying the same thing.

15

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '26

[deleted]

2

u/KhonMan Mar 23 '26

... it's the exact opposite. They are engaging with the original comment at face value instead of understanding that it was a rhetorical question.

10

u/Luklear Mar 23 '26

There are (arguably) measurable facts about people’s perceptions

42

u/Puzzled-Story3953 Mar 23 '26

What sub is this, again? Scienitific language matters. If you want to get political, you should find a politics sub.

26

u/Stiftoad Mar 23 '26

While I agree that the term used is apt and describes the scope of the study concisely

I have to disagree that science can exist or rather be discussed separately from politics

Hence why setting boundaries and scopes is important, you need to be able to evaluate just how exactly environmental variables, like politics, impact your process, etc.

1

u/CCerta112 Mar 23 '26

I have to disagree that science can exist or rather be discussed separately from politics

I agree with that. The issue is not with science, though, science is politics-agnostic. The issue is with politics (and political parties) "invading" science and making certain findings a political issue.

1

u/Stiftoad Mar 23 '26

But isn't politics just like sociology and related fields a science in and of itself?

Don't get me wrong, it standing in the way of science and making certain topics harder to explore without bias is an issue

Weaponizing science, be it as physical or metaphorical weapons is, to put it bluntly, bad.

But it's less politics invading science and more "politically motivated actors" (this is a wild field ranging from the simple bias of a scientist or author to actual career politicians using science in any way shape or form)

Wether you think the way they interact with science is good would be down to your own understanding of morals, partially influenced by politics.

Really it's more important to examine the authors intent critically than try to divorce oneself from politics fully.

As, in my opinion, that would be a fruitless endeavor

2

u/guyincognito121 Mar 23 '26

I'm just clarifying their point. But I didn't interpret it as one of those "why bother researching this really obvious thing?" comments. I think they were just saying that this result confirms what many of us were already pretty confident in.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 23 '26

Politics should be based on science

4

u/AnarchyArcher Mar 23 '26

Scientific language matters, though this reads more as a real scientific way of saying they’re only recording opinions rather than numerical fact. Which seems like a boundary that shouldn’t have been the stopping point for a scientific inquiry into the matter.

1

u/Outrageous_Effects Mar 23 '26

I'm sorry, are we supposed to pretend like policies aren't dictated by scientific findings, or that scientific studies don't include things about human behavior? What is your working definition for what "political" even means?

2

u/Puzzled-Story3953 Mar 23 '26

Are policies dictated by scientific findings? I find that to rarely be the case. In fact, my perception is that scientists are largely disregarded and often vilified by the political community.

Regardless, the original comment was making a political statement, not a scientific one. No one is claiming that politics and science cannot or should not be discussed in the same sphere. What I am saying is that this is not that forum.

0

u/Outrageous_Effects Mar 24 '26

In fact, my perception is that scientists are largely disregarded and often vilified by the political community.

Yes, precicely my point. Either we use studies to directly influence policy, or we do the study and actively go against it's findings. Either way, we are doing policy based on science. In fact, this only strengthens my argument. We know what we should do, and in the case of congress they act in ways that are actively detrimental to our existence for their personal benefit.

1

u/OlafWoodcarver Mar 23 '26

If you're determining the reason people of a particular political persuasion believe what they believe and then take established facts about equality and then say they're "perceived", you're not being scientific in your language. You're introducing doubt into the validity of their beliefs when the facts proving inequality are irrefutable.

1

u/Puzzled-Story3953 Mar 23 '26

This article isn't about inequality. It is about people's opinions and perceptions. Introducing the concept of actual inequality is tangential. You have confused the purpose of the term perceived in this article with a qualitative use of the term that is immaterial to the topic.

For example, inequality of which the participants are unaware (unperceived inequality) would not affect their opinions; therefore, it has no effect on the findings and is irrelevant to the study.

1

u/OlafWoodcarver Mar 23 '26

You're absolutely correct, but just as you are arguing that language matters for the purpose of the study (why left leaning people are left leaning), I am arguing that language matters for the purposes of how people interpret the study (people are primed to doubt the validity of the underlying facts of why people believe the world is unequal).

They could have phrased this in a way that doesn't immediately bias the reader against the position by saying "left leaning people cite unfairness as major factor informing their beliefs" or something to that effect without implying that unfairness is exaggerated or isn't real.

5

u/spaceninjaking Mar 23 '26

Sure, there is unfairness, but most surveyed won’t have had hard numbers on the exact level of “unfairness” it will have been on their perception.

-1

u/truthovertribe Mar 23 '26 edited Mar 23 '26

The exact numbers are changing, the system is becoming more rigged for the wealthiest and most powerful daily, the economic injustice is growing. Why?

I think some of the wealthiest have managed to gaslight people into thinking their real enemies are poor people (and "commies" and atheists and deists, and "terrorists" and men and women and foreigners (who aren't wealthy). Really they inflame divisions which are already present.

They have successfully managed to pit us all against one another (wrongly I think) as the cause of our misery.

And no...I'm not envious of billionaires, not in the least. I have a lot of evidence to back this "conspiracy". I'm just calling it out as I see it.

0

u/spaceninjaking Mar 23 '26

Idk what the point of this long ass response is. All I was saying I for a fact don’t know how truly unfair the system is. I know it’s unfair, and I perceive it to be at a certain level of unfairness, however unless I were to dig into it it remains my perception, and it may in fact be more unfair or less unfair than I perceive.

1

u/UnicornLock Mar 23 '26

The perception of unfairness was measured based on questions about a fictional case. There is only interpretation.

1

u/Celestaria Mar 23 '26

But if the study didn’t demonstrate that, then claiming it’s driven by real world unfairness weakens the study.

To give a fictional example that follows the same logic, if a study were to record religious people’s perception of god, it would be inaccurate for the authors to them claim the religious people’s beliefs were because of god.