3 ms·

This article seems well written but not critically examined. Based on the data presented, the article seems to conflate “correlation as causation”. Specificall

This article seems well written but not critically examined. Based on the data presented, the article seems to conflate “correlation as causation”. Specifically, there is no mention of eliminating selection bias. Typically if people are currently fortunate and aren’t in need of social safety nets, these people are both more likely to be happier and, given the lower risk, they can afford to be politically agnostic. Meanwhile, when people are in need of social safety nets/political change in general, they are likely to be less happy with their current lives and also more politically opinionated. So while the article’s data says: political agnosticism is correlated with well being, the article’s narrative incompletely/incorrectly creates a causal link between being politically opinionated and a level of well being.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Empirically, the dynamic of "can afford to be politically agnostic" doesn't seem to happen. Data I've seen (https://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/colleges/hclas/cld/cld-rlr-fall12-incomeinequality-waldman.pdf https://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/colleges/hclas/cld/cld... is the clearest presentation I can find off-hand) indicates that complete political disengagement - never discussing or following politics - is much more common in lower income brackets. I'd argue that this is what we should expect from an abstract perspective too. If someone has to struggle just to put food on their table, it's going to be pretty hard to convince them that the goings-on of some political candidate are worth spending their time on.
- yazaddaruvala 6y ago
  Again, this is falling into the trap of incomplete statistics. “Given people discuss politics not at all, 40% make less than 30k per year.” But we aren’t told how many people fall into “the given”. What would be interesting for this discussion, Given people’s income brackets, how often (the median, ideally also p90 and p99) do they discuss politics per month?

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

Empirically, the dynamic of "can afford to be politically agnostic" doesn't seem to happen. Data I've seen (https://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/colleges/hclas/cld/cld-rlr-fall12-incomeinequality-waldman.pdf https://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/colleges/hclas/cld/cld... is the clearest presentation I can find off-hand) indicates that complete political disengagement - never discussing or following politics - is much more common in lower income brackets. I'd argue that this is what we should expect from an abstract perspective too. If someone has to struggle just to put food on their table, it's going to be pretty hard to convince them that the goings-on of some political candidate are worth spending their time on.

yazaddaruvala 6y ago
Again, this is falling into the trap of incomplete statistics. “Given people discuss politics not at all, 40% make less than 30k per year.” But we aren’t told how many people fall into “the given”. What would be interesting for this discussion, Given people’s income brackets, how often (the median, ideally also p90 and p99) do they discuss politics per month?