This is even more interesting than the previous post on sentiment analysis.
Sentiment analysis that is based solely on valence (evaluation in Charles Osgood's terms) is missing at least two other qualifying dimensions of meaning, arousal and dominance (or Osgood's activity and potency). I think that Bryan's article has demonstrated that sentiment analysis has to be even more fine-grained than that to produce meaningful results.
Hannia thinks bad things happen because people are stupid.
You think bad things happen because people are evil.
Probably both happen but I suspect Hannia is closer to being correct. You're superficially sunnier but I'm not sure "evil" is a sunny way to think about the world.
My simpler assessment:
Caplan, Cowen, Hanson: Thoughtful, interesting
Krugman, Hanania: Insufferable
This is even more interesting than the previous post on sentiment analysis.
Sentiment analysis that is based solely on valence (evaluation in Charles Osgood's terms) is missing at least two other qualifying dimensions of meaning, arousal and dominance (or Osgood's activity and potency). I think that Bryan's article has demonstrated that sentiment analysis has to be even more fine-grained than that to produce meaningful results.
Surely Scott Alexander deserves one of these?
And only one of these dudes had the stones to try a standup bit 🤠.
Thanks.
Hannia thinks bad things happen because people are stupid.
You think bad things happen because people are evil.
Probably both happen but I suspect Hannia is closer to being correct. You're superficially sunnier but I'm not sure "evil" is a sunny way to think about the world.