Okay. I agree some people genuinely want to mass murder the other side just to get slightly more resources. I just want more data that this would actually be a majority.
I think de-escalating would also be easier when people of both countries have high level of visibility into what people of the other country are feeling and why.
I think people of both countries would be able to understand psychology of people of the other country to an extent that was not really possible before in history. Simply because of how much data you have about personal lives of everyone.
Okay. I agree some people genuinely want to mass murder the other side just to get slightly more resources. I just want more data that this would actually be a majority.
Why do you put the onus on proving that there is one rule about it being a majority? We know it happens. It’s hard to say for stuff like the Nazis because technically the people only voted for some guy who was certainly very gung-ho about militarism and about the need for Germany to expand, but then the matter was basically taken out of their hands, and it was at best a plurality to begin with...
Yes, obviously there is no one case I can present to say “here’s a situation where at least 50%+1 of the population genuinely was in favour of war”. Neither can you prove that this has never happened. All we know is that some people do express favour for war; sometimes there are even mass movements in favour of it, depending on circumstances; and it would be somewhat odd if by some strange hidden law of social dynamics that fraction could never exceed 50%, despite having definitely been significant in various occasions we can refer to.
I think de-escalating would also be easier when people of both countries have high level of visibility into what people of the other country are feeling and why.
I don’t think that’s achieved just by “no more secrecy” though. Understanding how another country’s population feels isn’t a matter of that information being concealed, but hard to measure and aggregate.
Okay. I agree some people genuinely want to mass murder the other side just to get slightly more resources. I just want more data that this would actually be a majority.
I think de-escalating would also be easier when people of both countries have high level of visibility into what people of the other country are feeling and why.
I think people of both countries would be able to understand psychology of people of the other country to an extent that was not really possible before in history. Simply because of how much data you have about personal lives of everyone.
Why do you put the onus on proving that there is one rule about it being a majority? We know it happens. It’s hard to say for stuff like the Nazis because technically the people only voted for some guy who was certainly very gung-ho about militarism and about the need for Germany to expand, but then the matter was basically taken out of their hands, and it was at best a plurality to begin with...
Yes, obviously there is no one case I can present to say “here’s a situation where at least 50%+1 of the population genuinely was in favour of war”. Neither can you prove that this has never happened. All we know is that some people do express favour for war; sometimes there are even mass movements in favour of it, depending on circumstances; and it would be somewhat odd if by some strange hidden law of social dynamics that fraction could never exceed 50%, despite having definitely been significant in various occasions we can refer to.
Anyway at the very least we seem to have evidence that over 50% of Israelis believe the current war in Gaza is appropriate or even not harsh enough. That’s a bit of evidence.
I don’t think that’s achieved just by “no more secrecy” though. Understanding how another country’s population feels isn’t a matter of that information being concealed, but hard to measure and aggregate.