I presented on it at AAPOR a few years back, but never put it into a paper (I've mostly moved away from motivated reasoning research).
Had that meeting last week. The key insight: the rules don't apply to archived pages.
So didn't apply to 99% of what I'm doing.
Here's my initial article with Matt Lebo:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1...
Here's the extension: www.google.com/books/editio...
The best book on this phenomenon overall is Lodge and Taber's "The Rationalizing Voter."
It was disorienting to realize that the Florence Ashley I cite the heck out of in my book on measuring gender is also the Florence Ashley that I follow on BlueSky for takes on the Hebrew Bible.
Yes, sports betting is a blight on society, but think of the alternative: Chris Christie might have had to bail out the municipal government of Atlantic City, forcing spending cuts or tax increases that would have significantly hurt his Presidential run.
Yes. My most cited article is one looking at this from Truman through Bush II, and a replication that looked at Bush II through Trump showed that the effects of actual macroeconomic indicators on politics declined dramatically.
There's a long running debate in political cognition as to whether there's a breaking point where reality kicks in, and people have to readjust their beliefs. I tend to think there is, but that's controversial.
I want to believe that gas prices are down, so I mis-remember how high they used to be (or pick a time in the past when they were higher) in order to make reality fit my preferred narrative.
My favorite example of this comes from work from Taber and Lodge, showing that people mis-remember how things used to be in order to be able to believe that things are better or worse now, in line with their partisan predispositions.
You would think that indicators people have more direct contact with wouldn't work this way, but they do. We can ask "Are you worried about losing your job?" or "How many job openings are there in your area?" and people still report through a partisan lens.
You're constructing this differently than most. For most Americans, statements about macroeconomic indicators are actually statements of partisanship, specifically support for the President. When you say, "inflation is down," people hear "I support the President," as that's what it normally means.
Consumer sentiment is mostly partisanship.
Different document (because I turned in the next book to my publisher yesterday!), but maybe the most baffling correction I've gotten recently. What the junk is "Summ"?
Honestly a little surprised that Melania hasn’t tried the celebrity book club grift.
Today, major powers would be states like the US, China, Russia: regional hegemons. By most definitions, this wouldn’t be a world war until two or more major powers were fighting each other (which would likely draw in other states). Neither Iran nor Ukraine, at this point, would fit.
The operational definition is generally a war pitting major powers directly against each other, and drawing in other states.
Been seeing everyone else's #9games, and it turns out that I'm very, very old.
All done. Sent. Should be out next year.
Happy Birthday, Ian.
Millenarianism is becoming the dominant political and social view of the 21st century: people who see no way to succeed under present conditions are going to want to burn it all down.
If young men - who are more adrift than even in trying to figure out how to perform masculinity - glom on to extreme right wing politics as an effective way to do it in large numbers, we're in real trouble going forward.
The political side of this phenomenon is what I've pushing towards in my research: the work on Bitcoin was a necessary building block for the theory, since it's so clearly gendered, and there is so clearly no rational justification for the behavior. It only makes sense as a masculinity performance.
The impulse to demonstrate knowledge of esoteric knowledge (but only on maasculine-coded topics) drives not just extreme political views among young men, but all sort of behaviors, like crypto, prediction markets, meme stocks, and more.
Oh, see the issue I do: Yoda option turned on I had. On me, that one is.
Yep, "thirty forty" is definitely the correct way to express that.
I know it's considered cringe now, but there's a generation of liberals working in politics who got into it because of "The West Wing."
The suggested rewrite: "...the fact that it might be in the future is harmful that researchers have an ethical obligation to reckon with." They don't even embody the stupidity in a Clippy avatar that I can focus my disdain on!
I know I’m a goddamn broken record, I really do, but Congress had a way to change that, it worked for decades, and the Supreme Court blew it up in the 1980s in a way that was impossible for Congress to fix. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
I talked about that Montclair election with our local paper. Still provisionals and late VBMs outstanding, but the margins are big enough that a change in the outcome is really unlikely.
