Thread by @Yascha_Mounk

It's fascinating how the pessimistic narrative of the past years has been influencing popular representations of academic research.

Even where research on race relations has mixed implications, the media focuses mostly on the negative facet.

Here's a small example.

[Thread]

In an ingenious paper, @RyanDEnos suggested that demographic shifts can have a very negative impact on people's attitudes towards immigrants.

By placing Spanish-speakers on suburban train platforms in Boston, he showed how a perceived increase in diversity can lead to backlash.

The paper was widely covered in the media. And it was a good, important paper!

But virtually all of the press coverage left out one an most important points that Enos himself made: The negative effect of increased diversity actually faded very quickly.

Here, the light blue line represents commuters' views on immigration after three days of exposure to more Spanish-speakers; the dark blue line shows attitudes after ten days of exposure.

Look: After an initial backlash, their views were starting to revert to the baseline (0.0).

In the experiment's last days, the Spanish-speakers Enos enlisted reported that "people have started to recognize and smile to us.”

One passenger told them: “the longer you see the same person every day the more confident you feel to greet and say ‘hi’ to them.”

This does not turn the paper's message on its head. Enos' findings *are* depressing. They demonstrate how easily demographic change can trigger a backlash.

But they are much more ambiguous than the press makes them out to be.

And that, sadly, is part of a wider pattern.

[End]