• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Defending the Status Quo (1 Viewer)


DP Veteran
Jun 25, 2008
Reaction score
Political Leaning
I found this very interesting and thought I would share.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100816142129.htm said:
People Who Cannot Escape a System Are Likely to Defend the Status Quo, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Aug. 18, 2010) — The freedom of emigration at will is internationally recognized as a human right. But, in practice, emigration is often restricted, whether by policy or by poverty. A new study published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, finds that people who are told that their right to emigrate will be restricted have what could be considered a strange reaction: they respond by defending their country's system.

The researchers suspected that people who are under an oppressive regime might try to see their situation in the best light possible. "When you're stuck with something, one tendency is to make peace with it and try to see it in as much of a positive light as you can," says Kristin Laurin, who cowrote the study with Steven Shepherd and Aaron C. Kay at the University of Waterloo. But it was also possible to have the opposite reaction: "Other times, when you're told that you can't have something, that makes you want it more."

In one experiment for the study, 28 Canadian women read a paragraph about freedom of emigration from Canada. Half read a paragraph saying that moving out of Canada would become easier in the next few years, and the other half read a paragraph saying that this would become more difficult. Then the women read another paragraph that described gender inequality in Canada -- for example, that "men's starting salaries are a full 20% higher than women's starting salaries." The women who read that emigration would become harder were less likely to attribute that gender inequality to a systemic problem with their country. The researchers interpret that to mean that people who feel trapped in their country are more likely to try to justify the country's system and rationalize away its dissatisfactory elements.

This provides some interesting implications for defenders of controversial institutions, or laws that may be unpopular.
I found this very interesting and thought I would share.

This provides some interesting implications for defenders of controversial institutions, or laws that may be unpopular.

doesn't surprise me in the least.

the notion that we are free to think what we like has questionable foundation. it is only true, in most cases, if we are allowed to think it is true.

how do you think it possible that ideologues (political, religious, etc) have for millenia convinced people that they are rightly subject to the will of others? that sex is evil? that reason is the work of the devil? that everyone who is not "us" is evil - they must be... we are 'good' and they are not us, so they must be evil. simple.

we have been told what to think for a helluva a long time and we are still given to being told what to think, our freedom NOT to, notwithstanding. 'free will' is largely a myth.

I remember reading a study once about how social instability and upheavel tend to happen not when conditions are worst, or best, but rather when conditions are improving, but not quickly enough. This would seem to support that observation.

Interesting, and kinda sad, though.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom