Comment on this weblog
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a comment.

Showing messages 1 through 9 of 9.

• One book (by my count) on that list is not a polemic
  2004-02-03 03:05:47  John W. Adams | [Reply | View]
  
  
  It's an interesting study, but what it shows is people who read polemics tend to read polemics by people with whom they agree. That's interesting, but hardly unexpected.
  
  The methodology was to start with best-seller lists--and there's the rub. Books which are best-sellers are generally crafted to appeal to a specific audience. It's no surprise, then, that publishers know their trade, or that sales patterns reflect that knowledge. What would a different methodology--one designed to study books lower on the list--tell us?
  
  What do people who read Republic.Com read? What do people who read A Problem from Hell read? I wouldn't describe either of those books as a polemic, or as a best-seller.
  
  Most importantly, what are the books that do cross over? What sort of books are they? How do they help form peoples' ideas? Who's the better propagandist, Ann Coulter or Tom Clancy?
  
  So much study of this sort focuses on the "big picture" and leaves one disheartened. This one is a picture of the status quo--a "You Are Here" mark on a blank roadmap.
  
  Of course people who read partisan books tend to be partisan, and of course such people are unlikely to change their minds because of a partisan argument from their opponents. If I spent my time thinking about that, I'd be a very unhappy and ineffective person. I'd rather think about shifting that center Valdis points to (okay, it's a cut set, but I think of it as a center).
  
  Valdis sneaks up on this thought, but from a very pragmatic, tactical angle: "So, if you are working a 2004 political campaign what do you do with this information? Obviously you will not be successful in removing a reader from deep in one cluster and transplanting them into the other cluster. All you can do is focus on the edge nodes and the bridges."
  
  That's great campaign advice, but not much of a long-term strategy, for politics or for democracy.

• preaching to the converted...
  2004-02-02 00:58:14  jwenting [Reply | View]
  
  
  I'd be far more interested in whether there is a similar division between social and political groupings in the NON political books they read.
  
  Of course people who are firmly opposed to the current US president are more likely to pick up a book confirming those beliefs ("see, I was right all along") and vv. someone supporting the president is more likely to pick up the president's autobiography (OK, it's not out yet but you get the point).
  There's no news in that, though I am somewhat surprised at the extreme polarity in the selections.
  That tells to me that either the US political scene is even more polarised than it looks from the outside to be or the choice of books used for the study is too narrow.
• preaching to the converted...
  2004-02-02 06:30:27  orgnet [Reply | View]
  
  
  I only chose the starting set of books from the NYT bestseller list, the rest of the books, and ALL of links were from bookseller data. The data drove what emerged -- I just 'connected the dots', as they say. If the resulting set is "too narrow", it is because most of the books kept pointing back to each other!

• what's in the data
  2004-02-01 12:47:48  orgnet [Reply | View]
  
  
  Brian,
  
  The key to remember in this purchase data is that the major booksellers show just the most frequent links between books. They show just the TOP 5 'also bought books' -- these are the strongest ties in the network.
  
  People like you, eclectic readers, apparently don't make the cutoff. If more people were like you then we would see something akin to a random network as opposed to the highly clustered network we do see. Frankly, I wish more people had the diverse collection of reading material you have. Unfortunately the data tells us that most people choose to read highly similar material.
  
  Valdis
  
  
  

• Deviate from the mainstream path
  2004-01-31 05:40:12  rev_matt [Reply | View]
  
  
  Rather than worry about getting both major parties at the same event, focus on getting third parties there. As many as possible. If either major party and a significant number of leading third parties start adopting a technology path, the other major party will jump on the bandwagon and try to out-tech the one that was there at the beginning.
  
  That's how this silly pointless game of partisan politics works.

• On my footlocker
  2004-01-31 05:22:08  brian d foy | [Reply | View]
  
  
  After I read this I had to go back to my tent. Next to the weapons and other military paraphenalia, I have:
  
  

  
  
  • Last week's Economist
    
  • Three old issues of the New Yorker
    
  • Margaret Thatcher's Statecraft, which I am halfway through
    
  • Toqueville's Democracy in America, which is the book I carry around just in case I get stuck somewhere (halfway through that too)
    
  • A Louis Lamour book that my tentmate gave me, although I probably will not read it
    
  • The current Foreign Affairs, with an article by Colin Powell.
    
  • Reefer Madness, by the same guy who did Fast Food Nation
    
  • The Lyric Opera of Chicago's guide to this season
    
  • An old issue of Sun magazine
    
  • Several MacWorlds and Dr. Dobbs Journal that someone just sent me
    
  • Several week old issues of Stars & Stripes
    
  • A pocket copy of the US Constitution (of which I am defending against all enemies foreign and domestic)
    
  • A minidisk of This American Life programs
    

  
  
  I wonder where all that shows up on the map.