While this blog started as an alternative to missives sent to a mailing list, it is likely to suck away my attention to farceBook. This posting is a symptom of it.
The announcement of a report out of UPenn about the impact of reading the Harry Potter series on attitudes about Donald Trump triggerred a lot jumbled connections in my mind. First are the questions about causality in the basic result, then were all the assorted issues about how people derive their votes (expressed opinions).
The report claims to show that reading the JK Rowlings works lessens the appeal (or strengthens the rejection) The Donald (DT). I can see several different models that could align with those observations. The simplest of them being that since each HP installment is larger than the one before it, the series constitutes a scale of serious reading (the more serious a reader the further into the series the reader will go), and serious readers are likely to reject DT. Another model, discussed in other announcements, is that there are thematic similarities between DT and Voldemort, and readers are more likely to reject the real world counterpart of the fictitious bad guy.
My currently preferred model is a variant of the later. In the narratives, all the people are struggling, to varying extents, to reconcile their emotional reactions against their logical analyses. Harry’s team seems to have made their planning processes largely logical with emotional feedback to reflect the outcomes, while their opponent seem to have done the exact opposite. I see the groups of people that back DT (and the Tea Party as well) as being more like the villain; actually, the model suggests 4 different categories of people where DT backers are either of those that do not base their planning on logic.