Computational analysis of US Congressional speeches reveals a shift from evidence to intuition
0
🌀
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Explores the importance of honest and truthful decision-making in democracies
- Analyzes the linguistic traces of evidence-based reasoning and intuitive decision-making in Congressional speeches from 1879 to 2022
- Finds a decline in evidence-based language since the mid-1970s, accompanied by a decline in legislative productivity, increasing partisan polarization, and rising income inequality
Plain English Explanation
Honesty and truthfulness are crucial for good governance and accountability in democracies. However, people can have different views on what it means to be honest and how to pursue the truth. This paper looks at a range of perspectives, from evidence-based reasoning that is rooted in facts and data, to intuitive decisions that are driven by feelings and subjective interpretations.
The researchers analyzed the language used in speeches by members of the U.S. Congress from 1879 to 2022. They found that the use of evidence-based language has been declining since the mid-1970s, alongside a drop in the productivity of Congress and an increase in partisan polarization and income inequality. These results highlight the importance of using evidence-based approaches in political decision-making.
Technical Explanation
The researchers used computational linguistic techniques to analyze the language used in over 4 million speeches by members of the U.S. Congress from 1879 to 2022. They developed a model to distinguish between evidence-based reasoning and intuitive decision-making, based on linguistic features such as the use of certain words and phrases.
The analysis revealed a steady decline in evidence-based language in Congressional speeches since the mid-1970s. This decline was accompanied by a drop in legislative productivity, as well as increasing partisan polarization in Congress and rising income inequality in society. The researchers argue that these trends highlight the importance of using evidence-based approaches in political decision-making.
Critical Analysis
The study provides valuable insights into the changing language and decision-making approaches in U.S. politics over an extended period. However, it is important to note that the analysis is limited to Congressional speeches, which may not fully capture the decision-making processes and reasoning behind political decisions.
Additionally, the study does not delve into the complex role of personal experiences and opinions in political decision-making, nor does it address the [challenges of detecting deception in political discourse. Further research may be needed to explore these nuances and their implications for political information sources and decision-making.
Conclusion
This study highlights the importance of evidence-based reasoning in political decision-making and the potential consequences of its decline. The findings suggest that the shift away from evidence-based language in Congressional speeches has been accompanied by a decline in legislative productivity, increasing partisan polarization, and rising income inequality. These trends underscore the need for policymakers and the public to prioritize the use of data and facts in political discourse and decision-making processes.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🌀
0
Computational analysis of US Congressional speeches reveals a shift from evidence to intuition
Segun Taofeek Aroyehun, Almog Simchon, Fabio Carrella, Jana Lasser, Stephan Lewandowsky, David Garcia
Pursuit of honest and truthful decision-making is crucial for governance and accountability in democracies. However, people sometimes take different perspectives of what it means to be honest and how to pursue truthfulness. Here we explore a continuum of perspectives from evidence-based reasoning, rooted in ascertainable facts and data, at one end, to intuitive decisions that are driven by feelings and subjective interpretations, at the other. We analyze the linguistic traces of those contrasting perspectives in Congressional speeches from 1879 to 2022. We find that evidence-based language has continued to decline since the mid-1970s, together with a decline in legislative productivity. The decline was accompanied by increasing partisan polarization in Congress and rising income inequality in society. Results highlight the importance of evidence-based language in political decision-making.
Read more5/14/2024
0
Combining Objective and Subjective Perspectives for Political News Understanding
Evan Dufraisse, Adrian Popescu, Julien Tourille, Armelle Brun, Olivier Hamon
Researchers and practitioners interested in computational politics rely on automatic content analysis tools to make sense of the large amount of political texts available on the Web. Such tools should provide objective and subjective aspects at different granularity levels to make the analyses useful in practice. Existing methods produce interesting insights for objective aspects, but are limited for subjective ones, are often limited to national contexts, and have limited explainability. We introduce a text analysis framework which integrates both perspectives and provides a fine-grained processing of subjective aspects. Information retrieval techniques and knowledge bases complement powerful natural language processing components to allow a flexible aggregation of results at different granularity levels. Importantly, the proposed bottom-up approach facilitates the explainability of the obtained results. We illustrate its functioning with insights on news outlets, political orientations, topics, individual entities, and demographic segments. The approach is instantiated on a large corpus of French news, but is designed to work seamlessly for other languages and countries.
Read more8/22/2024
0
On the Relationship between Truth and Political Bias in Language Models
Suyash Fulay, William Brannon, Shrestha Mohanty, Cassandra Overney, Elinor Poole-Dayan, Deb Roy, Jad Kabbara
Language model alignment research often attempts to ensure that models are not only helpful and harmless, but also truthful and unbiased. However, optimizing these objectives simultaneously can obscure how improving one aspect might impact the others. In this work, we focus on analyzing the relationship between two concepts essential in both language model alignment and political science: textit{truthfulness} and textit{political bias}. We train reward models on various popular truthfulness datasets and subsequently evaluate their political bias. Our findings reveal that optimizing reward models for truthfulness on these datasets tends to result in a left-leaning political bias. We also find that existing open-source reward models (i.e. those trained on standard human preference datasets) already show a similar bias and that the bias is larger for larger models. These results raise important questions about both the datasets used to represent truthfulness and what language models capture about the relationship between truth and politics.
Read more9/10/2024
📊
0
L(u)PIN: LLM-based Political Ideology Nowcasting
Ken Kato, Annabelle Purnomo, Christopher Cochrane, Raeid Saqur
The quantitative analysis of political ideological positions is a difficult task. In the past, various literature focused on parliamentary voting data of politicians, party manifestos and parliamentary speech to estimate political disagreement and polarization in various political systems. However previous methods of quantitative political analysis suffered from a common challenge which was the amount of data available for analysis. Also previous methods frequently focused on a more general analysis of politics such as overall polarization of the parliament or party-wide political ideological positions. In this paper, we present a method to analyze ideological positions of individual parliamentary representatives by leveraging the latent knowledge of LLMs. The method allows us to evaluate the stance of politicians on an axis of our choice allowing us to flexibly measure the stance of politicians in regards to a topic/controversy of our choice. We achieve this by using a fine-tuned BERT classifier to extract the opinion-based sentences from the speeches of representatives and projecting the average BERT embeddings for each representative on a pair of reference seeds. These reference seeds are either manually chosen representatives known to have opposing views on a particular topic or they are generated sentences which where created using the GPT-4 model of OpenAI. We created the sentences by prompting the GPT-4 model to generate a speech that would come from a politician defending a particular position.
Read more5/14/2024