1) Nice summary of some recent research on misinformation
Here’s my entry for understatement of the year: Fake news and misinformation is a bit of a problem right now. In the Internet age, we find ourselves in a deluge of information—a lot of it intentionally false or misleading. Linley Sanders, writing for YouGov, puts the truth-detection abilities of approximately 1,500 US adults to the test. Using a combination of 10 true and 10 false headlines (taken from the Misinformation Susceptibility Test), this poll finds that about 50% of respondents misclassified 7 or more headlines. Some true statements were correctly classified by the vast majority of respondents (e.g., “Republicans Divided in Views of Trump’s Conduct, Democrats are Broadly Critical”, 80%); others were trickier (“Hyatt will remove small bottles from hotel bathrooms”, 64%). Similarly, some false statements were overwhelmingly identified as such (“Ebola virus caused by US nuclear weapons testing, new study says”, 81%) while others were more convincing (“New Study: Left-Wingers are more likely to lie to get a higher salary” 54%). Contrary to prevailing narratives, older adults tended to have substantially higher scores than those 18-29—and those who were online recreationally for more than 4 hours a day were more inaccurate. Those who get their news sources from sources such as Snapchat, WhatsApp, and TikTok were overwhelmingly more likely to score fewer than 10 correct than those who read more traditional news outlets.
2) On a somewhat related note, “Love Fox? MSNBC? You May Be Locked in a ‘partisan echo chamber,’ Study Finds”
The new Broockman-Kalla study is based on data sets that have never before been tapped by political researchers: data from smart TVs on consumption of partisan and national broadcast news; data from Nielsen Media Research on consumption of partisan and national broadcast news used by its survey subjects, tied to data on their voter party registration; data from TV cable boxes on the media consumption habits; and data from TV consumption diaries tied to survey data on political party affiliation.
Among the findings:
About 1 in 7 Americans consumes over eight hours of partisan media per month. This group outnumbers newspaper subscribers and the viewership of nonpartisan national broadcast news.
Some 32% of Fox viewers identify as strong Republicans, but another 42% range from less partisan Republicans to independents. A similar pattern prevails among viewers of CNN and MSNBC: 36% report strong Democratic identity, with 42% less partisan Democrats and independents.
Among registered Republicans, only 13% of those who watch over eight hours of Fox News every month also watch at least one hour per month of nonpartisan national broadcast news. Among registered Democrats, 36% have such diversity in their media diet. And only single-digit percentages in either party crossed over to watch four hours from the other side’s network.
Such numbers lead the authors to a key conclusion that holds across both sides: “Partisans who consume their side’s partisan media largely do inhabit partisan echo chambers.” …
3) Interesting take on the affirmative action ruling from Nate Cohn:
As I wrote at the time, the Supreme Court’s decision to make same-sex marriage a fundamental right was probably politically advantageous for Republicans. Yes, the court decision was popular and the Republican position on same-sex marriage was increasingly unpopular, but that’s precisely why that decision did them a favor: It all but removed the issue from political discourse, freeing Republicans from an issue that might have otherwise hobbled them.
In theory, something similar can be said for the court’s affirmative action ruling, but this time with the decision helping Democrats. Here again, the court is taking a popular position that potentially frees a political party — this time the Democrats — from an issue that could hurt it, including with the fast-growing group of Asian American voters.
It’s worth noting that this would be nothing like how the court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade helped Democrats. Then, the court ruling sparked a backlash that energized liberals and gave Democrats a new campaign issue with appeal to the base and moderates alike. If the most recent case were to help Democrats, it would do so in nearly the opposite manner: To take advantage of the ruling politically, Democrats might need to stop talking about it.
It was fairly easy for Republican elites to stop talking about same-sex marriage in 2015, as many were already keen to move on from a losing political fight. It is not as obvious that Democratic elites are keen to move away from the fight over affirmative action or whether they even can, given their base’s passion for racial equality.
4) You know I’m not much of an International relations guy, but this left me a little vexed, “NATO’s Welcome Party for Sweden Is Back on Ice: Alliance leaders wanted their summit next week to celebrate the arrival of a new member, but stalling by Hungary and objections from Turkey have made that nearly impossible.”
As in, seriously, can’t the United States to get Turkey to do the right thing here?
5) So many of the headlines about the Netherlands recently were like this, “Dutch government collapses over immigration policy”
That’s bad!! I know, and perhaps you, too, that “government collapse” in this context means that “ruling party coalition” had a major failure and will be holding new elections. But lots of people don’t realize that “government” also means “ruling party coalition” instead of the whole damn government. My wife and son– not ignorant people– saw this headline and were both asking “what the hell is going on in the Netherlands?!”
The version of most politicians that we need to worry about is the one that they don’t want us to see. That’s why campaign reporters dog them; they’re waiting for the veil to slip.
But the version of Ron DeSantis that we need to worry about is the one that he proudly shows us. He embraces his meanness. He luxuriates in his darkness. Let other politicians peddle the pablum of inspiration. He prefers to ooze the toxin of contempt.
That’s one of the morals of a provocative anti-gay, anti-trans video that the DeSantis campaign shared late last week. The campaign’s promotion of it prompted accusations of homophobia even from some Republicans, and justly so: In an attempt to smear Donald Trump, the video doesn’t just accuse him of coddling L.G.B.T.Q. Americans. It revels in DeSantis’s vilification of them.
Initially distributed by a Twitter account called Proud Elephant, it presents a bizarre montage that’s superficially an anti-woke battle cry, pitting a truculent DeSantis against a scourge of degenerates. But while his viciousness comes through precisely as planned, so does something unintended: an undercurrent of homoerotic kink. Up pops a shirtless hunk with a ripped chest. Here’s a glowering Brad Pitt in his “Troy” drag. Are honchos with a Homer fetish some new thing? I need to get out more.
But the perversely purposed beefcake is less striking than the way in which the video exultantly spotlights DeSantis’s biggest critics and celebrates their harshest criticism, treating the words with which they’ve described him and his initiatives as the best measures of his mettle. “Most extreme” becomes a trophy, “horrifying” a crown and “evil” a sash.
The Florida governor is running one freaky and unsettling presidential campaign. He’s more focused on putting certain Americans in their places than on lifting others to new heights. He’s defined by the scores he pledges to settle instead of the victories he promises to achieve. He casts himself as someone to fear rather than revere. That video actually flashes an image of Christian Bale in “American Psycho” as a flattering DeSantis analogue.
Vote DeSantis: He’s a monster, but he’s your monster.
How does someone with that pitch possibly bring together and lead an entire diverse country, if he gets that chance, and what does it say about the United States today that he has come this far? Have we put tolerance, grand ideals and optimism so fully to rest? I remember “morning in America.” I guess it’s now midnight.
To read deeply and widely about DeSantis is to learn that his cruel politics match a cold personality. He seems to trust almost no one other than his wife, who’s his twin in unalloyed ambition. He’s a collector of slights. He gets an A+ in grudge holding and an F in humility, and he’s taking etiquette pass/fail. He has resting disdain face.
When I find pictures of him laughing, his expression is a bad stage actor’s — it’s a labored and spurious guffaw — as if a campaign aide intent on warming him up had just pulled hard on some string embedded in DeSantis’s back. Only his rants have a genuine air. He looked perfectly comfortable on Fox News recently saying that anyone who cut through a border wall between Mexico and the United States to traffic fentanyl would “end up stone cold dead.” He’s out to out-Trump Trump, who reportedly wondered aloud about a water-filled border trench stocked with snakes and alligators. I’m counting the minutes until DeSantis’s proposal for a moat stocked with great white sharks.
Raising questions about illegal immigration and border security is necessary and just. But what’s served by doing so with such bloodthirstiness?
Establishing guidelines for the age at which it’s appropriate for children in public schools to discuss sexual orientation and gender identity is legitimate. But what’s gained by inviting the word “groomers” into the conversation and casting yourself as a pulchritudinous gladiator who will teach them a pitiless lesson?
DeSantis mistakes spite for spiritedness, bullying for strength. I hope voters don’t do likewise.
7) This is fantastic from Brian Klaas. I keep telling people about it, “The origins of power dynamics, or why chimps can’t play baseball: Our ability to throw objects hard, fast, and with accuracy is unique in the animal kingdom. That helps explain the emergence of modern human power dynamics.”
Between four and thirteen million years ago, our primate ancestors diverged from chimpanzees on the evolutionary tree. They remained brawnier, while we became brainier. Chimpanzees, who have twice as much “fast-twitch” muscle fiber as we do, are about 1.35 to 1.5 times stronger than us. With stronger arms, and muscle fine-tuned for speedy contractions, chimps should be able to throw a baseball much faster than the most skilled human.
But it would be unwise to bring in a chimpanzee as a relief pitcher. With robust training, they can only throw an object about 20 miles per hour, and it usually flies off in random directions. Meanwhile, we play a sport that involves exceptional humans throwing a ball over 100 miles per hour with astonishing accuracy.
We’re the only species capable of this feat. Why can’t chimpanzees do the same?
Shoulder surgery
The answer lies with the evolution of our shoulders, which are unique. As Neil Thomas Roach of Harvard University explains, humans have three key adaptations that give us the ability to throw objects with accuracy and speed: an expanded waist, lower shoulders, and something called “low humeral torsion,” a fancy way of saying we can twist our upper arm bone quickly. (In fact, when a human throws hard, the rapid movement of the upper arm is the fastest movement the human body can produce; at its peak it moves up to 9,000 degrees per second).
Some other species use projectiles to their advantage, but most are liquid. Spitting spiders live up to their name, trapping and poisoning their prey from afar. Pistol shrimp fire their claws with such force that the ensuing underwater bubble can kill small fish. The terrifying cone snail — which can kill humans with its toxic venom — shoots a modified tooth like a harpoon at unsuspecting prey, paralyzing them instantly.
But mammals, by and large, don’t use ranged weapons. Except us. Two million years ago, our Homo erectus ancestors exhibited those three evolved changes that provided us the ability to kill from a distance, most likely just by throwing a rock. In the evolutionary sweepstakes, this was like winning the lottery. Imagine how impossible it would have been to kill a gazelle if you had to do so with your bare hands. Even if you had the strength, it would just run away…
Survival of the smartest
Moreover, recent research in human evolutionary biology has suggested that the brain sizes of our ancestors expanded rapidly as a result of environmental pressures in East Africa, as our ancestors needed to navigate a complex, rapidly changing landscape where lakes filled and emptied in an evolutionary blink.
These changes may also be associated with hunting using ranged weapons, which rewarded strategic thinking, intellect, and careful planning rather than brute force and physical size. When faced with a challenging environment, then, perhaps survival of the smartest started to reshape our species. (As with any attempt to gaze into the distant past with flawed, incomplete evidence, these hypotheses are fragile and uncertain).
Nonetheless, modern humans have benefited from these two key evolved adaptations from the distant past. Our intellectual prowess allows us to make smarter decisions, contemplating alternative courses of action, rather than blindly following. Our ability to kill or injure at a distance has freed us from the dominance of the strongest male.
And yet, strong men — or “strongmen” — continue to rule over many of our societies, governing with authoritarian dominance. Why is that? Didn’t we jettison the cruder social structures of the chimpanzees when we developed the ability to throw a rock, and later a baseball?
8) Enjoyed Coleman Hughes‘ take on affirmative action:
2. “Affirmative Action” Affects the Elites, Not the Masses
Who is really affected by “Affirmative Action”? From how it’s discussed, you would think “Affirmative Action” affects a wide swathe of the black and Hispanic public. But you’d be wrong.
By Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade’s estimate, in any given year, only 1 percent of black and Hispanic 18-year olds get into a college as a result of racial preferences. The other 99 percent either don’t go to college at all or don’t go to colleges selective enough to “need” racial preferences. Schools with acceptance rates over 50% generally don’t use affirmative action.
“Affirmative Action” is an elite policy. Problems that affect elites get more attention than problems that affect the masses because elites have more media influence. This dynamic is as true with elites of color as it is with white elites. In the coming weeks, we’re going to hear that this decision restricts “access” to higher education. But “access” to higher education will not be affected by this ruling; what will be affected is the ease of entrance to a select few very prestigious schools.
Take a look at the colleges attended by Fortune 500 CEOs. By and large, they are schools with acceptance rates between 60-95%––not the elite schools affected by this verdict. Did these CEOs lack “access” to higher education because they didn’t get into an Ivy? I don’t think so. Without attributing malice or dishonesty to anyone, I believe that framing “Affirmative Action” as an “higher education access” issue is a way for us “top 1% elites of color” (I include myself in this category) to give our own narrow self-interest a more noble gloss…
10. If Not Affirmative Action, then What?
“Affirmative Action” in college admissions is often viewed as a way of reducing inequality. As I argued in point #3, the policy’s track record on this point is dubious. But if “Affirmative Action” isn’t the solution, then what is?
To speak narrowly about black and white Americans––who are at the core of the issue––I believe one of the most important drivers of outcome gaps is the “human capital” gap. By “human capital,” I mean skills, knowledge, abilities, habits that lead to higher productivity. This is by no means the only driver of outcome gaps. Racial discrimination is a factor. Differences in social capital are also important. But the human capital gap is, in my view, the most important.
Much of the human capital gap is determined by peer culture and parental investment––which are beyond the direct reach of the state. But education is a major lever that the state can pull to influence human capital. From that observation, it might seem to follow that racial preferences in college admissions play a role in addressing the human capital gap.
But recall from point #2 that only 1 percent of black and Hispanic 18-year olds get into college as a result of Affirmative Action. Not to mention, Affirmative Action kicks in at 18-years old, after the most crucial years of child development are already over.
It is between the ages of 0 and 18 that we can have the greatest impact on the human capital of black and Hispanic kids. A program which begins after kids have turned 18 is not a serious intervention. A serious intervention would focus on the younger, more malleable years.
9) I think it is ridiculous that gender activists don’t want people to even mention the reality of social contagion among adolescents. But, clearly sometimes, from a very young age children have a very strong gender identity at odds with the body.
10) This feature on John Williams and the music of Indiana Jones is fantastic! Give a read (and listen). Gift link.
11) Also fantastic– this Noah Smith guest post on math education in California. “California needs real math education, not gimmicks”
Fully Myelinated 
Recent Comments