I’ve been writing Conversation pieces for over 10 yrs, since near the beginning of my PhD. Some of them are now cringe, others stand up. The latest is here. A short rant
Lots of academics working in social sciences and humanities seem, to me, to have “physics” envy – and a 19th century, pre-Einstein etc meaning of physics. They want the soothing numbers/equations that will make them feel/look “scientific.” This is, largely, an illusion, but a useful one.
That’s not to say “anything goes”, that you can make up whatever you like. But the search for “precision” & “disprovability of hypotheses” wastes a lot of time (writers, reviewers and whatever readers might be around). Alongside this, they want to believe in “rationality” and economic motives.
Which brings me, AT LAST, to the piece about Trump’s climate stance, & a much older paper/ Conversation piece I wrote. I have staunch a Marxist friend who is really not impressed with me bringing in psychological/socio-psychological lenses. It spoils the ease of argument, opens “bourgeois” floodgates
So ANYWAY. I think you can’t understand Trump’s climate stance(s) via the “follow the money” thing. Or not alone. You need anti-reflexivity, production vs impact science, cohort effects, terror management theory. All these make cling-to-numbers-for-mental-safety academics lose their shit.
I’m rambling, so will end this 🧵. Alongside the Trump piece (sadly a link to an Onion story about NOAA & wind-chimes got nixxed), there is this old one about Australian political elites and their resistance to renewables.
Let me know your thoughts on it, & this 🧵. 6/6
marchudson.net 
Agreed. Trump’s actions exceed a material self-interest analysis. He’s got an interest in aligning with public opinion, but if anything his actions are making his party’s electoral prospects worse by the day. So he’s not pursuing group self-interest. Business is being damaged on all sides by his tariff policies and any US firm keen on reliable international trade is being harmed. So he’s not pursuing rational economic self-interest nor representing class interests of US firms, even the fossil ones. He’s clearly pursuing personal goals of vengeance, power-flaunting and egoistic display. And he has a very narrow base of supporters willing him on with all that. So how is all this happening if very few people want it? The answer seems to be that other actors cannot organise to constrain him or remove him. Why not? Fear, low trust, cowardice, all the collective action problems of any court faced by a vicious and capricious king. Our best guide is the theory of collective action problems in general and court politics in particular. See also the film THE DEATH OF STALIN.