# Two-Dimensional Extremity Correlation Report

> **Part of the Overton Window Analysis.** See the [synthesis report](overton_window_synthesis.md) for the integrated narrative, or the [interactive article](overton_window.qmd) for the full story with charts.

**Date:** 2026-06-06
**Motions scored:** 29,591 (all motions in `extremity_scores_all`)
**Right-wing subset:** 3,089 (`extremity_scores_2d`)
**Scoring model:** Deepseek v4 flash (subagents via project skill)

## Purpose

The original extremity score is a single 1–5 rating of policy radicalism. This conflates two potentially independent dimensions:
- **Stylistic extremity (stijl-extremiteit):** How inflammatory, hostile, or polarizing the language is
- **Material impact (materiële impact):** How much the proposed policy would substantively affect people's rights, institutions, or freedoms

This analysis scores all motions on both dimensions independently to test the separability of the two dimensions at scale.

---

## Results

### Overall correlation (all motions)

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| N | 29,591 |
| Pearson r | **0.43** (moderate) |
| Mean stylistic | 1.36 |
| Mean material | 2.12 |
| Mean absolute difference | 0.85 |
| S ≤ 2 AND M ≥ 3 (masking) | 7,111 (24.0%) |

**r = 0.43 is moderate — the dimensions are separable at scale.** Stylistic extremism explains only ~18% of the variance in material impact (R² = 0.185). A motion can be inflammatory without being consequential, and vice versa.

This is slightly weaker than the r = 0.453 observed in the initial 117-motion validation sample, confirming the separability is not a small-sample artifact.

### Joint distribution (all motions)

| | M=1 | M=2 | M=3 | M=4 | M=5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| **S=1** | 6,010 | 11,428 | 3,194 | 391 | 19 |
| **S=2** | 442 | 2,852 | 2,880 | 580 | 47 |
| **S=3** | 100 | 360 | 542 | 308 | 61 |
| **S=4** | 14 | 46 | 96 | 111 | 49 |
| **S=5** | 2 | 2 | 7 | 32 | 18 |

The modal cell is S=1, M=2 (11,428 motions, 38.6% of all scored motions). Most motions use restrained, procedural language paired with low-to-moderate material impact — reflecting the dominance of technocratic and administrative proposals in Dutch parliamentary business.

### Joint distribution (right-wing subset)

| | M=1 | M=2 | M=3 | M=4 | M=5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| **S=1** | 245 | 669 | 321 | 92 | 5 |
| **S=2** | 53 | 380 | 499 | 167 | 31 |
| **S=3** | 21 | 74 | 167 | 164 | 47 |
| **S=4** | 3 | 10 | 44 | 46 | 37 |
| **S=5** | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 7 |

Right-wing motions are shifted toward higher scores on both dimensions compared to the full motion population.

### Initial validation sample (original extremity buckets)

The original 117-motion stratified sample (25 per extremity bucket) — which guided the initial development — is preserved in `extremity_scores_2d` with its own 2D scores. The pattern from that sample holds at scale:

| Bucket | N | Mean style | Mean material | Gap |
|--------|---|-----------|--------------|-----|
| 1–2 (mild) | 50 | 1.56 | 2.24 | +0.68 |
| 2–3 (moderate) | 25 | 2.00 | 2.88 | +0.88 |
| 3–4 (high) | 25 | 2.56 | 3.56 | +1.00 |
| 4–5 (extreme) | 17 | 2.53 | 3.65 | +1.12 |

Material impact consistently rates higher than stylistic extremity across all buckets. The gap widens at higher extremity levels.

---

## Key findings

### 1. "Low style, high impact" is the dominant divergence pattern at scale

**24.0% of all motions (7,111 of 29,591)** use restrained language (S ≤ 2) for policies with substantial material impact (M ≥ 3). These are the motions most poorly captured by a single-dimensional score:

- **Motion 16227** (S=1, M=5): "Verzoekt de regering kennis te geven van het voornemen tot uittreding uit de Europese Unie conform artikel 50 VWEU." Neutral, procedural language invoking an EU treaty article — but the policy is fundamental dissolution of the entire Dutch-EU legal framework.

- **Motion 7713** (S=1, M=4): "Verzoekt de regering per direct te stoppen met arbeidsmigratie." Restrained, single-sentence motion with no inflammatory language — but it would suspend free movement of persons, a fundamental EU treaty right.

In the right-wing subset, the masking rate is even higher: **36.1% (1,115 of 3,089)** — confirming that right-wing motions disproportionately use procedural language to advance consequential policy.

### 2. Material impact averages higher across all subsets

Across all motions, material impact scores average 0.76 points higher than stylistic scores. The gap is wider for right-wing motions (0.83) than for the full population. This suggests Dutch parliamentary language norms systematically mask policy radicalism — a pattern that is amplified in right-wing proposals.

### 3. The majority of motions are low-intensity

Most motions cluster at low scores on both dimensions. 58.9% of all motions (17,438) score S=1 with M=1 or M=2 — reflecting a parliament dominated by procedural, technical, and administrative business. This is the baseline against which right-wing motions (mean S=1.83, M=2.66) appear notably more extreme.

### 4. "High style" motions are rare and concentrated

Only 18 motions scored S=5 (the most inflammatory end) in the full dataset, and all had M=4 or M=5. Explicitly hostile language — when it occurs — is consistently paired with substantively extreme policies. But the vast majority of consequential motions use parliamentary language:

- **Motion 11956** (S=4, M=5): Explicitly hostile language ("à la Turkije," "vreemdelingen die we hier niet willen hebben") paired with fundamental rights violation (forced deportation without country-of-origin consent)
- **Motion 18064** (S=5, M=4): Explicit ethnic targeting ("niet-westerse allochtonen" as COVID rulebreakers) — discriminatory state action

---

## All-Motion Comparison

With 29,591 motions scored, we can compare the right-wing subset against the full motion population:

| Metric | All motions | Right-wing | Δ |
|--------|------------|------------|-----|
| N | 29,591 | 3,089 | — |
| Mean stylistic | 1.36 | 1.83 | +0.47 |
| Mean material | 2.12 | 2.66 | +0.54 |
| Pearson r | 0.43 | 0.47 | +0.04 |
| Gap (M−S) | 0.76 | 0.83 | +0.07 |
| Masking (S≤2, M≥3) | 24.0% | 36.1% | +12.1 pp |

**Right-wing motions score significantly higher on both dimensions** than the average motion: +0.47 on stylistic extremity and +0.54 on material impact. The correlation between dimensions is slightly tighter for right-wing motions (r=0.47 vs 0.43), but both remain in the moderate range — confirming the two dimensions are separable across all motion types.

The masking effect — consequential policy in restrained language — is substantially more pronounced in right-wing motions (36.1% vs 24.0%), consistent with the strategic moderation finding in the Overton analysis: right-wing parties use procedural framing to advance substantively significant policy.

### Distribution by dimension

- **Stylistic extremity:** 71.1% of all motions score S=1 (the minimum). Right-wing motions are more evenly distributed, with 39.8% at S=1 and 22.3% at S=3+.
- **Material impact:** Both distributions are right-skewed, but right-wing motions have a heavier tail at M=4 and M=5 (10.3% combined vs 2.6% for all motions).

---

## Implications for Overton analysis

### For the current findings

The "no content extremity increase" (d = −0.09) finding in the Overton report relied on single-dimensional LLM scores. The two-dimensional data at scale confirms this may be an **artifact of the language-focused scoring**: if right-wing motions became more consequential while maintaining or softening their language, the single score would miss the shift entirely.

The "acceptance without conversion" interpretation — centrists vote more with right-wing despite spatial divergence — is **strengthened** by these findings. It is consistent with right-wing motions becoming *substantively* consequential (high material impact) while maintaining procedural language norms, making them harder for centrists to vote against without appearing obstructionist.

### Recommendations

1. **Single-dimensional scoring is no longer needed.** The 2D scoring has been applied to all 29,591 motions with scores stored in `extremity_scores_all`. All analyses should use the two-dimensional scores: stylistic extremity for language analysis, material impact for substantive policy analysis.

2. **Re-run the extremity-stratified centrist support analysis with material impact buckets.** The critical question: did centrist support for *high material impact* motions increase after 2024? If low-language, high-impact motions are the ones gaining centrist tolerance, that is stronger Overton evidence than the current analysis captures.

3. **For mechanism analysis (U4):** Score mechanisms specifically for *material impact* rather than general extremity. The question is not "how extreme is this motion?" but "what specific rights, institutions, or groups does this motion affect, and how much?"

---

## Data

- **Full results:** `data/motions.db` → `extremity_scores_all` (29,591 rows)
- **Right-wing subset:** `data/motions.db` → `extremity_scores_2d` (3,089 rows)
- **Initial validation sample:** `data/motions.db` → `extremity_scores_2d` filtered to original 117 motion IDs
- **Scoring skill:** `.opencode/skills/score-extremity/SKILL.md`
- **Orchestrator:** `analysis/right_wing/extremity_rescore_2d.py`
