Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

pnas.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 208 posts

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#51

Post by impalallama »

godelski wrote: post #18

The actual title is > Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change Not "Study: Americans consistently overestimate how much culture has changed." And from the abstract > Participants overestimated the amount of change on 29 attitudes (57%), underestimated change on 10 attitudes (20%), estimated change in the wrong direction on 10 attitudes (20%), and estimated change correctly on only two attitudes (4%). (o…

The fact that it’s been 30 years and only 4% of people are more concerned about climate change is pretty damn grim

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#52

Post by larsiusprime »

pvg wrote: post #44
larsiusprime wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is title editing a new feature? Little nervous, didn't expect it to rocket immediately to the #1 spot, trying my best not to get trouble in here

Not a new feature, you can fix it or if the time has passed, a mod will eventually fix it. But you're not going to get in trouble either for making an honest mistake or trying to fix it.

Found the button! Fixed ^_^ Sorry for the trouble

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#53

Post by dillondoyle »

dnissley wrote: post #12
asveikau wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about that. Something like an executive order can have effects years after someone is gone, momentum builds and it takes effort for a successor to undo it. To say nothing about lifetime court appointments. Not just in the supreme court either.

Any examples? IIRC, many such orders signed by Trump were immediately undone or at the very least drastically watered down by Biden.

Took a while to end 'stay in Mexico' had to go through courts iirc.

Seems like a lot of the drilling and EPA stuff has been gummed up in courts too

Interesting article link below talking about Biden's push and the problem with R partisan judges.

and the potential that if an order goes too far, court is given opportunity to make a broad and lasting ruling that would limit powers. I can very easily see this happening.

https://time.com/6205771/trump-judges-biden-executive-orders...

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#54

Post by arkis22 »

andsoitis wrote: post #40
userbinator wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're both authoritarian but one obviously leans left, and the other, right.

Only one has targeted attacks of human rights of minorities.

The only minority worth protecting beyond reproach of politics are those afflicted with poverty. I have found both parties incompetent in this regard.

800k shacks with outlets in LA for the homeless. The complete dismissal of the responsibility we have as a society to rehabilitate people in the prison system. the absolute abandonment of native americans that ultimately lead to an institution of sexual abuse. Unions run the schools but the worst outcomes happen in urban cities, which leads to violence.

the problems we face are complex. and I think we would do better to lean inwards than rely on looking to the fringes for our philosophical goals.

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#55

Post by jschveibinz »

lkrubner wrote: post #43

It's important to remember that this same problem haunted historiography for at least 2 centuries, if not much more. At least from the 1700s, and lasting well into the 1900s, historians considered themselves the historians of events, rather than non-events. As such, they automatically gave too much weight to change. That a different approach was possible was not even considered until modern anthropology got going in…

Interesting. Thanks for this perspective.

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#56

Post by dillondoyle »

nichos wrote: post #6
GiorgioG wrote: post #3

And they overestimate how badly the “other” political party is ruining the country when they’re in power.

Is there a difference in the 2 major parties anymore? I seriously don't know which parry you're referring to.

GIANT differences and anyone pretending not is usually acting in bad faith.

- abortion - environment (or you know that global warming is real and caused by humans) - LGBTQ rights - race & equity - immigration & treatment of asylum seekers - role of Fed & state regulators in markets, like energy markets (tx) - taxes - workers rights - federal govt powers

could go on and on but that's not the point of your comment is it

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#57

Post by winstonewert »

btilly wrote: post #41
godelski wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not an executive order, but what led to the 2009 financial crisis was mostly done under the Clinton administration. Honestly I think this is something us humans are really bad at (well we're known to be bad at this). Understanding causal effects through time. Not only are we bad at understanding causal facts but we're really bad at being forward thinking and understanding temporal phenomena. But I think the main poin…

I have no idea what you think happened under the Clinton era to cause the financial crash of 2009. Most of the immediate things, such as the housing boom driven by easy lending policies, happened under Bush. So I'd need a reference to support that idea. However I'll give you another one. Most people's impression is that Carter destroyed the economy and Reagan's deregulation saved the day. But actually the facts are a…

The post you are responding to is probably referring to the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. According to some, that act (signed by Clinton) was (somewhat) responsible for the financial crash. But this is certainly a matter of dispute.

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#58

Post by dredmorbius »

btilly wrote: post #41
godelski wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not an executive order, but what led to the 2009 financial crisis was mostly done under the Clinton administration. Honestly I think this is something us humans are really bad at (well we're known to be bad at this). Understanding causal effects through time. Not only are we bad at understanding causal facts but we're really bad at being forward thinking and understanding temporal phenomena. But I think the main poin…

I have no idea what you think happened under the Clinton era to cause the financial crash of 2009. Most of the immediate things, such as the housing boom driven by easy lending policies, happened under Bush. So I'd need a reference to support that idea. However I'll give you another one. Most people's impression is that Carter destroyed the economy and Reagan's deregulation saved the day. But actually the facts are a…

Not OP, but the Glass-Steagall Act was repealled in 1999, under then-president Bill Clinton, and is posited as a substantial contributor to the 2007-8 Global Financial Crisis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_the_repeal_of_the...>

https://web.archive.org/web/20111019192852/http://prospect.o...>

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#59

Post by godelski »

larsiusprime wrote: post #52
pvg wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a new feature, you can fix it or if the time has passed, a mod will eventually fix it. But you're not going to get in trouble either for making an honest mistake or trying to fix it.

Found the button! Fixed ^_^ Sorry for the trouble

No worries, things happen. Good post btw.

Re: Widespread misperceptions of long-term attitude change

#60

Post by godelski »

winstonewert wrote: post #57
btilly wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea what you think happened under the Clinton era to cause the financial crash of 2009. Most of the immediate things, such as the housing boom driven by easy lending policies, happened under Bush. So I'd need a reference to support that idea. However I'll give you another one. Most people's impression is that Carter destroyed the economy and Reagan's deregulation saved the day. But actually the facts are a…

The post you are responding to is probably referring to the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. According to some, that act (signed by Clinton) was (somewhat) responsible for the financial crash. But this is certainly a matter of dispute.

To expand, this law allowed investment banks (e.g. Goldman) and commercial banks (e.g. Washington Mutual) to do what the other could. Effectively this allowed the mortgage backed securities that were a major player in the financial crisis to be created. There were a lot of other issues that contributed to the crisis, but (as far as I'm aware) the main mechanism used would not have been possible without this deregulation.
Post reply on HN