Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2024 June 14

= June 14 =

Scientific article about religious/scientific cognitive dissonance
What are some peer-reviewed articles that examine possible cognitive dissonance or lack of true supernatural belief in academics or scientists who purport to be religious? 75.80.42.225 (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not easy to define "true supernatural belief". If you define it as a belief that is at odds with the scientific consensus, a scientist harbouring such a belief obviously does not accept the scientific consensus in some respect. But many atheist scientists also question some aspect or another of the scientific consensus; this need not give rise to cognitive dissonance. More importantly, many religious beliefs do not intersect with the realm of science, such as the existence of an immortal soul or an all-powerful creator outside space and time. --Lambiam 19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's the concept of Non-overlapping magisteria, which a religious scientist came up with, and atheist scientists have made criticisms of it, unsurprisingly. Card Zero  (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You might like Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:78AE (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I found Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics. Alansplodge (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Rather specialized, but more recent and open access: Faith and facts: Exploring the intersection of religion and science among anatomy educators. --Lambiam 17:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * See also: Einstein’s Religiosity and the Role of Religion in His Private Life   --136.54.106.120 (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Unpopular leaders
Per World losers gather at G7 summit (Axios),
 * Biden's 37% approval rating positively sparkles next to Canadian PM Justin Trudeau (30%), German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (25%), U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (25%), French President Emmanuel Macron (21%) and Japanese PM Fumio Kishida (13%), per Morning Consult's tracker.

Is there a quick TLDR of why these people are so unpopular? Biden I sort of know about but I didn't realize that the rest of them are even further in the toilet.

Also, in the upcoming US election, while Biden and Trump might both be personally unappetizing (not in the same way), is there some reasonably established notion that the actual president (i.e. the person, not the institution or the office) doesn't matter much? Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, GWB, and maybe others were disengaged or vegetative or otherwise dysfunctional, at least towards the end of their terms. (More.) But the election is really about the entire executive branch, which at least sometimes is more influential than the figurehead whose face is on TV. Thanks. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:78AE (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Narendra Modi is at the top of the list with 70%, yet in the recent election his victory margin was the second lowest ever for a sitting Prime Minister in India, and his BJP paty is now in a coalition instead of having an outright majority. So I'm unclear on what global approval ratings are even relevant to. They might predict the result of an election for leader of the world? Card Zero  (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Several factors may have a major effect on the outcomes of opinion polls, such as the sampling method and the wording of the questions. Comparing outcomes from differently conducted polls in different cultures is not necessarily a meaningful exercise. --Lambiam 04:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Mid-term many voters tend to blame their current leader(s) for everything they're unhappy about, so when asked to rate those leaders, will give quite low scores. But when it comes to a real choice, and they see the quality of the opposition, they return their preferences to the devil they know. HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You can read the articles about each leader, but both Trudeau and Macron have been around in their position for years (2015 and 2017, respectively) and that tends to decrease approval ratings as anything unpopular that happened over that long span tends to reflect on their ratings. For Sunak, he hasn't been around that long, but his party has been in power for a long stretch, and that stretch has been marked by a succession of leaders and, again, some traumatic events that have not helped the various leaders' popularity. And as mentioned, that can change quickly come election time when voters have to make an actual choice, not just express an opinion to a pollster. Xuxl (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's an article about Scholz's SPD, which paints its unpopularity as an outcome of battling against fiscal conservatism. The usual rule of "it's the economy, stupid" at present is influenced by the Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (still). We're apparently going through World food crises (2022–present), although I'm more keenly aware that multiple countries are experiencing a housing crisis with no affordable rented accommodation available, which I'm told is an echo from the pandemic's damage to builder's supply chains. (Our article on those current events is simply titled Housing crisis.)
 * More articles: Kishida’s popularity in free fall, Kishida is so unpopular, he can't even give money away, mention inflation, and tax hikes due to spending on defense and social care. Card Zero  (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't claim to understand it, but in recent decades it seems like every French president's popularity declines not too long after being elected (though Macron's fall may be bigger than some of the others). AnonMoos (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Macron did manage to be reelected in 2022, however, contrary to his two predecessors (Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande) who both only served a single term. In fact Hollande was so unpopular that he did not even attempt to run for reelection. Xuxl (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This doesn't directly answer the question, but it's worth noting that most voting systems don't require the president or PM to have the support of the majority of the population to win an election. They are often elected indirectly (e.g. the Electoral College selecting the President in the US, or the leader of the winning party becoming PM in a parliamentary system).  Election is usually by winning a plurality of votes (more than any of their rivals) rather than majority (more than half).  Or a plurality of a plurality.  Sometimes, due to the way voting districts are set up and the specific voting system in use, someone can win with despite not even achieving a plurality of votes.  And of course, people who don't vote aren't counted (and certain voting systems make some people's votes irrelevant, which makes people more likely not to vote).  All of this means that someone can win an election despite being very unpopular, and will likely become even less popular as they govern. Iapetus (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all, during the term of being a leader, the leader has to make a lot of decisions which are good to their countries, but may not liked by all people. As everyone is being upset by the leader’s decision in one way or the other, so people tend to give a low rating in an approval rating poll. However, in an election, people will do it differently.
 * In an election you vote for a leader, not an entertainer or superstar. So, you vote for someone who you believe that he or she can do the best to the country instead of someone who you like most.
 * Entertainers have to focus their energies on striving for likeability from people so that they can be a superstar who can earn much higher income that a nobody. On the other hand, leaders have very different priorities, such as credibility, confidence, being respected as a leader and a higher chance to win the next election.   A leader who acts like a clown might gain likeability from the people, but he or she might not be a respectable leader to the people. Stanleykswong (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I'll look at some of the links. It occurs to me in the case of Prime Ministers, they are selected by their party's MP's rather than by the voters, so a party in power could put up a PM who the public doesn't like, in preference to a more popular one. I don't know if they actually do that. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:78AE (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * In public polls after Boris Johnson stepped down in 2022, Rishi Sunak consistently beat Liz Truss as preferred leader, yet the MPs elected Truss. In 2016, the US Democratic Party put up a presidential candidate, Clinton, in preference to a more popular one, Sanders (who in polls also generally beat Trump). --Lambiam 07:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The usual way how it works with prime ministers (including Olaf Scholz) is that they first get elected as party leader (by party members). Next come the elections, where the public can vote for a party. The leader of the largest party takes the initiative in forming a government (which usually means forming some coalition), only then the party leader becomes prime minister, with a vote of confidence by parliament. Until that point the old PM is in charge of government, even if from the same party as the new PM.
 * So the cases with Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss are somewhat exceptional because (A) they took the role of PM without any elections in sight and (B) didn't need support from other coalition parties, so could be appointed directly by their own party. In most democracies, a PM stepping down triggers elections. PiusImpavidus (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that Olaf Scholz is not the party leader, but he was nominated by his party as the Chancellor candidate for the last elections. Although the Chancellor is not elected directly by the people, the Chancellor candidates are very important in the electoral campaigns in Germany and there is a strong personal element to the elections. Therefore it is hardly conceivable that parties would intentionally nominate an unpopular candidate. --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * True, there's often a difference between the leader of the party organisation (who leads party meetings etc.) and the political leader of the party (who's the figurehead in elections and is active in politics). Maybe I could have been clearer about that, but my comment was long enough already. PiusImpavidus (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The shortest answer I can think of is that people don't like politicians. "The five least-trusted professions [in the UK] are politicians, advertising executives, government ministers, estate agents and journalists." Even winning politicians may be unpopular. Keir Starmer may be heading for the largest ever Labour majority, so what's his favourability? Negative 17%. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The shortest answer I can think of is that people don't like politicians
 * I would argue that that's a somewhat newer development and has multiple factors involved. Since the 1970s, there's been a major influence campaign by conservative "think tanks" and foundations funded by billionaires to degrade democratic institutions and promote distrust around the world. They are doing this because by generating distrust in government, they can push privatization in its place and limit arguments for global governance that imposes regulations on corporations and dilutes their tendency towards monopolies.  As we've repeatedly seen, capitalism does not need or require democracy to function, and that's essentially the primary reason politicians have low approval ratings.  The secondary reason is that for the average person, globalization has been a total disaster. (Coincidentally, our article on economic globalization points directly to the 1970s as the pivot point. Among other things, this destabilized the global supply chain, which directly led to the production failures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.)  Moving jobs and industries overseas for cheaper labor was instigated by the same billionaires who are promoting distrust in politicians.  It's all connected. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're simply (or over-complicatedly) talking about libertarianism. Check out the quote in the section Libertarianism. This seems to fit the bill, expressing distaste for "government ownership of property and more controls over persons", but dates to 1955 and is sincere and upfront and in no way a shadowy conspiracy. I would argue that you see this school of thought as a conspiracy, and are discovering more and more signs to confirm the theory as a result of looking hard for them, because you just don't like it.
 * On the other hand, with this general anti-democratic theme, perhaps you're thinking of populism, which is a different and smellier kettle of fish. Card Zero  (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I'm talking about right-wing networks. This is all easily sourced and is considered part of the mainstream discourse.  Political scientist Richard J. Meagher summarizes the entire topic in his 2012 academic paper.  This network is composed of media watchdog groups, public interest law firms, fundraising organizations, state-level coordinating organizations, academic research centers, professional associations, conservative colleges and universities, government and public affairs training programs, foreign-policy think tanks, academic watchdog groups, conservative conferences, and conservative seniors organizations.  Meagher concludes, "These networks of media and political organizations are a chief reason why the Right, despite all the weight of demographics and popular opinion against them, continue to triumph in "the war of ideas," and in our politics. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

TLDR side question

 * I'm intrigued by the OP's question "Is there a quick TLDR of why these people are so unpopular?". TLDR means some text is too long to read, but the above usage seems to mean a short version, which is the exact opposite. That's a fascinating development. I put it in the same class as "entitled" (which now means someone who acts as if they are entitled but are NOT actually entitled), or "I could care less" (which means "I could NOT care less"). Why would people say the exact opposite of what they mean, and how is it that such enigmatically self-contradictory expressions are so quickly assimilated and widely understood? -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that effect is due to salience. People were initially interested to be alerted to the problem, "this text is too long", and called that tl;dr, but were more interested by the custom of providing the solution, "in short ...", which became known as the tl;dr version and then just the tl;dr. And people are more interested in talking about the overentitled than about the justifiably entitled (or the rarely-mentioned underentitled), so the simple form entitled replaced the use case of most interest. At a stretch, this theory could even apply to "I could care less", which, if intended literally, would be a pointless observation about being in a very ordinary condition of moderate interest. Thus the phrase was up for grabs as a sort of clipping or contraction. But could care less says (more plausibly) that it's deliberate irony or hyponegation, in the same vein as monkeys might fly out of my butt. Card Zero  (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree about salience; from what I've seen, these TL;DR versions were often from people self-effacingly annotating their own posts, which would eventually lead to summaries as a whole being ironically labelled about people not reading them. GalacticShoe (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm increasingly seeing TLDR being used just before a summary of something lengthier. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary gives both senses. --Lambiam 21:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)