Read on Twitter
Contra Jared Diamond, the rise in political polarization is *not* grounds for speculation. This is an entire literature within political science! And the idea that it's due to declining face-to-face communication, no less *smell*, baseless. (1/6) https://twitter.com/GoldmanSachs/status/1263536915669803011
Prior to today, one of the most polarized Congresses was in the late 1800s. This was when nearly all congressional business was conducted *in person*. They knew each other very well; they just voted against each other because they were polarized by economic vision. (2/6)
Oh in the late 1850s/early 1860s, Americans were so polarized they gave up on political solutions and started fighting, killing 2% of the country. I assure you the people responsible could smell each other. But they had very different racial views. (3/6)
There are so many studies to recommend on why polarization is increasing today it's hard to know where to begin. Try @ProfHansNoel, @LilyMasonPhD, @AlanIAbramowitz, Theriault, Layman, Stonecash... @ezraklein's new book is a great review of this literature. (4/6)
Also I wrote a book on party elites and local sources of polarization. Somehow I missed smell as a causal agent, but maybe I should put noses in the sequel. (5/6)
https://www.amazon.com/Middle-Ground-Organizations-Nominations-Legislatures/dp/0472034677
https://www.amazon.com/Middle-Ground-Organizations-Nominations-Legislatures/dp/0472034677
Good God, is this how anthropologists feel about Diamond's other work? Anyway, thanks to @MattGrossmann and @KyleLSaunders for flagging this. (6/6)
