This is the nature of tail risk. We should acknowledge uncertainty but focus first and foremost on the very real danger. Experts are gravely worried. We should act now not ask later why warnings weren't heeded (see: 9/11, Chernobyl, etc.).
The media must convey that we are facing a democratic emergency. The fact that Trump has said similar things before does not in any way reduce the gravity of the situation.
Encouraged by statements like this - now from @marcorubio. But we've seen this kind of talk before from Rs who ultimately bent the knee. Will they stand firm if Trump creates enough chaos to generate a pretext for overturning the vote/stopping the count?
If the Dept. of Justice will take these kinds of irregular actions now to promote false claims of widespread voter fraud, what will they do in November? A democratic emergency.
The President spent a significant portion of a presidential debate attacking the legitimacy of the U.S. electoral system and suggesting that the election could be "fraudulent." A democratic emergency.
NYT news analysis (not opinion/editorial): "the most direct threat to the electoral process now comes from the president of the United States himself." nytimes.com/2020/09/30/us/…
A democratic emergency.
"'It's the kind of language you might expect from a dictator': Trump's remarks on election integrity and poll-watching alarm experts" nytimes.com/live/2020/09/3…
The U.S. faces "the gravest challenge in its history to the way it chooses a leader and peacefully transfers power" nytimes.com/2020/09/30/us/…
In other words, a democratic emergency.
American intelligence and homeland security officials are worried the President of the United States is signaling foreign powers to interfere in our elections on his behalf. nytimes.com/2020/09/30/us/…
A democratic emergency.
A democratic emergency. To Racicot's great credit that he is speaking out.
"Almost every single claim Trump made during the debate segment about the integrity of the election was inaccurate... His Tuesday performance was just the latest component of a systematic, months-long disinformation campaign"
An ongoing, systematic attack on the legitimacy of our elections. Delivered at a de facto campaign rally held at the White House. A democratic emergency.
The President demanding that his Attorney General prosecute his political opponents before an election he is otherwise likely to lose. A democratic emergency. nytimes.com/2020/10/09/us/…
Officials in one of our largest cities are preparing for the very real possibility of serious election unrest to be incited by the President and his allies. What would you say if you saw it in another country?
The President's lawyer may be "cooperating with Russian intelligence operatives on a hack-and-leak operation to influence the presidential campaign." A democratic emergency. (From @jonathanchait but not linking to avoid direct amplification of anything related to this story.)
The President is threatening to fire the FBI director for failing to bring charges against his opponent on the eve of an election. A democratic emergency.
"A win, no matter the margin, will embolden Trump to ax anyone he sees as constraining him from enacting desired policies or *going after perceived enemies*" - including the FBI director. A democratic emergency.
In the culmination of a months-long campaign against the legitimacy of an election he is likely to lose, the President now openly opposes counting all the votes and is encouraging violence from his supporters. A democratic emergency. nytimes.com/2020/11/02/us/…
Unprecedented and authoritarian: The President is attacking the basis of our system of government by prematurely declaring himself the winner before the votes have been counted. A democratic emergency. washingtonpost.com/elections/2020…cnn.com/2020/11/04/med…
A democratic emergency. The President opposes the *first* count of the votes. Not a recount, not a change in standards. Counting the votes.
New @nature: Like-minded sources on Facebook are prevalent but not polarizing
(open access!)
Our key findings:
-Median FB user gets 50.4% of content from like-minded sources
-But reducing exposure by ~1/3 for 3 months had no measurable effect on attitudes https://t.co/IpaHQ0bnGznature.com/articles/s4158…
Increased polarization and hostility are often blamed on echo chambers on social media.
We therefore look at the sources people are exposed to on Facebook to see (a) how slanted they are toward people's political leanings & (b) what effect changing those sources would have.
We estimate user political leanings with a validated classifier and categorize other users, Pages, & groups as "like-minded" (sharing user's leanings), "cross-cutting" (on other side), or neither (in the middle). Exposure data are June-Sept. '20, experimental data Sept.-Dec. '20.
Next I pressed ChatGPT to make synthetic @j_a_tucker, @AdamBerinsky, @emilythorson, @AliceMarwick, & @duncanjwatts more critical & to draw on specific research. Again not nearly as good as the real folks but how long until we're evaluating R2 on value above ChatGPT (VOCG)?
Here's a review written by synthetic me. I gave my paper an R&R, which I guess is a good sign?
Academics: Papers that say they are preregistered must (a) attach the prereg as filed and/or (b) provide a working link to the full prereg. Anything else should be bounced by the journal or rejected by reviewers. Otherwise prereg just becomes a totem people invoke w/no content.
I ran out of room but this too! Reviewers HAVE to look at the prereg. Writing down a few vague hypotheses and then saying the whole study is preregistered is not a preregistered study. Telltale signs: lack of description of deviations & what is exploratory
If you are an editor or on an editorial board, you need to include these checks in your post-submission workflow. Don't let papers get to the review stage that don't provide full preregistration information if they claim it!