It says that:
Richard is also applying for funding from other sources, and will return some of this grant if his other applications are successful.
Similarly in the UK, the relatively authoritarian May was replaced with the much more libertarian Johnson.
I'm not sure everyone would agree that that leadership was a change in a less authoritarian direction. At any rate, I think the default view would be that it says little about global trends in levels of authoritarianism. Also May seems quite different from the leaders and parties that Haydn discusses in that section.
I think it would have been better if you had given an argument for this view, instead of just stating it (since it's likely far from obviously true to most readers).
The Long-termist's Field Guide, newsletter from BBC journalist Richard Fisher.
Some argue, however, that partisan TV and radio was helped by the abolition of the FCC fairness doctrine in 1987. That amounts to saying that polarisation was driven at least partly by legal changes rather than by technological innovations.
Obviously media influences public opinion. But the question is whether specific media technologies (e.g. social media vs TV vs radio vs newspapers) cause more or less polarisation, fake news, partisanship, filter bubbles, and so on. That's a difficult empirical question, since all those things can no doubt be mediated to some degree through each of these media technologies.
This study looked at nine countries and found that polarisation had decreased in five. The US was an outlier, having seen the largest increase in polarisation. That may suggest that American polarisation is due to US-specific factors, rather than universal technological trends.
Here are some studies suggesting the prevalence of technology-driven echo chambers and filter bubbles may be exaggerated.
Yeah, this has been discussed before. I think that it should not be possible to strongly upvote one's own comments.
Interesting. It may be worth noting how support for consequentialism is measured in this paper.
In our first study, we use a self-report measure of consequentialist (vs. deontological) thinking to examine participant responses to a range of morally questionable actions (beyond sacrifice), many of which people are likely to encounter in real life (e.g., lying, breaking a promise, engaging in malicious gossip, or breaking the law) .
[Study 2] ... a series of moral dilemmas—analogous to trolley/footbridge problems—that were either congruent or incongruent in terms their representation of deontological and consequentialist principles.
[W]e caution that our inferences are warranted for consequentialism, but perhaps not for utilitarianism. We have shown that intellect predicts moral judgments based upon a consideration of consequences (Study 1) and the acceptability of instrumental harm in increasing aggregate welfare (Study 2). Neither of these capture additional aspects of utilitarianism concerned with impartial maximization of the greater good (see Kahane et al., 2018). Future research might thus extend our present focus to explore the role of personality in predicting multiple dimensions of utilitarianism (e.g., impartiality versus instrumental harm; Kahane et al., 2018) and, indeed, different forms of consequentialism (e.g., those grounded in hedonistic versus non-hedonistic conceptions of the good) and deontology (e.g., agent-centered versus patient-centered).
A quite obvious point that may still be worth making is that the balance of the considerations will look very different for different people. E.g. if you're able to have a connection with a top university while being a professor elsewhere, that could change the calculus. There could be numerous idiosyncratic considerations worth taking into account.
The extraordinary value of ordinary norms by Emily Tench is a bit related. Several of the norms she covers concern good discussions and adjacent issues.
Yeah, I agree that there are differences between different fields - e.g. physics and sociology - in this regard. I didn't want to go into details about that, however, since it would have been a bit a distraction from the main subject (global priorities research).