A recent study by researchers at the University of Padua and the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (MPIDR) has revealed that political differences between partners can significantly increase the risk of separation. Using long-term data from UK couples, the researchers found that those with different party preferences were substantially more likely to separate than those with the same political beliefs. The risk is particularly high when there are differences of opinion on Brexit.
Who is funding this calibre of research, they also found dogs are more likely to bite if you kick them in the head.
In the western scientific model, this is how we differentiate truths from anecdotes and assumptions. Not sure why this needs to be repeated in every thread about the results of research.
No one is casting aspersions on the scientific method or the value of research, what is questionable in this case is that the conclusion simply follows naturally from the hypothesis. The proposition here is that people who have opposing political views are more likely to be antagonistic to each other, that is a tautology.
And yet, you’ll see many people posting elsewhere on social media that it shouldn’t be relevant.
Can’t imagine trying to share a life with someone who didn’t share my values, but there seems to be a contingent that think that other things should be more important.
In your original comment, it seemed like you were questioning why the study was funded, then compared it to another obvious cause-effect about kicking a dog. Did I misunderstand?
The conclusion might have confirmed your personal hypothesis, but we don’t assume that any conclusion “naturally follows” a hypothesis without measuring it.
The way you phrased it is a tautology, but the study didn’t measure antagonism. It measured whether couples broke up or not.