Possibly, if you believe the network theorist Valdis Krebs. He conducted an interesting experiment to find out who was reading what. He took all the rabidly political books off the New York Times' bestseller list and plugged them into Amazon and BarnesandNoble.com. Thanks to the "readers who liked this also bought" feature, he was able to see what other books the readers had bought or browsed.
The result? A map of the nation, showing that -- whaddya know -- readers of left-wing books tended to read only other left-wing books, and readers of right-wing books other right-wing books. As the Times' Emily Eakin reports:
Go check out the story and you'll see the entire map. But what interested Krebs' mostly were the very few books in the middle -- like Bush at War and Sleeping with the Devil. Possibly, he argued, these represent those rare talking points that might bring the country together:
Me, I don't entirely buy it -- or more precisely, I don't entirely care. I've never entirely understood the punditocracy's concern for "partisanship". What the hell is wrong with partisanship -- with people fiercely believing things and fighting for them, and disagreeing vehemently with other people about them? The pundits behave as if the ultimate goal of all political life is to have the parties in smooth, frictionless agreement with one another. What's so great about that? A world in which all your political leaders have one political opinion? Last time I checked, they had names for that: Fascism. Actually, totalitarianism works nicely too. All the leaders in China and Cuba agree with one another, but that doesn't make them terrific polities. This we-must-agree-at-all-costs attitude is even more bizarre coming from citizens of a country the political spectrum of which is barely wide enough to support two parties, let alone the three or four or five of most other modern nations.
The problem isn't that the map is divided into red and blue. It's that it isn't also divided into green and yellow and orange.
Posted by Clive Thompson at March 15, 2004 11:07 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/771
I think the problem is not whether people agree or not, even if I agree that a complete condivision of political views is only achievable where there is no political freedom.
The problem to me is whether people have common agreed basis on which being able to confront their positions, and on this regard I think that it's more scary the number of people with strong political opinions and NO LECTURES WHATSOEVER.
So, if we consider the electorate to be or non informed or prone to partisan information, then the situation is scary: democracy = freedom of choice = access to fair information and debates.
At least you Anglo - Saxons have a far better press than we have in Italy...
Posted by: Mario at March 16, 2004 4:06 AM
True, the US press is pretty cool!
Posted by: Clive at March 16, 2004 10:06 AM
As a non-American (New Zealander) married to an American, I observe the US political scene with some concern. I agree with you, Clive, that "The problem isn't that the map is divided into red and blue. It's that it isn't also divided into green and yellow and orange." I think this is one of the benefits of our NZ electoral system (mixed member proportional - not ideal by a long way, but at least it increases the variety of voices in parliament).
However, to me the big concern about US politics is not that people don't agree - as you suggest, this is normal political behaviour in a democracy. It's that they often don't listen to each other or respect the viewpoint of anyone who doesn't belong to their political tribe. I say tribe because that's what the behaviour reminds me of: tribalism. Or what in other countries is ethnic and/or religious adherence. "They" are always wrong, "we" are always right, even when the things that both groups are doing are, to an impartial observer, indistinguishable. This is what I think of as partisanship: That there are people who are completely incapable of giving Bush, say, credit for doing anything right, while there are also people who are incapable of perceiving that he does anything wrong - because he (respectively) isn't or is "their guy".
I think it's part of a national inability to locate any undesirable characteristic anywhere but "elsewhere" - hence the "Axis of Evil" speech, but hence also much political rhetoric on both sides of what is, I believe, a genuine divide. A divide that is unhelpfully deepened by the immature character-assassination and one-eyed caricatures that go on.
Having said that, there are individual Americans who are capable of thinking outside their narrow political categories, who are not lineal descendents of Cyclops, and who are perfectly able to see their own faults as well as those of others. But the overall tone of political rhetoric in the US is woeful.
Posted by: Mike Reeves-McMillan at March 16, 2004 4:07 PM
Can we just step back a second and question the methodology of this research? (And as an aside, I would like to know exactly when cutting and pasting from Amazon began counting as scholarly research -- but that's another rant.)
According to this study -- and the NYTimes article that swallows the study whole -- people who bought left wing books only bought other left wing books (and vice versa on the right). Bullshit. A better statement of the source of the data would be "the book pages of Amazon and bn.com report that people who bought a left wing title bought other left wing titles." There is no independently verifiable proof that people who bought one book actually bought any of the others suggested. And there is no obligation for Amazon or bn.com not to fudge those lists to best promote similar titles. They are merchandisers, not demographers.
Let's look at some other titles:
People who bought:
The New American Standard Bible
Also bought:
The Constitution of the United States of America - 1787
The US Declaration of Independence
Holy Bible, New International Version
The United States Bill of Rights
Now, I can imagine large numbers of survivalist Christian cults stocking their libraries for Armageddon with the essential texts for a new theocracy, but it's the second bible in there that throws me. People are picky about their bibles. Theocratic loons are pickier than most and they are not known for their passion for comparative literature. Why wouldn't they just buy two of the same bible? Or one for each member of their Full Armor of God Assault Force?
I think there's a simpler explanation. The Bible is a reference book -- an essential text, if you like -- and Amazon is trying to sell other similar titles alongside. I wonder if they do that a lot. Let's keep looking…
People who bought:
The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition (20 Volume Set)
Also bought:
The Meaning of Everything: The Story of the Oxford English Dictionary by Simon Winchester
The Compact Oxford English Dictionary/Book, Magnifying Glass and User's Guide by The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of The Oxford English Dictionary by Simon Winchester
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged
Once again, we meet the obsessive shopper, who not only bought the most complete dictionary in the world, but also two very similar histories of the OED, a microscopic version of the exact same 20-volume set, and, to be safe, another large, unabridged dictionary. Or, it's not very subtle cross-promotion.
Still, someone who spends $1000 on a dictionary could certainly be that compulsive, so let's try another.
People who bought:
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged
Also bought:
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Edition
Painless Grammar by Rebecca S. Elliott, Laurie Hamilton (Illustrator)
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition
Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary
The Webster's Unabridged is not the stuff of anagramming, crossword puzzled, word monkey shut-ins. It's a regular, thorough dictionary than any house with kids might own. Why would they buy three inferior versions of the same book? Because they're registered Democrats, clearly.
Want to see another odd coincidence?
People who bought:
William Shakespeare: The Complete Works, Deluxe Edition [UNABRIDGED]
Also bought:
Charles Dickens Four Complete Novels (Great Expectations, Hard Times, A Christmas Carol, A Tale of Two Cities)
Complete Stories and Poems of Edgar Allen Poe
Mark Twain: Four Complete Novels
The Complete Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
I bet the people who only buy the complete works of an author never, ever watch Fox News.
People who bought:
Ben & Jerry's Homemade Ice Cream & Dessert Book
Also bought:
The Best Ice Cream Maker Cookbook Ever
Frozen Desserts: The Definitive Guide to Making Ice Creams, Ices, Sorbets, Gelati, and Other Frozen Delights
Gelato!: Italian Ice Cream, Sorbetti & Granite
Ice Cream & Frozen Yogurt
Old-Fashioned Homemade Ice Cream: With 58 Original Recipes
Do you see my point?
Never mind the study itself, that's easy to dismiss as meaningless or lazy. It's the NYTimes reporting that really freaks me out. (And I won't even dwell on the use of the word "nonpartisan" to describe any political book.) I know its in the Arts section, so maybe no one cares that it is a one-source story will no questioning of the research's data or conclusions, but it is presented as news.
And look what happens: the conversation here is about the content of the story as if it were unimpeachable. It's the Times. It's news. Discuss. But come on.
Why the editorial process of the Times is so slack, uninformed, and unquestioning is a much greater worry than whether or not Bill O'Reilly's fans are well-rounded readers.
Posted by: vespaboy at March 17, 2004 9:32 AM
I have a much milder criticism of the 'methodology'; I usually read a book from the library before buying it. My buying habits are much more slanted than my reading habits.
However, my local public library does what it can to *not* keep records of what I read, let alone share them without being forced to.
Posted by: clew at March 17, 2004 1:46 PM
Why would Amazon fudge the list for Ben & Jerry's Homemade Ice Cream & Dessert Book? The main reason I don't pay attention to the Customers who bought this book also bought:
lists is because I either own what's on them already or were planning to buy them anyway.
Posted by: Jeff Liu at March 17, 2004 2:33 PM
Vespaboy, that is indeed an excellent point -- the "people also read this" feature on those sites is hardly a precise science. Hell, it's a marketing tool, not one supposed to generate clean data.
Posted by: Clive at March 18, 2004 12:07 AM
Vespaboy (any chance you are a paisŕ?) I can't say I read all of your post, but I agree. Especially on the "...It's on the news!..." issue!
Hope to read you (throughfully ;D) again soon around here!
Posted by: Mario at March 18, 2004 11:21 AM
I think the problem is not whether people agree or not, even if I agree that a complete condivision of political views is only achievable where there is no political freedom.
The problem to me is whether people have common agreed basis on which being able to confront their positions, and on this regard I think that it's more scary the number of people with strong political opinions and NO LECTURES WHATSOEVER.
So, if we consider the electorate to be or non informed or prone to partisan information, then the situation is scary: democracy = freedom of choice = access to fair information and debates.
At least you Anglo - Saxons have a far better press than we have in Italy...
Posted by: Mario at March 16, 2004 4:06 AM
True, the US press is pretty cool!
Posted by: Clive at March 16, 2004 10:06 AM
As a non-American (New Zealander) married to an American, I observe the US political scene with some concern. I agree with you, Clive, that "The problem isn't that the map is divided into red and blue. It's that it isn't also divided into green and yellow and orange." I think this is one of the benefits of our NZ electoral system (mixed member proportional - not ideal by a long way, but at least it increases the variety of voices in parliament).
However, to me the big concern about US politics is not that people don't agree - as you suggest, this is normal political behaviour in a democracy. It's that they often don't listen to each other or respect the viewpoint of anyone who doesn't belong to their political tribe. I say tribe because that's what the behaviour reminds me of: tribalism. Or what in other countries is ethnic and/or religious adherence. "They" are always wrong, "we" are always right, even when the things that both groups are doing are, to an impartial observer, indistinguishable. This is what I think of as partisanship: That there are people who are completely incapable of giving Bush, say, credit for doing anything right, while there are also people who are incapable of perceiving that he does anything wrong - because he (respectively) isn't or is "their guy".
I think it's part of a national inability to locate any undesirable characteristic anywhere but "elsewhere" - hence the "Axis of Evil" speech, but hence also much political rhetoric on both sides of what is, I believe, a genuine divide. A divide that is unhelpfully deepened by the immature character-assassination and one-eyed caricatures that go on.
Having said that, there are individual Americans who are capable of thinking outside their narrow political categories, who are not lineal descendents of Cyclops, and who are perfectly able to see their own faults as well as those of others. But the overall tone of political rhetoric in the US is woeful.
Posted by: Mike Reeves-McMillan at March 16, 2004 4:07 PM
Can we just step back a second and question the methodology of this research? (And as an aside, I would like to know exactly when cutting and pasting from Amazon began counting as scholarly research -- but that's another rant.)
According to this study -- and the NYTimes article that swallows the study whole -- people who bought left wing books only bought other left wing books (and vice versa on the right). Bullshit. A better statement of the source of the data would be "the book pages of Amazon and bn.com report that people who bought a left wing title bought other left wing titles." There is no independently verifiable proof that people who bought one book actually bought any of the others suggested. And there is no obligation for Amazon or bn.com not to fudge those lists to best promote similar titles. They are merchandisers, not demographers.
Let's look at some other titles:
People who bought:
The New American Standard Bible
Also bought:
The Constitution of the United States of America - 1787
The US Declaration of Independence
Holy Bible, New International Version
The United States Bill of Rights
Now, I can imagine large numbers of survivalist Christian cults stocking their libraries for Armageddon with the essential texts for a new theocracy, but it's the second bible in there that throws me. People are picky about their bibles. Theocratic loons are pickier than most and they are not known for their passion for comparative literature. Why wouldn't they just buy two of the same bible? Or one for each member of their Full Armor of God Assault Force?
I think there's a simpler explanation. The Bible is a reference book -- an essential text, if you like -- and Amazon is trying to sell other similar titles alongside. I wonder if they do that a lot. Let's keep looking…
People who bought:
The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition (20 Volume Set)
Also bought:
The Meaning of Everything: The Story of the Oxford English Dictionary by Simon Winchester
The Compact Oxford English Dictionary/Book, Magnifying Glass and User's Guide by The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of The Oxford English Dictionary by Simon Winchester
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged
Once again, we meet the obsessive shopper, who not only bought the most complete dictionary in the world, but also two very similar histories of the OED, a microscopic version of the exact same 20-volume set, and, to be safe, another large, unabridged dictionary. Or, it's not very subtle cross-promotion.
Still, someone who spends $1000 on a dictionary could certainly be that compulsive, so let's try another.
People who bought:
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged
Also bought:
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary
The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Edition
Painless Grammar by Rebecca S. Elliott, Laurie Hamilton (Illustrator)
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition
Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary
The Webster's Unabridged is not the stuff of anagramming, crossword puzzled, word monkey shut-ins. It's a regular, thorough dictionary than any house with kids might own. Why would they buy three inferior versions of the same book? Because they're registered Democrats, clearly.
Want to see another odd coincidence?
People who bought:
William Shakespeare: The Complete Works, Deluxe Edition [UNABRIDGED]
Also bought:
Charles Dickens Four Complete Novels (Great Expectations, Hard Times, A Christmas Carol, A Tale of Two Cities)
Complete Stories and Poems of Edgar Allen Poe
Mark Twain: Four Complete Novels
The Complete Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
I bet the people who only buy the complete works of an author never, ever watch Fox News.
People who bought:
Ben & Jerry's Homemade Ice Cream & Dessert Book
Also bought:
The Best Ice Cream Maker Cookbook Ever
Frozen Desserts: The Definitive Guide to Making Ice Creams, Ices, Sorbets, Gelati, and Other Frozen Delights
Gelato!: Italian Ice Cream, Sorbetti & Granite
Ice Cream & Frozen Yogurt
Old-Fashioned Homemade Ice Cream: With 58 Original Recipes
Do you see my point?
Never mind the study itself, that's easy to dismiss as meaningless or lazy. It's the NYTimes reporting that really freaks me out. (And I won't even dwell on the use of the word "nonpartisan" to describe any political book.) I know its in the Arts section, so maybe no one cares that it is a one-source story will no questioning of the research's data or conclusions, but it is presented as news.
And look what happens: the conversation here is about the content of the story as if it were unimpeachable. It's the Times. It's news. Discuss. But come on.
Why the editorial process of the Times is so slack, uninformed, and unquestioning is a much greater worry than whether or not Bill O'Reilly's fans are well-rounded readers.
Posted by: vespaboy at March 17, 2004 9:32 AM
I have a much milder criticism of the 'methodology'; I usually read a book from the library before buying it. My buying habits are much more slanted than my reading habits.
However, my local public library does what it can to *not* keep records of what I read, let alone share them without being forced to.
Posted by: clew at March 17, 2004 1:46 PM
Why would Amazon fudge the list for Ben & Jerry's Homemade Ice Cream & Dessert Book? The main reason I don't pay attention to the Customers who bought this book also bought:
lists is because I either own what's on them already or were planning to buy them anyway.
Posted by: Jeff Liu at March 17, 2004 2:33 PM
Vespaboy, that is indeed an excellent point -- the "people also read this" feature on those sites is hardly a precise science. Hell, it's a marketing tool, not one supposed to generate clean data.
Posted by: Clive at March 18, 2004 12:07 AM
Vespaboy (any chance you are a paisŕ?) I can't say I read all of your post, but I agree. Especially on the "...It's on the news!..." issue!
Hope to read you (throughfully ;D) again soon around here!
Posted by: Mario at March 18, 2004 11:21 AM