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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @Aelkus
Yea. Also, that's why I'm still working through
@kaznatcheev's paper, because I think their are lot of good analogies there for agenda setting power and what it means for the evolution of beliefs. Some contexts make certain paths accessible; others make them impossibly far away.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @generativist @Aelkus
I'd be interested to chat about these analogies. I think I was suppose to bother you for a blog post or something: eh?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
You are! I snoozed my reminder because I'm still a bit burnt out. But yes, I very much want to have this new conversation soon, too. I have an implicit reminder once I finish working through your appendix (and some background material tangents I'm missing.)
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.