Question (& possibly a dumb one) reg. the recent census release: I've seen a number of takes on ET along the lines of ~ "the census release spells good news for democrats because democratic strongholds are growing; places that tend to vote republican are losing population." However, this is just an update of the population change that *has* happened, and with the election last year we have at least one data point showing how the updated population behaves electorally. I can see how that take is valid if these trends were to continue (/if current demographic coalitions continue to hold), but does it necessarily spell good news in the present/near future?
I'll be honest I haven't read the Economist article you mentioned so the answer may be "go read the article"
I've memorized my social security number because I know I'll have to recite it verbatim on numerous occasions. Politicians similarly memorize issue positions that they will regularly be called upon to voice. Most attitudes are not like that. We don't know exactly what we will need, if anything, when, or in what form. So we don't memorize our own attitudes but recreate and adjust them to specific situations where they are useful. There are a host of influences on these pronouncements, including recall of past announcements, a generic starting place for similar questions, the implicit bias of our language, and characteristics of the questioner. There is a similar diversity of influences on what politicians express as policy stances. If attitude describes a predisposition to consistently respond, then politicians have attitudes on policy; if attitude describes a more subjective feeling or thinking, it is less clear that the politicians stances are attitudes. The phrase "nonattitude" conjures a dichotomous choice between robotic regurgitations and random panic attacks. Neither is the situation for most of us or politicians. We are more or less.
I have to admit, even though I'm an obsessive consumer of all news political, I got lost about 1/3 of the way through, although I stuck it out to the end. I lost the thread of the argument(s)... unquoted-but-referenced article is right, or the quoted article that commented on the first article is right, or parts of either are right but only to a certain degree, or "popularists" are right (who I think are different from "populists"?), or...I don't know. Just being honest.
Question (& possibly a dumb one) reg. the recent census release: I've seen a number of takes on ET along the lines of ~ "the census release spells good news for democrats because democratic strongholds are growing; places that tend to vote republican are losing population." However, this is just an update of the population change that *has* happened, and with the election last year we have at least one data point showing how the updated population behaves electorally. I can see how that take is valid if these trends were to continue (/if current demographic coalitions continue to hold), but does it necessarily spell good news in the present/near future?
I'll be honest I haven't read the Economist article you mentioned so the answer may be "go read the article"
I've memorized my social security number because I know I'll have to recite it verbatim on numerous occasions. Politicians similarly memorize issue positions that they will regularly be called upon to voice. Most attitudes are not like that. We don't know exactly what we will need, if anything, when, or in what form. So we don't memorize our own attitudes but recreate and adjust them to specific situations where they are useful. There are a host of influences on these pronouncements, including recall of past announcements, a generic starting place for similar questions, the implicit bias of our language, and characteristics of the questioner. There is a similar diversity of influences on what politicians express as policy stances. If attitude describes a predisposition to consistently respond, then politicians have attitudes on policy; if attitude describes a more subjective feeling or thinking, it is less clear that the politicians stances are attitudes. The phrase "nonattitude" conjures a dichotomous choice between robotic regurgitations and random panic attacks. Neither is the situation for most of us or politicians. We are more or less.
I have to admit, even though I'm an obsessive consumer of all news political, I got lost about 1/3 of the way through, although I stuck it out to the end. I lost the thread of the argument(s)... unquoted-but-referenced article is right, or the quoted article that commented on the first article is right, or parts of either are right but only to a certain degree, or "popularists" are right (who I think are different from "populists"?), or...I don't know. Just being honest.