Check out rural urban bridge initiative for their qualitative research from the candidate and elected rep side. The ones that get elected against party affiliation odds in rural areas go everywhere in rural areas and listen to everyone. We need to do the same as voters. If we don’t contact the representative we believe will blow us off, their mail calls tweets can reinforce their confirmation bias because they never hear nor staffers count up our responses.
Thank you for pointing me to this Virginia. I’m very interested to read their report. It sounds like work that might compliment Cramer’s The Politics of Resentment and I’m looking forward to learning more.
Very valid question.👍🏼. In my experience the Politicians of any Party, asses the possible impression on his/her Voters! How will it please or displease his/her Voters? If it doesn't affect them, Politicians are least bothered & will close the conversation with an exchange of a few pleasantries with a smile. If the Politician understands the technical subject s/he may try to evaluate the response to his/her future political career and may respond with interest! Good begining! 👍🏼😊👏🙏
Ah, but it gets interesting when you start to explore what they know about who their constituents are and what they prefer. They often don’t see everyone bc of differences in resources and ability to reach out.
republicans do reach out to me because they know i don't hate them. and the fact is that many liberal scientists do hate them (whether it is rational to or not is beside the point). cultures totally polarized. it is what it is.
I wondered what you might think about this one Razib because of conversations we’ve had over the years.
I think it’s nuanced and suspect a lot of scientists simply don’t understand how information moves in Congress and how to be meaningfully engaged.
Many set up a meeting with the offices of their own party and leave DC feeling satisfied for contributing. That’s a generalization of course, there are some excellent scientists doing important work across the aisle too, but they seem to be the exception.
I don’t think academics generally recognize how staffers are incredibly busy juggling a lot of policy issues at once while being bombarded with multiple meetings on the same issue each day by all sorts of organized groups. If scientists hope to have greater influence in decision making, the community needs to learn more about the culture of the Hill.
I could say a lot more, but most importantly, I’m glad you’re reading.
many academics who did BA/BS->PhD->postdoc->assistant->associate->full don't realize the institutions and structures outside of their own. they're often quite smug and self-satisfied about this too. which would be fine if they were working in the private sector, but most of them work in state schools and the vast majority depend upon state funds. since they don't know any republicans (well, "out" republicans, there is a silent minority of right-leaning academics who keep their mouths shut) they are totally unaware of the rage and alienation that 50% of the public that funds them is starting to feel.
i warned about this 10 years ago, but it's gotten way worse, and academics are now much more nakedly partisan. if academic institutions are fundamentally political, a new argument now to justify taking sides and moral clarity, do not be surprised when politics intrudes into the institution (florida). nature is going to run its course...
I do think this definitely happens, but I also think we can't generalize. It probably represents some of the most vocal, visible and adversary voices rather than the whole. Certain folks are more likely to spend the time writing opinion pieces, making the rounds on tv and podcasts and generally being combative. Media outlets amplify those voices most, which parallels who gets the most attention in Congress.
I visit universities and orgs often, and meet a lot of really thoughtful people who aren't looking for a fight, but openly admit they don't have the experience or training to know how or where to begin.
Reading Razib's latest comment from a few minutes ago further supports the thought I was going to make anyway.
If the scientists are not truly political animals (outside of their technical arena), and if their ideas being presented to the staffers and politicians have merit, then maybe it is partly incumbent on the political actors (staff and pols) to help them advance their ideas to the other side. This would especially be the case if a majority must be bipartisan to achieve real legislative or regulatory solutions.
And the staffers would know whom on the other side might be most receptive when opening a dialog across the aisle. The intro could be as strong as "here is an idea you definitely ought to hear as it aligns with your position on X", to a rather lukewarm "not sure this idea is going to appeal to you at all, but it is at least tangentially related to your position on X and you might want to listen and hear him/her out."
Not all districts and constituencies favor a bipartisan solution, rather than maintaining a "my side only" viewpoint; but many do, so the suitably aligned political offices ought to help foster that.
You're touching on some ideas in the manuscript I'm currently working on. I've met so many staff that don't behave the way we've been trained to expect them to because of polarization and media depictions. In fact, on multiple occasions, staff from one party have introduced me to colleagues from the other that they work with toward bipartisan legislation because they've built trust over years.
I do think we need more of an open dialog and scientists need to work at building relationships and creating systems to navigate complex issues together.
1) there is the 'silent majority' and 'hidden tribe'. that's fine. but these ppl do not organize and bully anyone
2) i have a totally different experience than you because centrist and conservative academics approach me privately all the time (i run private group chats for them to network because they don't trust anyone) at numerous institutions. many of them are either closeted or keep a very low profile. the majority is not going to have their back when the vocal minority comes after them.
in the broader culture there are two polarized wings screaming at each other. in academia there isn't, because there's no longer a "right" outside of a few culturally unimportant christian institutions (well, there is a "right", but those are people who support pete buttigeg)
and to reiterate the menace that openly conservative people in academia feel, i was physically attacked at ASHG 2013 and came close to being assaulted again at 2014. there are plenty of witnesses for both incidents (the first is kind of well known in some circles). the reason given both times was my politics. if that level of aggression can happen to me (to be clear, alcohol was involved both times) what do you think is happening in a more low-key way?
there are people trying to fight back against the climate of intolerance, but they're almost all moderate liberals. i wish them luck. they'll need it :)
I am so sorry and sad to read you were assaulted twice. That's terrible. I hope there were others who came to your aid.
Yes, it's interesting how we have two different vantage points of the same problem. For example, I know you tend to hear the most polarizing examples from my university, but I also am friendly with several conservative faculty members here in other departments. But the culture in the Midwest is likely different than at some of the coastal institutions.
Circling back to this post, I also tend to meet scientists who think it's on politicians and their staff to reach out to them individually for information, which of course, is unlikely to happen. So all sorts of problems abound. Many largely from fear or misunderstanding, made worse by media focus on the extremes.
i think the media and social media don't help. but i think honestly think a lot of scientists are hostile to republicans and lot of republicans are hostile to science. there needs to be some responsibility on the agents as opposed to the facilitators. it's palpably got worse on both counts in the last 5 years.
Check out rural urban bridge initiative for their qualitative research from the candidate and elected rep side. The ones that get elected against party affiliation odds in rural areas go everywhere in rural areas and listen to everyone. We need to do the same as voters. If we don’t contact the representative we believe will blow us off, their mail calls tweets can reinforce their confirmation bias because they never hear nor staffers count up our responses.
Thank you for pointing me to this Virginia. I’m very interested to read their report. It sounds like work that might compliment Cramer’s The Politics of Resentment and I’m looking forward to learning more.
Here ya go! https://ruralurbanbridge.org/resources
Very valid question.👍🏼. In my experience the Politicians of any Party, asses the possible impression on his/her Voters! How will it please or displease his/her Voters? If it doesn't affect them, Politicians are least bothered & will close the conversation with an exchange of a few pleasantries with a smile. If the Politician understands the technical subject s/he may try to evaluate the response to his/her future political career and may respond with interest! Good begining! 👍🏼😊👏🙏
Ah, but it gets interesting when you start to explore what they know about who their constituents are and what they prefer. They often don’t see everyone bc of differences in resources and ability to reach out.
republicans do reach out to me because they know i don't hate them. and the fact is that many liberal scientists do hate them (whether it is rational to or not is beside the point). cultures totally polarized. it is what it is.
I wondered what you might think about this one Razib because of conversations we’ve had over the years.
I think it’s nuanced and suspect a lot of scientists simply don’t understand how information moves in Congress and how to be meaningfully engaged.
Many set up a meeting with the offices of their own party and leave DC feeling satisfied for contributing. That’s a generalization of course, there are some excellent scientists doing important work across the aisle too, but they seem to be the exception.
I don’t think academics generally recognize how staffers are incredibly busy juggling a lot of policy issues at once while being bombarded with multiple meetings on the same issue each day by all sorts of organized groups. If scientists hope to have greater influence in decision making, the community needs to learn more about the culture of the Hill.
I could say a lot more, but most importantly, I’m glad you’re reading.
many academics who did BA/BS->PhD->postdoc->assistant->associate->full don't realize the institutions and structures outside of their own. they're often quite smug and self-satisfied about this too. which would be fine if they were working in the private sector, but most of them work in state schools and the vast majority depend upon state funds. since they don't know any republicans (well, "out" republicans, there is a silent minority of right-leaning academics who keep their mouths shut) they are totally unaware of the rage and alienation that 50% of the public that funds them is starting to feel.
i warned about this 10 years ago, but it's gotten way worse, and academics are now much more nakedly partisan. if academic institutions are fundamentally political, a new argument now to justify taking sides and moral clarity, do not be surprised when politics intrudes into the institution (florida). nature is going to run its course...
I do think this definitely happens, but I also think we can't generalize. It probably represents some of the most vocal, visible and adversary voices rather than the whole. Certain folks are more likely to spend the time writing opinion pieces, making the rounds on tv and podcasts and generally being combative. Media outlets amplify those voices most, which parallels who gets the most attention in Congress.
I visit universities and orgs often, and meet a lot of really thoughtful people who aren't looking for a fight, but openly admit they don't have the experience or training to know how or where to begin.
Reading Razib's latest comment from a few minutes ago further supports the thought I was going to make anyway.
If the scientists are not truly political animals (outside of their technical arena), and if their ideas being presented to the staffers and politicians have merit, then maybe it is partly incumbent on the political actors (staff and pols) to help them advance their ideas to the other side. This would especially be the case if a majority must be bipartisan to achieve real legislative or regulatory solutions.
And the staffers would know whom on the other side might be most receptive when opening a dialog across the aisle. The intro could be as strong as "here is an idea you definitely ought to hear as it aligns with your position on X", to a rather lukewarm "not sure this idea is going to appeal to you at all, but it is at least tangentially related to your position on X and you might want to listen and hear him/her out."
Not all districts and constituencies favor a bipartisan solution, rather than maintaining a "my side only" viewpoint; but many do, so the suitably aligned political offices ought to help foster that.
You're touching on some ideas in the manuscript I'm currently working on. I've met so many staff that don't behave the way we've been trained to expect them to because of polarization and media depictions. In fact, on multiple occasions, staff from one party have introduced me to colleagues from the other that they work with toward bipartisan legislation because they've built trust over years.
I do think we need more of an open dialog and scientists need to work at building relationships and creating systems to navigate complex issues together.
two things
1) there is the 'silent majority' and 'hidden tribe'. that's fine. but these ppl do not organize and bully anyone
2) i have a totally different experience than you because centrist and conservative academics approach me privately all the time (i run private group chats for them to network because they don't trust anyone) at numerous institutions. many of them are either closeted or keep a very low profile. the majority is not going to have their back when the vocal minority comes after them.
in the broader culture there are two polarized wings screaming at each other. in academia there isn't, because there's no longer a "right" outside of a few culturally unimportant christian institutions (well, there is a "right", but those are people who support pete buttigeg)
and to reiterate the menace that openly conservative people in academia feel, i was physically attacked at ASHG 2013 and came close to being assaulted again at 2014. there are plenty of witnesses for both incidents (the first is kind of well known in some circles). the reason given both times was my politics. if that level of aggression can happen to me (to be clear, alcohol was involved both times) what do you think is happening in a more low-key way?
there are people trying to fight back against the climate of intolerance, but they're almost all moderate liberals. i wish them luck. they'll need it :)
I am so sorry and sad to read you were assaulted twice. That's terrible. I hope there were others who came to your aid.
Yes, it's interesting how we have two different vantage points of the same problem. For example, I know you tend to hear the most polarizing examples from my university, but I also am friendly with several conservative faculty members here in other departments. But the culture in the Midwest is likely different than at some of the coastal institutions.
Circling back to this post, I also tend to meet scientists who think it's on politicians and their staff to reach out to them individually for information, which of course, is unlikely to happen. So all sorts of problems abound. Many largely from fear or misunderstanding, made worse by media focus on the extremes.
i think the media and social media don't help. but i think honestly think a lot of scientists are hostile to republicans and lot of republicans are hostile to science. there needs to be some responsibility on the agents as opposed to the facilitators. it's palpably got worse on both counts in the last 5 years.
"I am so sorry and sad to read you were assaulted twice. That's terrible. I hope there were others who came to your aid."
well after 2014 i just made sure to lift and only move around the conference with my boys :) no one bothered me...
Thanks for a great post
Thanks for reading Bruce.