I feel like this paper is basically studying this sub's topic (the limitations of adults using kids' media as a lens through which to view the world), rather than participating in it.
I'd even suggest that it's more about the impact of the media you consume influencing your reaction to the world. That is, it's saying that there's possibly a long-term impact to watching Optimus Prime say "Freedom is the right of all Sentient Beings" that really does push you to consider that freedom might actually be the right of all sentient beings, which is based and (to be frank) true.
I don’t have time to read a whole paper right now, but I wonder how they support the argument that there’s some degree of causation here rather than just correlation.
I feel like it could be argued that, if we assume there’s any causal link, it might actually flow the other way: not that Harry Potter makes you more liberal, but that being liberal makes you more likely to have read Harry Potter.
Liberals really arent that left wing, Harry Potter's worldview is ultimately typical of white British liberals and not that different from what their American counterparts believe.
"What if we work inside the system to make the system better (for us at the top) instead of recognizing that system as inherently flawed and try something new?" Is basically Harry Potter. Let's fight a fascist so we can maintain a status quo in society that enables literal slavery.
And let's be very clear: in Joanne's fantasy world, segregation and slavery are both heavily defended core institutions supported by the heroes. Torture is a key component of the prison system, and not ironically. And this is in the world where magic can be used to do basically fucking anything, so none of it actually has to be that way.
Before Rowling went and made transphobia her entire personality, the perception of the series was more influenced by religious people hate it for 'promoting witchcraft' and Dumbledore having been gay since the '00s.
It also very much needs to compare conservatives who read the series with conservatives who don't, and liberals who read the series with liberals who don't. And that still only covers the right wing portion of the spectrum, because leftism is not liberalism.
It's actually quite likely that reading Harry Potter makes a person more conservative because it breaks down the way they think about politics and their brain into stupid tropes that are heavily weighted by a racist, sexist, and just generally fascist author who was objectively trying to defend segregation and slavery throughout the entirety of her works.
I mean, has any perspective defined liberalism in the US more in recent years? Liberal politicians in the US are totally fine with putting up with some awful beliefs that align with authoritarianism, transphobia, racism, and more in the name of following established procedures and compromising/getting along.
It looks impressive (especially when it has the Cambridge name attached to it) but its pretty garbage if you look closer
Looking at the article, the "multivariate observational models" is nothing more than descriptive statistics where the author assumes that the more HP books you read (especially the later ones), the more opposed you are to Trump's policies. Thats a huge stretch because we dont know if the content of the books leads to more opposition - it can also be that highly educated read more books and those with a college degree are less likely to vote for Trump in general. Theres also other factors that play a role in opposition of Trumps policies that the author readily admits, such as gender, and that the effect size of the books is small: if you see "hating Trumps policies" as a sum of components, then reading HP books plays a small if not neglible role. Hell, with the exact same data I can make the argument that party affiliation doesn't matter because the distribution of Potter books read over party affiliation is equal.
For me its a classic case of correlation does not equal causation
There are significant numbers of people out there who think Rage Against the Machine and Creedence Clearwater songs are appropriate for fascist political gatherings.
It ignores the fact that fascists do not give a singularly unadulterated fuck about consistency or coherency of the tropes that they apply to their own beliefs.
yeah this doesn't seem to be the kind of thing the sub is about
interesting regardless. I wonder if they could expand the scope across other books and genres. look at the correlations between readers of Tolkien, Ayn Rand, Alan Moore, Octavia Butler, etc and see which have the most predictive factors re ones politics.
do you just watch this sub so whenever there's a new post you can go "aha! another chance to contribute nothing!" and then play devil's advocate about how nothing belongs here ever?
to be honest, an eye catching title among a sea of "boring" psych term ones is probably a benefit. read the abstract if you want to know what it's about, that's what it's for.
Research papers shouldn't have "eye catching" titles. It's shouldn't be a popularity contest. Having this kind of title would make me disregard it. It should have a technical title to show professionalism.
Also, it's hard to prove causation and not correlation within this topic. It's possible that people who are more left leaning enjoy Harry Potter and not that Harry Potter made these people more left leaning. So while their topic is interesting, I just don't see any way to really prove any conclusions.
well, it kind of IS a popularity contest, these days, unfortunately.
don't disagree with your second point but i'm just talking about the title myself.
my own thesis had a fun title and a serious subtitle, since it was on a pretty niche topic that doesn't make for good titles that weren't terminology word salad. in a biology subfield, fwiw. sometimes researchers just want to have a little fun.
Science has always been a popularity contest/giant fight between old people. Niels Bohr called the scientist who discovered quasi-crystals a "quasi-scientist" just cause he thought the guy was spouting bullshit. The guy was actually correct, and quasi-crystals are now used in a variety of applications.
yeah true i mean the "unfortunate" part as more the publish or perish angle and trying to get yourself cited, not the (usually hilarious) beefs between old time scientists
Slapping a pun (particularly a pop-culture reference one) in the main title with a subtitle actually saying what you’re going to talk about is a time-honored tradition that should never leave.
I wrote about how Pulse (Japanese ghost movie) was dealing with social isolation after the Internet. My main title was “reach out and touch someone” for bell south pun, spooky grabby ghost hands, and genuine connection.
I don’t know, I have heard of astrophysics and astronomy papers getting in a little fun with famous song lyrics. I don’t think things always have to be clinical if there isn’t a good reason. A title that adds a little fun might even make the paper feel more digestible.
Personally I am not thrilled it happens to be HP since Rowling still benefits financially from the series and its popularity, but it’s something of a lightning in a bottle series. It’s hard to imagine another with so many readers available for data points.
yeah imo pretending science is only done by boring old dudes who hate fun is part of how our society turned so anti science. if throwing some pop culture in gets people interested, why not?
As a matter of fact, science often has an issue communicating with those who aren't in a scientific field and even across scientific fields. This is a significant problem, so maybe just a bit more of this kind of thing would do science some good.
I'm no psychologist, but I would actually be curious how the media one consumes might affect their outlook on politics and life. I will admit there might be some issues with this specific paper, but I think more research on this could be interesting.
This is probably a case of correlation does not equal causation. The Democratic Party has its highest level of support with millennial women, especially millennial women with a bachelor's degree or higher. The Harry Potter series also has the highest level of appreciation/investment among millennial women (who largely grew up reading it as among their first books), especially millennial women who are the book-reading type (i.e. more likely to have gone to college). Therefore Harry Potter fans are the most anti-Trump.
Being a millennial woman with a degree is the common underlying cause for both categories.
Whenever I think tolerance of groups my brain always goes to the book series brave enough to go "Slavery is good so long as the slaves like it." oh or "alcoholism is hilarious" or "fat people are disgusting and subhuman."
You don't have to look too far in Liberal and Progressive circles to get to this belief to be fair. How many criticisms of Trump boil down to lol fat compared to his policies? Especially during his first term?
Torture is good
Segregation is good
Billionaires are good
Don't listen to children
Child soldiers are a good idea
Actual nazis should have representation in society
The methodology alone tells me that this is a garbage study. So yeah, I'd say it fits this sub. It's either a researcher trying to get some attention by purporting something borderline absurd and attaching a well known property, or a complete moron who thinks that there's actual validity to this approach. Either way I'm very surprised any journal accepted this as a submission.
I feel like this paper is basically studying this sub's topic (the limitations of adults using kids' media as a lens through which to view the world), rather than participating in it.
I'd even suggest that it's more about the impact of the media you consume influencing your reaction to the world. That is, it's saying that there's possibly a long-term impact to watching Optimus Prime say "Freedom is the right of all Sentient Beings" that really does push you to consider that freedom might actually be the right of all sentient beings, which is based and (to be frank) true.
I thought this was a Harry Potter x Donald Duck crossover from the title and was severely disappointed.
I don’t have time to read a whole paper right now, but I wonder how they support the argument that there’s some degree of causation here rather than just correlation.
I feel like it could be argued that, if we assume there’s any causal link, it might actually flow the other way: not that Harry Potter makes you more liberal, but that being liberal makes you more likely to have read Harry Potter.
Which is weird considering the subtext of the series and what JKR is like
Liberals really arent that left wing, Harry Potter's worldview is ultimately typical of white British liberals and not that different from what their American counterparts believe.
"What if we work inside the system to make the system better (for us at the top) instead of recognizing that system as inherently flawed and try something new?" Is basically Harry Potter. Let's fight a fascist so we can maintain a status quo in society that enables literal slavery.
And let's be very clear: in Joanne's fantasy world, segregation and slavery are both heavily defended core institutions supported by the heroes. Torture is a key component of the prison system, and not ironically. And this is in the world where magic can be used to do basically fucking anything, so none of it actually has to be that way.
That’s also true
Before Rowling went and made transphobia her entire personality, the perception of the series was more influenced by religious people hate it for 'promoting witchcraft' and Dumbledore having been gay since the '00s.
It also very much needs to compare conservatives who read the series with conservatives who don't, and liberals who read the series with liberals who don't. And that still only covers the right wing portion of the spectrum, because leftism is not liberalism.
It's actually quite likely that reading Harry Potter makes a person more conservative because it breaks down the way they think about politics and their brain into stupid tropes that are heavily weighted by a racist, sexist, and just generally fascist author who was objectively trying to defend segregation and slavery throughout the entirety of her works.
I'm just distressed that the most milquetoast "we should be nice to other people maybe" children's series is apparently considered "liberal".
I mean, has any perspective defined liberalism in the US more in recent years? Liberal politicians in the US are totally fine with putting up with some awful beliefs that align with authoritarianism, transphobia, racism, and more in the name of following established procedures and compromising/getting along.
Meh it’s fair research. A broadly popular book’s impact on political values is impressive research.
It looks impressive (especially when it has the Cambridge name attached to it) but its pretty garbage if you look closer
Looking at the article, the "multivariate observational models" is nothing more than descriptive statistics where the author assumes that the more HP books you read (especially the later ones), the more opposed you are to Trump's policies. Thats a huge stretch because we dont know if the content of the books leads to more opposition - it can also be that highly educated read more books and those with a college degree are less likely to vote for Trump in general. Theres also other factors that play a role in opposition of Trumps policies that the author readily admits, such as gender, and that the effect size of the books is small: if you see "hating Trumps policies" as a sum of components, then reading HP books plays a small if not neglible role. Hell, with the exact same data I can make the argument that party affiliation doesn't matter because the distribution of Potter books read over party affiliation is equal.
For me its a classic case of correlation does not equal causation
Does the author not control for gender, education etc.?
There are significant numbers of people out there who think Rage Against the Machine and Creedence Clearwater songs are appropriate for fascist political gatherings.
It ignores the fact that fascists do not give a singularly unadulterated fuck about consistency or coherency of the tropes that they apply to their own beliefs.
yeah this doesn't seem to be the kind of thing the sub is about
interesting regardless. I wonder if they could expand the scope across other books and genres. look at the correlations between readers of Tolkien, Ayn Rand, Alan Moore, Octavia Butler, etc and see which have the most predictive factors re ones politics.
do you just watch this sub so whenever there's a new post you can go "aha! another chance to contribute nothing!" and then play devil's advocate about how nothing belongs here ever?
I mean, they're right in this case.
I think the main issue is the title.
to be honest, an eye catching title among a sea of "boring" psych term ones is probably a benefit. read the abstract if you want to know what it's about, that's what it's for.
Research papers shouldn't have "eye catching" titles. It's shouldn't be a popularity contest. Having this kind of title would make me disregard it. It should have a technical title to show professionalism.
Also, it's hard to prove causation and not correlation within this topic. It's possible that people who are more left leaning enjoy Harry Potter and not that Harry Potter made these people more left leaning. So while their topic is interesting, I just don't see any way to really prove any conclusions.
well, it kind of IS a popularity contest, these days, unfortunately.
don't disagree with your second point but i'm just talking about the title myself.
my own thesis had a fun title and a serious subtitle, since it was on a pretty niche topic that doesn't make for good titles that weren't terminology word salad. in a biology subfield, fwiw. sometimes researchers just want to have a little fun.
Science has always been a popularity contest/giant fight between old people. Niels Bohr called the scientist who discovered quasi-crystals a "quasi-scientist" just cause he thought the guy was spouting bullshit. The guy was actually correct, and quasi-crystals are now used in a variety of applications.
yeah true i mean the "unfortunate" part as more the publish or perish angle and trying to get yourself cited, not the (usually hilarious) beefs between old time scientists
That is also true. Science has many problems that we need to fix
Slapping a pun (particularly a pop-culture reference one) in the main title with a subtitle actually saying what you’re going to talk about is a time-honored tradition that should never leave.
I wrote about how Pulse (Japanese ghost movie) was dealing with social isolation after the Internet. My main title was “reach out and touch someone” for bell south pun, spooky grabby ghost hands, and genuine connection.
It shouldn't be is what I meant. Realized I said "it isn't" since I was distracted while replying. So I edited the original comment.
I don’t know, I have heard of astrophysics and astronomy papers getting in a little fun with famous song lyrics. I don’t think things always have to be clinical if there isn’t a good reason. A title that adds a little fun might even make the paper feel more digestible.
Personally I am not thrilled it happens to be HP since Rowling still benefits financially from the series and its popularity, but it’s something of a lightning in a bottle series. It’s hard to imagine another with so many readers available for data points.
yeah imo pretending science is only done by boring old dudes who hate fun is part of how our society turned so anti science. if throwing some pop culture in gets people interested, why not?
As a matter of fact, science often has an issue communicating with those who aren't in a scientific field and even across scientific fields. This is a significant problem, so maybe just a bit more of this kind of thing would do science some good.
no, you said the title shouldn't be eye catching, and that it's not a popularity contest
Read my comment again. I wasn't paying attention when I was writing. I meant it shouldn't be, not that it isn't.
My field (psychology) might have the replication problem but I'm glad we dont have whatever the fuck this is
I'm no psychologist, but I would actually be curious how the media one consumes might affect their outlook on politics and life. I will admit there might be some issues with this specific paper, but I think more research on this could be interesting.
Yeah, I don't see why people are even surprised by this. Of course media and entertainment influence us.
I can’t say shit. I used fandoms as the basis of my thesis too. It’s easy pickings.
This is probably a case of correlation does not equal causation. The Democratic Party has its highest level of support with millennial women, especially millennial women with a bachelor's degree or higher. The Harry Potter series also has the highest level of appreciation/investment among millennial women (who largely grew up reading it as among their first books), especially millennial women who are the book-reading type (i.e. more likely to have gone to college). Therefore Harry Potter fans are the most anti-Trump.
Being a millennial woman with a degree is the common underlying cause for both categories.
This is a perfectly reasonable research paper for a poli sci class
How low are the standards for political science in your country? Also, this is a published paper, not a class turn in.
Whenever I think tolerance of groups my brain always goes to the book series brave enough to go "Slavery is good so long as the slaves like it." oh or "alcoholism is hilarious" or "fat people are disgusting and subhuman."
You don't have to look too far in Liberal and Progressive circles to get to this belief to be fair. How many criticisms of Trump boil down to lol fat compared to his policies? Especially during his first term?
It’s true fatphobic sentiment are some of the nastier parts of liberal centrism that and eugenics
You forgot:
Torture is good
Segregation is good
Billionaires are good
Don't listen to children
Child soldiers are a good idea
Actual nazis should have representation in society
And holy shit the list goes on.
"Don't have beliefs, worship the status quo. Authority is good, all change is bad."
Jesus Christ. And this is from a renowned university.
I wish I could blow University money to shitpost like this.
People who can read are more likely to be against Trump. Nothing new here.
Being anti-trump is just being a decent human in most cases. That, and republicans can't read.
The methodology alone tells me that this is a garbage study. So yeah, I'd say it fits this sub. It's either a researcher trying to get some attention by purporting something borderline absurd and attaching a well known property, or a complete moron who thinks that there's actual validity to this approach. Either way I'm very surprised any journal accepted this as a submission.
So, the book written by a complete bigot taught people how not to be bigots?
Hmm…interesting…
yoo that's my screenshot! It got deleted from r/comedyheaven but at last it found it's home here
Ummm I’ve portrayed you as the evil fictional character and myself as the good fictional character, checkmate DRUMPF