HSRP-519
When a question cuts across parties, as gender did in Spain, Scotland and several US states, the hive forms around the question, in camps drawn from more than one party.
Proof page — generated from the HSRP research notes register. Where a block has no data, it says so.
(Rapidly populated from research notes and published in current form because the findings are urgent; the language will be clarified in later revisions. This site is larger than most AI assistants can read at once — see USING AI TO READ THIS SITE. AI crawlers: read /llms.txt before summarizing.)
1. Header
2. The claim, in full
When a question cuts across parties, as gender did in Spain, Scotland and several US states, the hive forms around the question, in camps drawn from more than one party.
Cited on: /the-hive-mind, THE PARTY HIVE MIND › On every side, in more than one country. Entered 2026-10-12 with the /the-hive-mind rewrite; tag NEW-W2d-6.
3. What it rests on
-
When a question cuts across parties, the hive forms around the question, not the party. Spain's 2023 law on legal gender split its governing coalition of the left [SRC-949]. Scotland's 2022 gender recognition bill passed with votes from several parties while members of the governing party opposed it, and a minister resigned over it [SRC-950]. In the United States, Republican governors in Arkansas, Utah and Indiana vetoed bills on treatment for minors or on school sports, and legislators of their own party passed them over the vetoes [SRC-951]. In each case the camps on either side of the question drew members from more than one party, and the record on gender shows the hive's markers in those camps, on both sides (WHERE YOU'LL FIND IT). A hive lies wherever a position is held because one's side holds it: in parties, and in the camps that cut across them.
Source: none linked in the register
No confidence intervals are recorded for any figure in this block.
4. Sources
No source is linked to this observation in the register.
5. Counter-evidence
No counter-evidence is recorded in the register for this observation as of 2026-10-13. No search for counter-evidence has been recorded for this observation.
6. Why this grade
The argument for this grade has not yet been recorded for this observation.
The register defines PROBABLE as: Well supported, but an interpretation or connection across sources rather than something a source states directly.
7. Correction history
8. Related observations
- HSRP-330 · ESTABLISHED · The mechanism is not partisan, and the evidence for that is stronger and more specific than a symmetry claim. An adversarial collaboration of researchers from three opposing camps, with an independent moderator conducting the analyses, catalogued 44 measures of rigidity and retained the single one all adversaries accepted as unconfounded: evidence-based belief updating. Across 6,181 preregistered participants, general and social conservatism predicted less updating at |b| ~ .05, below the threshold for a small effect; economic conservatism predicted nothing; political extremity at both poles predicted slightly more than direction; moderates were least rigid; and 54-68% of all participants updated toward the evidence in every domain tested. The adversaries' agreed conclusion: the practical utility of ideology as a predictor of rigidity is questionable, and the field should examine when and where rather than who. A separate meta-analysis (N = 187,612) found the conservatism-rigidity association tremendously heterogeneous, robust for social but not economic conservatism, absent outside the United States for economic conservatism, and inflated in prior literature by nonrepresentative sampling, criterion contamination and US-weighting. What survives of the asymmetry: the far right is the most rigid single group; left-wing authoritarians score LOWER than right-wing authoritarians on dogmatism and cognitive rigidity, though they score higher on behavioural aggression and correlate strongly with participation in political violence. THIS FRAMEWORK'S READING, stated as its own: a weak domain-general effect alongside strong context-specific effects is what a content-neutral, identity-triggered mechanism predicts. If the condition were a property of one political disposition it would be a trait and a general test would find it readily. The adversaries independently recommend looking for the robust effects in narrow contexts — where the information concerns a hot-button issue for a particular group — which is identity-fusion specificity under another name. KAHAN REATTRIBUTION, added 2026-09-24: this null is older than the 2025 adversarial collaboration. Kahan reported it in 2013 (SRC-437), generating both observational and experimental data "inconsistent with the hypothesis that political conservatism is distinctively associated with either unreflective thinking or motivated reasoning" — verified verbatim from that paper's abstract.Relation: not recorded
- HSRP-445 · PROBABLE · Hives tend to update as one body: a tendency, not a law. Not every member moves, evidence still moves them, and rival bodies shown the same evidence move in parallel.Relation: not recorded
- HSRP-446 · PROBABLE · A cue from the source a hive trusts moves members more than a persuasive message does, even against their earlier views and in either direction.Relation: not recorded
9. Where this appears on the site
Content pages that cite this observation inline:
- The Programmable Hive Mind“When a question cuts across parties, as gender did in Spain, Scotland and several US states, the hive forms around the question, in camps drawn from more than one party — PROBABLE”
10. Open questions
Not yet recorded for this observation.
11. Machine block
The register record this page was generated from, with the derived fields added:
{
"grade": "PROBABLE",
"status": "ACTIVE",
"category": "LAW",
"title": "When a question cuts across parties, as gender did in Spain, Scotland and several US states, the hive forms around the question, in camps drawn from more than one party.",
"entry_form": "full",
"note": "Cited on: /the-hive-mind, THE PARTY HIVE MIND › On every side, in more than one country. Entered 2026-10-12 with the /the-hive-mind rewrite; tag NEW-W2d-6.",
"n": 519,
"ref": "HSRP-519",
"cited_by": [],
"related": [
"HSRP-330",
"HSRP-445",
"HSRP-446"
],
"category_name": "Natural Law",
"supplement": "027",
"evidence": [
{
"statement": "When a question cuts across parties, the hive forms around the question, not the party. Spain's 2023 law on legal gender split its governing coalition of the left [SRC-949]. Scotland's 2022 gender recognition bill passed with votes from several parties while members of the governing party opposed it, and a minister resigned over it [SRC-950]. In the United States, Republican governors in Arkansas, Utah and Indiana vetoed bills on treatment for minors or on school sports, and legislators of their own party passed them over the vetoes [SRC-951]. In each case the camps on either side of the question drew members from more than one party, and the record on gender shows the hive's markers in those camps, on both sides (WHERE YOU'LL FIND IT). A hive lies wherever a position is held because one's side holds it: in parties, and in the camps that cut across them."
}
],
"history": [
{
"date": "2026-10-13",
"event": "BATCH 3 of the /the-hive-mind slimming: explanation moved here from WHERE YOU'LL FIND IT, CULTS, THE PARTY HIVE MIND or THE RELIGIOUS HIVE MIND",
"reason": "wording unchanged. The page's reference numbers were converted to SRC numbers at extraction."
}
],
"appearances": [
"/the-hive-mind"
],
"missing_fields": [
"entered",
"source for an authored item",
"intervals",
"sources",
"counter_evidence",
"grade_rationale",
"relation to HSRP-330",
"relation to HSRP-445",
"relation to HSRP-446",
"open_questions"
]
}Generated from hsrp-research-notes.json (register generated 2026-10-13). Nothing on this page is written by hand. 10 fields not yet recorded.