✳flâneur — a map of the web's best reading

Reasonably Polarized: Why politics is more rational than you think. - KEVIN DORST

kevindorst.com · 9,193 words · saved by 1 readers

Thank you for sharing this project. After reading the article and working through some of the points that confused me, I have the following questions. 1) Would it be correct to say that in this context, ‘rationality’ is interchangeable with ‘predictability’? This would make sense to me. The small exposure I have to this topic (as a student in a different field) has assumed the existence of rational strategic-actors. Rationality is a necessary assumption for analyzing strategy. 2) What role do you assess that intentional/professional dis/misinformation campaigns play in the phenomenon you describe? 3) Could you expand on the definition of polarized in this context? When you say that “when evidence is ambiguous…it can lead rational people to predictably polarize” does this mean it impacts their affiliation with political parties or factions? 4) Do you assess that a two-party electoral system plays a significant role in ambiguous-evidence driven polarization? Have you observed any differe

Reasonably Polarized: Why politics is more rational than you think. - KEVIN DORST KEVIN DORST Bio Research Teaching General Audience Substack Stranger Apologies Reasonably Polarized: Why politics is more rational than you think. 9/5/2020 39 Comments (1700 words; ​8 minute read.) [ 9/4/21 update: if you'd like to see the rigorous version of this whole blog series, check out the paper on "Rational Polarization" I just posted.] ​ ​​​ A Standard Story I haven't seen Becca in a decade. I don't know what she thinks about Trump, or Medicare for All, or defunding the poli

Explore this link on the map →

related reading