The main problem with that argument is that it assumes dissatisfaction is determined by the amount of repression. It's a factor, but there are others, like food, wars, and technical innovations.
This kind of question needs complex analysis and can't be answered that easily. You could plot a measurement of repression against a measure of dissatisfaction (assume the measurements are accurate), show that they corresponded perfectly from regime to regime, and even if you ignore confounders it still wouldn't show causality because you still wouldn't know which one came first.
The main problem with that argument is that it assumes dissatisfaction is determined by the amount of repression. It's a factor, but there are others, like food, wars, and technical innovations.
That's sort of my point. That repression done right doesn't cause rebellions.
show that they corresponded perfectly from regime to regime, and even if you ignore confounders it still wouldn't show causality because you still wouldn't know which one came first.
Well for starters if you look at them chronologically, you can see which one actually changed first.
Here's my op-ed that uses long-term orientation, probabilistic thinking, numeracy, consider the alternative, reaching our actual goals, avoiding intuitive emotional reactions and attention bias, and other rationality techniques to suggest more rational responses to the Paris attacks and the ISIS threat. It's published in the Sunday edition of The Plain Dealer, a major newspaper (16th in the US). This is part of my broader project, Intentional Insights, of conveying rational thinking, including about politics, to a broad audience to raise the sanity waterline.