Computational analysis of US Congressional speeches reveals a shift from evidence to intuition

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.07323v1
• Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 16:17:41 GMT
• Title: Computational analysis of US Congressional speeches reveals a shift from evidence to intuition
• Abstract summary: Pursuit of honest and truthful decision-making is crucial for governance and accountability in democracies. We explore a continuum of perspectives from evidence-based reasoning, rooted in ascertainable facts and data, at one end, to intuitive decisions that are driven by feelings and subjective interpretations, at the other. We analyze the linguistic traces of those contrasting perspectives in Congressional speeches from 1879 to 2022.
• Score: 1.5590818387626204
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Pursuit of honest and truthful decision-making is crucial for governance and accountability in democracies. However, people sometimes take different perspectives of what it means to be honest and how to pursue truthfulness. Here we explore a continuum of perspectives from evidence-based reasoning, rooted in ascertainable facts and data, at one end, to intuitive decisions that are driven by feelings and subjective interpretations, at the other. We analyze the linguistic traces of those contrasting perspectives in Congressional speeches from 1879 to 2022. We find that evidence-based language has continued to decline since the mid-1970s, together with a decline in legislative productivity. The decline was accompanied by increasing partisan polarization in Congress and rising income inequality in society. Results highlight the importance of evidence-based language in political decision-making.

Related papers

• Epistemic orientation predicts legislative effectiveness among members of the US Congress [0.5607632629560914]
  Evidence-oriented language in U.S. congressional floor speeches has declined since the mid-1970s.<n>This study shifts the analysis from congressional sessions to individual members of Congress.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T17:41:54Z)
• The Deliberative Illusion: Diagnosing Factual Attrition and Stance Homogenization in Multi-Agent LLM Deliberation [68.98390038721963]
  We show that multi-agent discussion erases up to 72% of issue-critical facts.<n>This loss is consequential: retained evidence can reconstruct the issue misleadingly, final stances remain anchored in base-model priors, and a single malicious agent can inject misinformation into the shrinking shared context.<n>We call for evaluations that measure which facts, uncertainties, and legitimate disagreements survive interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T02:15:40Z)
• Epistemic orientation in parliamentary discourse is associated with deliberative democracy [0.5607632629560914]
  We introduce a scalable approach to measure epistemic orientation using the Evidence--Minus--Intuition ( EMI) score.<n>We apply this approach to 15 million parliamentary speech segments spanning 1946 to 2025 across seven countries.<n>We find that EMI is positively associated with deliberative democracy within countries over time, with consistent relationships in both contemporaneous and lagged analyses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T17:19:09Z)
• Perceived Political Bias in LLMs Reduces Persuasive Abilities [0.0]
  We test whether credibility attacks reduce LLM-based persuasion.<n>A short message indicating that the LLM was biased against the respondent's party attenuated persuasion by 28%.<n>These findings suggest that the persuasive impact of conversational AI is politically contingent, constrained by perceptions of partisan alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-20T09:33:16Z)
• Latent Topic Synthesis: Leveraging LLMs for Electoral Ad Analysis [51.95395936342771]
  We introduce an end-to-end framework for automatically generating an interpretable topic taxonomy from an unlabeled corpus.<n>We apply this framework to a large corpus of Meta political ads from the month ahead of the 2024 U.S. Presidential election.<n>Our approach uncovers latent discourse structures, synthesizes semantically rich topic labels, and annotates topics with moral framing dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T20:30:20Z)
• Political Fact-Checking Efforts are Constrained by Deficiencies in Coverage, Speed, and Reach [0.0]
  This study provides the most comprehensive assessment to date of the real-world limitations faced by political fact-checking efforts. We find that fact-checks as currently developed and distributed are severely inhibited in election contexts by constraints on their coverage, speed, and reach. We provide empirical evidence which runs contrary to the assumption that misinformation is politically biased against the political right.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T19:15:08Z)
• From Experts to the Public: Governing Multimodal Language Models in Politically Sensitive Video Analysis [48.14390493099495]
  This paper examines the governance of large language models (MM-LLMs) through individual and collective deliberation. We conducted a two-step study: first, interviews with 10 journalists established a baseline understanding of expert video interpretation; second, 114 individuals from the general public engaged in deliberation using Inclusive.AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-15T03:17:38Z)
• Representation Bias in Political Sample Simulations with Large Language Models [54.48283690603358]
  This study seeks to identify and quantify biases in simulating political samples with Large Language Models. Using the GPT-3.5-Turbo model, we leverage data from the American National Election Studies, German Longitudinal Election Study, Zuobiao dataset, and China Family Panel Studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T05:52:26Z)
• Moral consensus and divergence in partisan language use [0.0]
  Polarization has increased substantially in political discourse, contributing to a widening partisan divide. We analyzed large-scale, real-world language use in Reddit communities and in news outlets to uncover psychological dimensions along which partisan language is divided.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-14T16:50:26Z)
• Natural Language Decompositions of Implicit Content Enable Better Text Representations [56.85319224208865]
  We introduce a method for the analysis of text that takes implicitly communicated content explicitly into account. We use a large language model to produce sets of propositions that are inferentially related to the text that has been observed. Our results suggest that modeling the meanings behind observed language, rather than the literal text alone, is a valuable direction for NLP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T23:45:20Z)
• The Face of Populism: Examining Differences in Facial Emotional Expressions of Political Leaders Using Machine Learning [50.24983453990065]
  We use a deep-learning approach to process a sample of 220 YouTube videos of political leaders from 15 different countries. We observe statistically significant differences in the average score of negative emotions between groups of leaders with varying degrees of populist rhetoric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T18:32:49Z)
• Legal and Political Stance Detection of SCOTUS Language [9.906317924458456]
  We analyze publicly available US Supreme Court documents using automated stance detection. We calculate two distinct ideology metrics of SCOTUS justices using oral argument transcripts. We find that justices who are more responsive to public opinion tend to express their ideology during oral arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-21T18:45:57Z)
• From alternative conceptions of honesty to alternative facts in communications by U.S. politicians [1.7292236187135732]
  We show that politicians' conception of honesty has undergone a distinct shift. An increase of belief-speaking of 10% is associated with a decrease of 12.8 points of quality. The results support the hypothesis that the current dissemination of misinformation is in part driven by an alternative understanding of truth and honesty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-23T08:59:32Z)
• Did they answer? Subjective acts and intents in conversational discourse [48.63528550837949]
  We present the first discourse dataset with multiple and subjective interpretations of English conversation. We show disagreements are nuanced and require a deeper understanding of the different contextual factors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-09T16:34:19Z)
• Representativeness in Statistics, Politics, and Machine Learning [0.720851507101878]
  Representativeness is a foundational yet slippery concept. We ask what representativeness means, how it is mobilized socially, and what values and ideals it communicates or confronts. We draw on these analyses to think through how representativeness is used in FAccT debates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-11T11:45:10Z)
• What Changed Your Mind: The Roles of Dynamic Topics and Discourse in Argumentation Process [78.4766663287415]
  This paper presents a study that automatically analyzes the key factors in argument persuasiveness. We propose a novel neural model that is able to track the changes of latent topics and discourse in argumentative conversations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-10T04:27:48Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.