4 ms·

Are the right really in to defining sweeping social policies based on the output of academic models? I can't say I've seen much of that, at least not from deepl

Are the right really in to defining sweeping social policies based on the output of academic models? I can't say I've seen much of that, at least not from deeply conservative types. Middling centrists, yeah. A key part of conservative thought is the notion that the world is large, complex, and you only understand a tiny piece of it. That sort of worldview doesn't mesh well with attempts to simulate a planet inside a desktop PC.

kbenson 7y ago
> Are the right really in to defining sweeping social policies based on the output of academic models? Whether proposing something new or preventing something new, the position needs to be defended with facts. The status quo gets extra points because we have experience with how it works, but equally important we have experience with how it doesn't work. > That sort of worldview doesn't mesh well with attempts to simulate a planet inside a desktop PC. I'm not really espousing that as much as experiments where possible or found (in the case of natural experiments), and sober consideration of the results. When's the last time you think you were presented with with a measured assessment of a major policy that wasn't blatently biased through omission of facts for one (or both!) sides from a popular public source such as a politician, activist group, or news agency (you'll get closest with the news, but they know their audiences and what keeps them coming back)? This is less a problem of liberals and conservatives and more a problem of liberal and conservative politicians and activists warping messages because they inevitably become so tribal that their stated goals often end up taking a back-seat to the short-term gain of hurting the competing narrative at any cost.