Related: do we think less of Trait X because The Other Team has it, or do we think less of The Other Team because they have Trait X?
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Either way, it seems pretty silly to hate someone for their party when the affiliation is at least somewhat genetically determined.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Strangely, I can't tell which party is meant by which description. I can't fit any of the four attributes to either of the main US parties.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Jonathan Haidt thinks your first idea is true and at the moment I find his reasons compelling https://youtu.be/vs41JrnGaxc
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
To clarify, is your hypothesis that the left's conscientiousness quotient is generally low and the right's is high?
-
It's just what the data seem to show
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Suddenly wondering if anyone voted for Trump out of a low-agreeableness "same trait" bonus, rather than because they actually hated the people he hates.
- Show replies
-
-
-
My theory: plurality voting causes the territorial map occupied by the two major parties. It begins with plurality causing a two-party system via Duverger's law, forcing out alternatives. Once the field is consolidated to two parties, there is no value in political overlap.
-
As new political territory is explored (that is, as new areas of live become political), the first major party to act gets to choose a position. The second must take an "opposite" position to maximizing votes—there is no voting value in overlap.
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.