So, when people think, "oh those two people are talking past each other, but they really agree," they're making a mistake. They agree over an artificial, constrained projection; but their mental models disagree, as evidenced by expressive propensities.
-
-
Replying to @generativist @Aelkus
It's also the place where so much fuckery hides because it's the hardest to quantify easily. E.g. GSS/ANES asks "What's your opinion on [X]?" it doesn't observe what beliefs you express and sample from in your life. It measures the wrong thing.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Aelkus
Yea, that works, too. Opinions and other simple expressions convey a lot of information...just not necessarily about the explicit referent. And what we choose to say given agenda power reveals a lot more than given a context prompt.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @generativist @Aelkus
The example that I found more compelling was abortion. Fiorina used the GSS data to say, "see, over these seven prompts, people generally agree, in aggregate." Except, no, there is no reason to think "in the wild" people find each particular context equally important.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @generativist @Aelkus
We're kind watching that unfold in real-time now, too. Political agents are carving up social groups by signalling which particular context matters to them.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Oh, that's pretty good. I think that may be a great opener to what I'm working on now, thanks!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.