Is the perverse effect of AOT on political polarization confounded by a missing variable? Nah.
Dan Kahan Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2018 at 10:39AM 
Interesting paper on "actively open-minded thinking" (AOT) and polarization of climate change beliefs:
As Jon Corbin & I did (A note on the perverse effects of actively open-minded thinking on climate-change polarization. Research & Politics 3 (2016), available at https://doi.org/10.1177/205316801667670), & notwithstanding a representation in the research "highlights," the study finds no evidence that AOT reduces political polarization over human-caused climate change. Also consistent with our findings, the study (according to the lead author in correspondence; the paper is ambiguous on this point) also found that AOT interacts with ideology, a relationship that generates the "perverse effect" that Jon & I reported.
Nevertheless, the authors of this paper purport to identify “significant problems with” Jon & my paper:
Specifically, we focus on the lack of a measure of scientific knowledge, or the interaction of scientific knowledge with political ideology, in their regression model. This is a problem because Kahan's own research (Kahan et al., 2012) has suggested that the interaction between scientific knowledge and ideology is an important influence on views on climate change, with higher scientific knowledge being associated with greater perceived risk for liberals, but lower perceived risk for conservatives.
“Controlling” for scientific literacy, the authors contend, vitiates the interaction between AOT and political outlooks.
Well, I decided to redo the analysis from Jon & my paper after plugging in the predictor for the Ordinary Science Intelligence scale (“scicomp_i”) and a cross-product interaction for AOT and OSI. Nothing changed in relation to our finding that AOT interacts with ideology (“crxsc”), generating the “perverse effect” of increased polarization as AOT scores go up (the data set for the study is posted here and makes checking this out very easy). So that “significant problem” with our anlaysis turns out not to be one.
No idea why the observed interaction disappeared for Stenhouse et al. We are in the process of examining each other’s datasets to try to figure out why.
Stay tuned.
Reader Comments (197)
Wait, you mean an error was found in a GMCC/YCCC paper? I'm shocked! ;)
More seriously, I'd be happy to join a commentary/response to this if you'd like. I found this one to be particularly egregious.
The apparent asymmetry in willingness to compromise politically might just be a symmetric asymmetry of another kind: prospect theory on both sides?:
https://theconversation.com/why-are-democratic-voters-more-approving-of-compromise-than-republicans-98828
https://www.psqonline.org/article.cfm?IDArticle=19755
Personally, would like a top tax rate in the 90%'s like in the 1950's, but am willing to compromise on one in the 70%'s like in the 1960's. MAGA!
Joshua,
massive meta-longitudinal big-5 study: https://psyarxiv.com/ryjpc/
Friend of CCP Mathew Motta thinks anti-vaxx could sometimes be Dunning-Kruger:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795361830340X
No non-paywall. But it sounds like they only tested for autism-specific and autism-anti-vaxx-specific overconfidence:
DK would be more believable if overconfidence outside these areas correlated just as well.
Further on perverse effects - absolutely fascinating article by prof. Louis Michael Seidman in a legal review, asking
>> "Can Free Speech Be Progressive?" << to which he answers >> "NO". <<
".....Instead
of providing a shield for the powerless, the first amendment became a sword [...] Among its victims: proponents of campaign finance reform,49
opponents of cigarette addiction,50 the LBGTQ community,51 labor unions,52 animal rights advocates,53
environmentalists,54 targets of hate speech,55 and abortion providers.
56..."
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3056&context=facpub
Of particular interest is footnote 55, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/377/case.html decision by Scalia.
Scalia masterfully skates around positions of the leftist contingent on that court, who were attempting to link their support for the St Paul ordinance not to the First, but to the Fourteenth. Acting on the sound principle of never fighting on territory controlled by the enemy, he wrote:
"...Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone's front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire.
The judgment of the Minnesota Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."
But Scalia understood something that Seidman does not - the true target of the extreme right is not the 1st Amendment, it is the 14th. Passed in a hurry in 1868, it considered that slave importation having been banned since 1808, it was safe to assume all black persons had been born in the US. Jus soli carried the day over the millennial Roman and Greek tradition.
That is what we are hoping to reverse. Ending anchor babies would be the most immediate result, but a critical review of the considerable baggage tacked on to the 14th would also follow.
What prof. Seidman calls "turning a shield into a sword" or as Justice Kagan put it "weaponizing the 1st Amendment" is only the first step in a very long strategy. I really don't see any other way of saving democracy - and, oddly, neither do legal scholars never affiliated with the alt-right.
https://www.amazon.com/How-Democracies-Die-Steven-Levitsky/dp/1524762938
Another sob story on Think-of-the-Children (TM)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/06/30/feature/are-you-alone-now-after-raid-immigrant-families-are-separated-in-the-american-heartland/
The solution is staring us in the face - repeal the 14th!
Ecoute makes an excellent point.
I really don't see any other way of saving democracy.
The country has gone straight to hell over the past 150 years since the 14th was passed. If only we could go back to the way it was in1868, we'd be so much better off!
I am punctilious with proper attribution. Careful reading of my post will show prof. Levitsky agrees with me. As I said.
"....There is no country in history that has managed to be both multiethnic and genuinely democratic, he said.
"I can't come up with a single example of a multiracial society in which there was a reasonable level of racial equality and everyone shared the same rights and democracy was sustained," Levitsky says."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/29/us/racial-rhetoric/index.html
wait .. what? "Jus soli carried the day over the millennial Roman and Greek tradition. That is what we are hoping to reverse." Am not sure which such tradition Ecoute is referring to, but were't those sometimes quite progressive on male former-slave citizenship and quite regressive on women's citizenship?
Is a sudden dyslexia attack afflicting commenters? Is jus soli v jus sanguinis too much Latin? So I re-post from above:
"That is what we are hoping to reverse. Ending anchor babies"
The Mayflower had an anchor...
Jonathan - I can't hope to improve on Jefferson:
"To our reproach it must be said, that though for a century and a half we have had under our eyes the races of black and of red men, they have never yet been viewed by us as subjects of natural history. I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may posses different qualifications.
[...]
Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture."
http://docsouth.unc.edu/southlit/jefferson/jefferson.html
"The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture."
Well, yu'know, Jefferson was famous for his Hemmings and hawhings...
Jonathan - better yet, Jefferson could actually spell the woman's name: Hemings.
I was caught between Hemings vs. hemmings (plural gerund of to hem and haw), and so took the compromising position of capital H, dual m. The extra h in hawhing was a typo, btw.
Hope it was appreciated in spirit if not in fluency.
Jonathan - my late parents brought me up as a lady of what was known in their day the best society. I believe you - and wouldn't say otherwise even if I didn't.
Separately, it is my understanding that Sally Hemings was only 1/8 black, so I assume Jefferson thought of her as merely exotic - though the parties being long gone, it's impossible to say now.
At any rate - this changes nothing. I still stand in awe of his genius.
You know, there may be a real difference to consider between the samples. The survey that Yougov did in 2014 for Kahan et al. is not surveying the same population, exposed to the same media environment, as the survey that Yougov completed for Stenhouse et al, presumably sometime at or after 2016. 2016 was a weird year and we all know it.
Between these two papers, we might be looking at change over time in the US population. Now that a Republican is in the White House, open-minded Republicans are more honestly asking themselves exactly what they would like their Republican president to do about climate change, and they're finding that the answer is not nothing.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/psychologists-looked-in-the-mirror-and-saw-a-bunch-of-liberals/
which demonstrates that:
paper:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Eitan_et_al_in_press_Politics_in_Science.pdf
A different backlash against gloom-and-doom climate change reporting:
https://shorensteincenter.org/media-disengagement-climate-change/
Don't it always seem to go
That you ... uh ... can't recall what you had when your memory's gone?
It Is Not a Cohort Thing: Interrogating the Relationship Between Age, Cohort, and Support for the Environment
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0013916518780483
(no non-paywall)
FAIR USE POSTING OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-blows-away-a-penumbra-1530722910
Trump Blows Away a Penumbra; Liberals are hysterical because a long era of judge-made law may be about to end.
Henninger, Daniel. Wall Street Journal (Online); New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]04 July 2018:
Michael Moore, who somehow has kept his name afloat since he made a movie about George W. Bush 14 years ago, says he wants to surround the U.S. Capitol with a million protesters so the Senate won't be able to vote on President Trump's Supreme Court nominee. He asks: "What would you give your life for?"
The day after Justice Anthony Kennedy resigned, the New York Times's editorialists addressed "those who face the future in fear after Wednesday." Lest anyone miss the point, the Times said: "It is a dark moment in the history of the court and the nation, and it's about to get a lot darker."
All this panic is supposed to be about the future of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision establishing abortion as aright. In fact, the threat to Democratic political rule is even bigger than Roe, which was about just one thing. What is at risk is the rationale for judicial overreaching that was created in the court's 1965 decision, Griswold v. Connecticut.
Supreme Court decisions don't often produce phrases that enter the vocabulary of political life, but Griswold did. The phrase is "penumbras formed by emanations."
Griswold is worth recalling because it established a right to privacy, though the Constitution says nothing about any such right. Justice William O. Douglas famously explained how this could be, arguing that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."
Douglas's "penumbras" decision, though ridiculed, defined the post-'60s era of "judge-made law," in which achieving a result that reflected liberal values or policy goals mattered more than the legal reasoning to justify it. This results-driven view is what routinely sent Justice Antonin Scalia into eloquent and volcanic dissents.
Though capable of rigor in his reasoning, Anthony Kennedy was willing to swing toward decisions that simply affirmed what he thought were ascendant cultural mores. With the Trump Supreme Court nominations, this long era of judge-made law is at risk, if not over.
First with Neil Gorsuch and now with Justice Kennedy's successor, Donald Trump is putting a stop to ruling by penumbra. It's a historic shift, and Mr. Trump's opponents are going absolutely crazy.
As the Times editorial suggests, the left seems to believe the Supreme Court will virtually cease to exist as abranch of government. That puts liberals in a tough spot, because they had already thrown in the towel on the legislative branch.
From the 1970s onward, modern liberalism increasingly came to rely on filing lawsuits to effect policies that couldn't survive passage through representative bodies like the House and Senate. Or they deployed executive mandates--which reached an apotheosis with Barack Obama.
Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ended the filibuster for appellate-court nominees so his party could pack the D.C. Circuit with judges who would affirm the Obama regulatory orders that covered vast swaths of American life.
Having all but abandoned the legislative branch to achieve their goals, progressives now think the TrumpSupreme Court nominations will close off the judiciary as a policy tool. Thus, the hysteria.
In the Carpenter case this term, Justice Gorsuch wrote a long dissent, which didn't mention "penumbras," but it's clear he knows exactly when the trouble started: "From the founding until the 1960s, the right to assert aFourth Amendment claim didn't depend on your ability to appeal to a judge's personal sensibilities about the 'reasonableness' of your expectations or privacy. It was tied to the law." Justice Gorsuch calls judging rooted in law "the traditional approach." I'm for it.
Our confusing culture could itself kill penumbral legal reasoning. One can imagine the high court struggling to adjudicate cases based on ever more arcane claims for self-identity, diversity and privacy. Contorting itself even further to accommodate incomprehensible rights could discredit the court with a strong majority of the American people.
Despite his reputation as the swing vote on cultural issues, Justice Kennedy appeared to understand that we have arrived at a crossroads. In several opinions this term, he essentially issued statements of belief.
Here, in Nifla v. Becerra, is the co-author of Planned Parenthood v. Casey explaining why pregnancy-service agencies should not be compelled to issue a state's abortion notification: "It is forward thinking to begin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it." He is saying to his liberal colleagues in the judiciary: Enough is enough.
Some argue that Mr. Trump filled the Scalia seat with Justice Gorsuch and now is obligated to fill the Kennedy "swing" seat with another Kennedy. He is under no such obligation. What President Trump should do is complete his already stellar Gorsuch bench. That would mean a justice who respects the law's traditions and understands its limits.
Write henninger@wsj.com.
(c) 2018 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key point in above:
"Though capable of rigor in his reasoning, Anthony Kennedy was willing to swing toward decisions that simply affirmed what he thought were ascendant cultural mores."
I do not believe Dypoon is correct in thinking cultural mores have changed, on climate change or on any other subject. Rather, people have finally (see battle for 1A being still fought) asserted their right to speak freely.
Just because we've had to keep quiet for so long doesn't mean we plan to do so forever - as soon as 1A has been turned into an impregnable fortress we will make a clear move against the 14th. Jus soli is only a start - equal protection is next, even if we have to redefine what constitutes a "person". That, by the way, is what president Trump means by "due process" - he understands the problem perfectly but is forced to use occasional misdirection on the basic principle "tracers work BOTH ways". Anyone inclined to call him an ignoramus or a liar has now been warned.
I am informed by a legal colleague who follows Dan's blog - though he hasn't posted yet - that my method of claiming Fair Use and including the copyright notice does not comply with the new European Intellectual Property law. So from now on I will be posting paywalled articles on Pastebin, which is apparently legal - not sure why and how, but it is.
This is today's WSJ editorial on the resignation of EPA director Pruitt,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/pruitt-drowns-in-the-swamp-1530834262
"Pruitt Drowns in the Swamp; The permanent green government takes out Trump's deregulator."
https://pastebin.com/7zp0JaFH
PS anyone can open a free Pastebin account. https://pastebin.com/
Bloomberg / BusinessWeek allows a few free articles per month.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-25/brexit-big-short-how-pollsters-helped-hedge-funds-beat-the-crash
In case you ran out of free articles, this one is a masterpiece on why pollsters got it so wrong, so I reposted it on Pastebin:
https://pastebin.com/KnLwsL5K
Ecoute -
... why pollsters got it so wrong...
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/uk-european-union-referendum
And never, ever, assume readers have read anything dated more recently than 2 years ago, as for example quoted in the immediately preceding post.
Why pollsters hear a lot of lies
https://quillette.com/2018/07/02/political-moderates-are-lying/
"...how do moderates navigate this complex web of political tribes and echo chambers?
Simply put, they falsify their preferences. "
And the true reason people keep mouth shut - when they do post what they think, they get booted off social media! But on the internet, everything is archived, so this post survived:
https://is2.4chan.org/pol/1530358362090.png
Jonathan Swift's rhetorical device, a pro-cannibalism tract to satirize English indifference to Irish deaths by starvation, now appropriated by some auteur - humorously (in her mind, if it may be called that) criticizing (in order of appearance) the Second Amendment, late-term abortions, climate models, automatic conviction on men in bad dates, and banishment of all conservatives from the public square. .
"...Gun owners? We’ve got to respect them and let them lead the way on gun change. Abortion? We should for sure defer to people who believe women are incapable of making their own decision on that. Climate change? We should listen more to people who don’t believe in it and will do nothing to prevent our cities from being submerged in water, because Atlantis was cool. The #MeToo movement should be more concerned with the feelings of the men doing the harassing.
We should just nod politely at everyone, because everyone’s views are equal in our eyes. Let a thousand intellectually rigorous flowers bloom!"
https://medium.com/@JenAshleyWright/we-at-the-new-york-times-have-not-gone-far-enough-efda5450665d
We interrupt this program for a public service announcement:
https://thenextweb.com/contributors/2018/07/07/scientific-publishing-is-rigged-at-our-expense/
We now return you to our show, Ecoute-zilla vs. the Lib-Monsters.
Jonathan - You know a third of the US population expects a civil war to break out within the next five years, right? I've been looking at the pathetic crowd over at the Washington Post amassing what it mistakes for ammunition - read their obsessive list for yourself:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/07/08/why-trumps-montana-rally-was-scarier-than-normal/?utm_term=.954520b8ab7c
".... a handy list ...: couponing while black, graduating too boisterously while black, waiting for a school bus while black, throwing a kindergarten temper tantrum while black, drinking iced tea while black, waiting at Starbucks while black, AirBnB’ing while black, shopping for underwear while black, having a loud conversation while black, golfing too slowly while black, buying clothes at Barney’s while black, or Macy’s, or Nordstrom Rack, getting locked out of your own home while black, going to the gym while black, asking for the Waffle House corporate number while black and reading C.S. Lewis while black, among others."
Note how the list of grievances is ALWAYS open-ended! But we can re-read Jefferson:
"...It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race."
Unlike Cassandra, I hope NOT to be believed - at least by what you call the "Lib-Monsters". There seems to be little danger of that happening here, so I don't worry about that eventuality. However, considering I have been received with courtesy here, I felt I had a duty to warn - now duly discharged.
Ecoute,
Quoting Jefferson is much like quoting the Bible - there is so much material in all sorts of directions that one can find support for just about anything. One of my Jefferson favs is:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s32.html
Probably not one of yours. Certainly not high on NiV's list. I consider Jefferson to be a visionary who's moral courage paled in comparison (neat pun there I never noticed before!) to his ideals to the point where this failing corrupted his visionary abilities. Although, maybe he was just an instance of the Kentucky farmer, and could only bring himself to promote his cultural vision when it didn't threaten his profits.
As for civil war, although Grace Slick was mostly right that being able to recall the '60's means one wasn't there, I have vague recollections of strife that, were comparisons of such things possible, I suspect today's would fall short. And then, out of nowhere, much like the dancing plague of 500 years ago this month, the '70's hit and we forgot it all and started to disco. Probably was St. Vitus condemning us for our self-absorption, thinking we had it soooo bad. Wish he had better taste in music, though.
Ecoute, I wasn't claiming that peoples' moral dispositions have changed regarding climate change. My claim is that Republicans are finding more political will to express pro-climate action beliefs, now that Republicans are in charge. In other words, just like there are plenty of Democrats now lining up to oppose anything trade-related that Trump does just 'coz it's Trump, I assert there were a bunch of people on the Republican side who were lined up to oppose anything climate-related that Obama did just 'coz it was Obama. There are plenty of climate-relevant options that the government could take that aren't motivated by the liberal doom-and-gloom narrative.
I really disagree with Gorsuch's take on what "tied to the law" means. The law was always intended to protect unspecified liberties. In my opinion, Griswold's finding of a right to privacy is no better or worse than Lochner's finding of a right to freedom of contract. When Lochner was overturned, we started looking for the "fundamental rights" because we -had- to; the Court had written itself out of recognizing new rights out of whole cloth. The stupid thing is that now all the chicken (chicken-sexing?) lawyers have to shoehorn their claims into the forms defined by those "fundamental" rights that have been recognized to exist, even though the text of the Constitution recognizes no rights as more fundamental than any other.
Interestingly, later democracies do have hierarchies of rights. The US is special in that it doesn't.
Dypoon - yes, I understood that was what you were saying, and as I said you are mistaken in your belief.
Ecoute, am I correct or mistaken in understanding that you actually agree with me that there's been a change in the US population surveyed between 2014 and 2016? If so, which people do you think weren't speaking freely before, the liberals who didn't agree with AGW, or the conservatives who did, or both? If I understand what you're saying correctly (that what we see is an effect of people speaking their real mind) it must be at least one of those two, to cause AOT to have a polarizing effect in the 2014 sample but not in the 2016.
I was positing that it was more the latter than the former. Do you think it's more the former? (And for that matter, the data would tell us which of us is right, if either, so this has turned into MAPKIA...)
Dypoon - you will pls excuse me but I have to work round the clock until a board meeting I have Wednesday 10:15 am. It's a currencies/commodities cross-trades model. I posted some related links here earlier.
But one thing I can say - anyone looking to polls, Facebook, orTwitter to divine public sentiment better read this - of course data have changed completely since last year, but the same cast of characters is at work.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/from-utah-with-love?utm_term=.wr092ylnV#.oeBQgkXOK
I felt I had a duty to warn
Thanks, Ecoute. That was mighty white of you:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mighty%20white%20of%20you
I'm beginning to wonder if Ecoute might be Q:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-is-qanon-the-craziest-theory-of-the-trump-era-explaine
https://youtu.be/cMXBu_-j1G0
I doubt it, Joshua. Q Clearance Patriot as a whole seems far less sensible than our friend here. Ecoute is a person. I'm not even convinced Q Clearance Patriot is one person.
I wasn't serious dypoon. Well, not entirely 🙄
Don't forget that any online persona could be a bot. Ecoute had to consult experts to evaluate if I might be one.
Joshua,
Large longitudinal vs. genome study of social class mobility:
https://phys.org/news/2018-07-genetic-variants-chances-success-life.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/03/1801238115
Public trust on nudges: scientists beat govt in US and UK:
https://phys.org/news/2018-07-people-scientific-experts-evidence-outlandish.html
(I can't find the paper mentioned even behind a paywall - must not be published yet - but I trust them....)
Jonathan
http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/papers/BASP%20Final_Revised%20Version_GREEN.pdf
-------------------------
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Basic
and Applied Social Psychology on [date of publication tbc], available online:
http://www.tandfonline.com/[Article DOI tbc].
Who do we trust on social policy
interventions?
Magda Osman1
, Norman Fenton1
, Toby Pilditch2
,
David Lagnado2
, Martin Neil1
---------------------------------
Dypoon - re your question: I haven't particularly sorted through the datasets, but generally doubt the validity of studies comparing views at 2 different times where both populations and concepts change. Even if the populations remain the same, the concept of climate change at time 2 is not identical to that of time 1.
Or, to take another study where the metric is identical: I saw how in New York we became fatter from 2008 to today. weight is certainly measured the same way (unlike the concept of climate change). But we also became more "diverse" (mostly more black and Hispanic) so might that account for the full effect measured? I've no idea, but saw no effort to adjust for that factor. I'm just happy Michelle Obama and her diet/exercise routines are gone from newsfeeds, and it's safe to look at Vogue again.
Vogue may be safe again - for 8 years I've been giving it to my cleaning lady unread - but The Economist has replaced it as most PC publication in my mailbox:
"...Channel 4’s Diversity Lectures, given this year by Caitlyn Jenner (formerly Bruce, an American Olympic athlete)—a controversial decision not because this was the third speaker born male in the three years of the lectures’ existence, but because of Ms Jenner’s support for the Republican Party."
"https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/05/trans-rights-should-not-come-at-the-cost-of-womens-fragile-gains
Only Guns&Ammo has remained mercifully unchanged.
Thanks, Ecoute! My Aleph usually doesn't miss private web pages...
Asymmetry warning - demz pruder than pubz, but libertarians most Ayn-Randy of all:
https://phys.org/news/2018-07-voters-infidelity.html
non-paywall: https://arfer.net/projects/cheat/paper
srsly, greens? May have to adjust my opinion of Jill Stein, again...
In western Europe, populism isn't that popular:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2018/07/12/in-western-europe-populist-parties-tap-anti-establishment-frustration-but-have-little-appeal-across-ideological-divide/
"Are you a liberal, a conservative, a Russian artificial intelligence created to sow discord in American society, or one of the thirteen hardened democrats working on Robert Mueller’s witch hunt Russia investigation? Take this quiz"
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/quiz-are-you-a-modern-conservative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------