Non-Monetized Together #svalien


Dan Dimmock/Unsplash

Article also available at

I have a hypothesis for why people in the Internet age are so unwelcoming when it comes to politics. It’s a multi-stage process, and I’m gonna lay it out here. You’ve probably already heard bits and pieces of this hypothesis elsewhere already. I’m writing this article in the hopes that you will be a curious citizen and investigate whether the hypothesis is valid.

In the first stage, some left-wing and right-wing media publications show only the most spiteful and stupid examples from both opposing political angles.

In the second stage, a small selection of people from each side acts foolish enough to assume that those examples are an accurate representation of the entire political wing. They make online posts under that assumption. They may also forget that people on the opposing side may come across very different stories, descriptions of stories, and political rhetoric than they do.

In the third stage, people from the other side view those online posts. They get defensive because these posts don’t match their reality and/or because they aren’t aware of the subtext behind the post (due to the differing information they receive in the first place). Since these are personal examples that reflect the negative news coverage they see, the idea that the other side is made up of the brainwashed and the dangerous starts to appear more convincing to them.

In the fourth stage, the people introduced in the third stage start acting in a way that appears extremist to the other side, yet simply natural to someone who believes that their side is under attack. Other people start thinking, “this person must be a threat to society because I never asked to attack anybody, yet they’re threatening me!” As these real-world incidents continue to grow, this ends up appearing to further validate the clickbait journalism from the first stage.

From here on out, the cycle continues repeating. Both sides continue collecting examples and influencing people until the threat becomes real and democracy starts to crumble, despite the only people who actually wanted this to happen being the few outlying examples from the first stage.

This is only a hypothesis, so it doesn’t mean anything until you start collecting data on it. Yet if it turns out to be true, one of the solutions could be to rely on religion/spirituality/philosophy instead of politics. Another solution could be to make Internet posts that highlight the positive potential that opposing political wings can achieve if only they don’t act like the worst examples of themselves.

So go out and test this hypothesis. Look up academic findings, network with members of Nonmonetized Together, research cases and compare them to each other, communicate with people from different walks of life, and attend events.

If you’re too tired to do this, let me know in the comments. If I get one of these responses, I will participate in this research too. I will not only keep notes of the information I collect, but my entire research-gathering process, so you will see what I did that led up to finding the information, as well as research attempts that did not bring up anything useful. Don’t wait for somebody else to tell me they’re tired; most of my articles get either zero or one comments.

Exciting, right? Now start learning!

#Activity #Research #Theory #LeftWing #RightWing


Image from Windows/Unsplash

Usually, I will try not to write articles from a position of authority, but I will have to make an exception in this case, because this article will be meaningless if I don’t show I have knowledge in the field. Besides, this article still fulfills my mantra of helping the public prepare to be active, empowered, knowledgeable participants in society without the interference of power interests. So, I did receive a Bachelor’s Degree in Sociology. You can verify this by going to the website YuVerify, clicking on “Begin Your Search,” making sure you’re on the page “Search by Name,” and then typing in my name Kevin Zuccherato.

Please be aware that this list is not exhaustive and will be continuously updated.

· Academic sociology papers use lots of technical and unfamiliar terminology, but that shouldn’t scare you off. Set yourself apart from academics by writing in terms that the public can understand. Sociology isn’t complicated enough that it needs to be conveyed through specialized vocabulary, but universities do that anyway, keeping laypeople’s voices out of the knowledge-creation process and preventing the masses from contributing to social change. For your study to connect with the public, you can’t write it like an academic journal.

· When planning your study, make sure you explicitly state what falls within the scope of your study and what doesn’t. For example, if you’re studying employment, you must decide whether you want to study all employment, if you want to focus only on full-time employment, or if you want to research other employment arrangements. If you’re studying violence, make sure you have an idea of what forms of violence you will be studying. Even if you’re studying all forms of violence, list all the forms of violence you can think of, just so the reader can feel reassurance that your study is well-structured.

· Do some research on sampling techniques and choose the one that’s best suited for your study. This page is a fantastic resource for learning about sampling techniques.

· Your introductory section should contain your research question, your scope (as mentioned earlier in this article), and an argument stating why your project is worth carrying out.

· If you’re not a member of an academic or corporate institution, ethics boards won’t be interested in reviewing your plans. Because of this, let your readers know that you are not a professional or trained researcher and that this precludes you from submitting your paper to an ethics board.

· When describing your methodology, note where you will be collecting your data, how much data you will be collecting, and the data’s time span.

· Also in your methodology section, be sure to constantly refer to the scope you’ve set in your introduction and show that you are consistently applying that scope to your data.

· Assess the ethical quality of your study.

· Near the end of your paper, discuss the weaknesses of your study and speculate on how it could have been better. This will open up new topics for other researchers to explore.

· If you used questionnaires or an interview guide in your study, place them in the appendix, located at the very end of your article.

Hopefully this will inspire you to collect meaningful data that could help guide people to develop strategies for a better future!

Article also available at

#List #Sociology #Research #Advocy #Empowerment