Conceptual issues in legislative bodies

Prediction Social science is about predictions It is about causality What causes liberal ideology? (Note this is the exact same question as what causes a conservative ideology) Falsifiability

What is not causality Interpretation Normative Factual (empirical)

Normative … …statements usually are statements of opinion that give clues about the speaker’s personal value biases. They often have the word “should” in them. Remember if there is any element of normative bias in the statement, then it is normative. If it requires the assumption that the reader agrees with the values of the author, then it is normative.

Interpretive … … statements are when people are interpreting a text. The text could be a Constitution, the Bible or a work of political philosophy. People can interpret texts in certain ways that may emanate from their biases, but nonetheless could be a valid interpretation. Interpretive statements are different from empirical statements because interpretive statements must be falsifiable – in other words, they must be able to be wrong.

Empirical … … statements are 100% verifiable. They are facts. Factual statements may not be true. But it would be 100% verifiable to find out whether they are true or not. The difference between empirical statements and causal statements is that factual statements are verifiable events. They are either 100% true or 100% false. At times, the difference between the two will be a judgment call based on how much agreement there is likely to be about the statement. If there is absolute widespread agreement, it is a fact. “Booth killed Lincoln in the theater” is a fact. You could also say that Booth’s gun caused Lincoln’s death and this would be an empirical statement despite the word cause in the sentence.

Causal… … statements would require going out into the world and testing whether something causes something else through observation. “Public opinion causes changes in the ideological nature of Supreme court opinions” is a causal statement because we could go out and get measures of public opinion and Supreme Court outcomes and see whether there is a correspondence. This would be testing a causal claim. Causal claims must be falsifiable – like interpretive statements – but causal claims are also testable by collecting data. You should not be distracted by notions that the phenomena that are causally connected would be difficult to measure. If you can imagine a way to measure the two phenomena that may be causally related, then they are probably measurable.

Causal claims require units and measurement

Definition of concepts A concept is a political phenomenon that varies from low to high It is unidimensional

Examples of concepts? Democracy Political tolerance Culture Intelligence Interpersonal trust Self esteem Pluralism Germany Federalism

Units: time, people or places Units are the observations, which are placed on the unidimensional concept scale according to their low or high values People are more or less politically tolerant Countries are more or less democratic Years have higher or lower rates of crime rates People are more likely to litigate Countries can have higher or lower rates of litigation

Variables Variables are the operationalizations of concepts As researchers, we develop a systematic scheme for applying numbers to units When we do this, we have a variable

Examples of variables. What are the possible units? Murder rate Litigation rate Support for freedom of speech Income Party identification Liberalism

What is not a variable? Speed of light Parameters Statistics These are called constants. Some political phenomena can be concepts and variables for some units but not for others. September 11th is not a variable with people as the unit.

Political tolerance as a concept Political tolerance is a concept that indicates how much support people have for the civil liberties and rights of their most hated political group. It is not racial tolerance. Notice that to “tolerate” something, you have to, by definition, not like it.

Operationalization of political tolerance If your worst political enemy (i.e. Nazi’s, KKK) came to your town, would you support their right to march downtown? Not support at all Not really support Somewhat support Strongly support 1 2 3 4

Rationality Liberal Conservative Rationality is NOT sophistication (though it is related) It is a decision making theory that predicts that people will make choices that maximizes gains and minimizes losses

Strategic Liberal Conservative Strategic decision making is NOT rationality (though it is related) It is a decision making theory that predicts that people will make choices that are not consistent with a person’s first choice but instead a choice that minimizes the likelihood of a worse outcome

Vote cycling

Agenda setting Liberal Median voter Conservative Median voter is likely to be able to decide outcomes

Congressional committee Agenda setting Outcome Median voter Congressional committee Status quo Liberal Conservative Congressional committees have more power when the status quo is more extreme

Congressional committee Agenda setting Outcome Liberal Median voter Status quo Conservative Congressional committee Congressional committees have more power when the status quo is more extreme