Geoffrey MillerVerified account

Hey Geoff, so people can find the study unpersuasive or even distasteful. That is the nature of the business of viewpoint diversity. But I do want to correct the record on some of the claims made here. Let's start with the idea it is a betrayal of our nonpartisan mission

The authors on this piece include 1) a conservative associated with the Madison center at Princeton, 2) a libertarian who happens to be a JBP fan and engage a lot of his work, and then me.

Although I caucus with the left, as it were, I dedicate a huge portion of my scholarly attention to deconstructing prejudicial studies about conservatives, Trump voters, Republicans, etc. If anything, this was a modelling of viewpoint diversity and collaboration across difference

And we were very clear that they were just suggestions -- which he can take or leave. We have no interest in policing his language, and were very explicit that nothing in our analysis would give anyone else license to try to police his language either.

So I feel compelled to insist on behalf of my co-authors, one of whom does not have Twitter, that this was not a partisan thing. It was not a hit job. It was not a guilt-by-association ploy. We see no 'guilt' here at all. We are just trying to gain insight into how...

… well-intentioned efforts can sometimes fail to deliver their intended results, and ways that we might be able to use data to gain insights to improve our ability to reach our stated objectives. That was the point, the aspiration. There is no beef with JBP on our side.