open-minded conservatives?

I'm not 100% sure what to make of it, but - according to research from Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro - it looks like conservatives spend a lot more time hanging around liberal websites than liberals do on conservative sites.

Here's Gentzkow and Shapiro's breakdown of who visits the ten top conservative and liberal sites:

Conservative sites visitors

Liberal sites visitors

Assuming we trust their data, one explanation for the imbalance could simply be that there are tons more conservatives visiting all political sites; if that were the case, even if liberals and conservatives had similar biases toward consuming like-minded media, we'd still see more conservatives on liberal sites. But my guess is there aren't that many more conservatives lurking online.

Another possible explanation is that - as suggested in the title - conservatives are more open-minded than liberals. Either that or they are more willing to check out what the opposition is saying. That story is somewhat plausible; other research suggests that savvy ideologues are more inclined (than less informed ideologues) to click on "counter-attitudinal" articles because they're more comfortable debunking any opposing views they may happen to bump into.

Still, it's curious why you'd see so many more conservative ideologues venturing into liberal waters than vice versa. The final explanation I can come up with - and one that suits my lefty leanings - is that "liberal sites" aren't as liberal as "conservative sites" are conservative; that is, that a conservative visiting DailyKos is more likely to come across information he can jive with than a liberal is going to find on RushLimbaugh. In other words, liberal websites - as opposed to conservatives readers - are the ones who are open-minded.

Any other interpretations out there?

a note on Robin Williams and suicide

I am sad at Robin William's passing, but only sad for myself - not for Robin Williams. 

If I may, I suggest others not be sad for him either. To be so would be to assume that his last moments were filled with despair, confusion and a powerlessness to choose life. That might be an apt assumption to make for a sixteen year old who has been bullied and does not have the perspective to know that "it will get better," but not for a 63 year old artistic genius who has, very likely, lived a life far richer and deeper - in experience, emotion and wisdom - than I, at least, can hope for. His last moments may have been confused and despairing or they may have had a clarity of thought and welling of spirit that is beyond my understanding. I don't know. 

I do suspect, however, that we have a bias against suicide - that we see it as uniformly negative. While there are many reasons that is a good bias to have (not least, for perpetuating the species), I leave open the possibility that sometimes the choice of death is not something to feel sad about - but to respect, honor and maybe even admire.

Facebook polis

If you have a Facebook account which you visited even once in early August, you could not have missed it; Facebook walls normally filled with food photos, vacation Instagrams and Buzzfeed links, now overrun by posts condemning either Israel or Hamas, lamenting the fate of those in Gaza or defending the actions of Israel. The media noted the phenomenon, as did more than one of my Facebook connections, some who admitted to "defriending" friends over the online conflict.

While many saw the explosion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Facebook walls as an unfortunate violation of social media norms, this political scientist - and perhaps others like me who advocate for more citizen engagement - was heartened. Yes, I'm sure many of the posts "crossed lines" and it is never a good thing to lose a friend (over something like politics), but when you live in a society where people disagree strongly over important issues, nothing is better for democracy than a healthy debate.

That last statement is, of course, debatable. Those who study citizen deliberation - as will be unsurprising to anyone who's ever had a political discussion themselves - note that there are many potential downsides to "cross-cutting" dialogue. Instead of leading to better understanding, people engaged in political debate may just become more entrenched in their views. That's because we all share a pair of biases - confirmation and disconfirmation - which incline us to zero in on information that supports our views and swiftly discount information that challenges thems. More worrisome is the risk that comes when "lines are crossed" - that is, when debate becomes uglified by off-color comments, ad hominem attacks or other forms of nastiness. That's when friends get lost and, worse, people become convinced that those who disagree with them not only see the world differently but are some shade of "bad people."

But even though debate comes with considerable risks, we starry-eyed (small d) democrats have got to believe that the risks are outweighed by the benefits. For one, when we're silent about our views we have no chance of exposing others to different perspectives (and being exposed ourselves). (This is especially true today as we can become increasingly selective in our media choices.) While ignorance is arguably bliss on most topics, it can be dangerous when important issues are on the line. And even if we don't gain greater understanding of an issue through debate with our friends, there is a good chance that we'll appreciate other perspectives just by virtue of our friends holding them. This is the great hope of dialogue - that, at least when individuals share their views civilly (ie, avoiding nastiness), it's hard for rifts not to be somewhat narrowed (if rarely totally mended).

Whether the current Gaza-Israel Facebook battle results in a widening or narrowing of the divide between both sides - that is, whether the forces of repulsion or attraction win out in this case - is a matter of guess work. But maybe in some future of data-analysis wizardry we can test to see.