Celtics

Last yr, the Celtics felt like a juggernaut that had the NBA's most effective offense and second-most efficient defense.

They secured the No. 1 seed within the Eastern Conference in late March and the ultimate few weeks of the regular season felt like a formality. The Celtics had an excessive amount of depth, too many shots and were well behind the remaining of the league.

This yr is different. Offensive efficiency has dropped to 3rd, defensive efficiency has dropped to sixth, and the Celtics' 3-point shooting percentage has declined from elite to middle of the pack. They have fallen to second place within the standings and are in peril of being overtaken by the third-place Knicks in the event that they proceed to play like this.

Other teams are catching up. Boston has lost seven of its last 14 games, and Wednesday's loss to the Raptors showed that opponents aren’t any longer afraid of the Celtics, based on NBC Sports Boston Brian Scalabrine said.

“I think the first half was phenomenal,” Scalabrine said of the Raptors game on Celtics Postgame Live. “I thought we were shot for shot, good basketball. I don't know the second half. I don't know what they were thinking.

“Did they think the Raptors would give up?” Scalabrine added. “It's just that we're not playing what I describe as the hard-nosed Celtic basketball that we saw last year, where you could see fear in our opponent's eyes. I'm sorry, man. This fear has disappeared. That’s just not the case anymore.”

It's not only essential that the Celtics lose. It's also about who they lose to and the way it happens. Chicago, Philadelphia and Toronto are sub-.500 teams. Sacramento was also there, but improved its record to 20-20 after defeating the Celtics. Orlando didn't have Paolo Banchero or any of the Wagner brothers after they beat Boston in December.

The Celtics lose to bad teams, partially due to shooting strikes, but in addition because they struggle to consistently generate the proper level of defensive intensity.

“The guys are excited to play against us and when they come out here they show it,” Scalabrine said. “You see Scotty Barnes slapping Jayson Tatum right in the face. Right there.”

“If you remember 2008 and 2009, it’s really interesting that the guys were afraid of us,” he continued. “That's exactly how it was. I'm sorry, I just don't see that with this group. I don’t see other teams saying, ‘Man, we have to get to the point today or the Celtics are going to beat us by 50 points.’ I don’t know if those days are over, but we don’t see that happening.”

What do immigration, inheritance tax and cannabis legalization have in common? Not much, actually. However, if we all know an individual’s stance on any of those issues, we are able to make a great guess about their view of others.

Politics often seems to operate in a one-dimensional way: parties and politicians are positioned on a spectrum from the far left to the far right. Knowing an individual’s opinion on a single core issue is commonly enough to assign them to this ideological dimension, which in turn makes it possible to predict their positions on other issues. And in countries just like the US, we’re seeing increasingly more individuals who polarized into opposing political camps at each ends of this spectrum.

One-dimensional politics could appear as natural to us as an apple falling from a tree – it's just the way in which we take into consideration politics. But identical to gravity, this mysterious force that shapes our politics in this manner demands a scientific explanation.

My colleagues and I wanted to grasp why individuals are so deeply divided and the Study we published A model of how this might work was proposed earlier this yr. It suggests that the less we’re capable of separate politics from personal relationships, the greater the polarization will grow to be.

This is greater than just a tutorial issue. Reducing politics to a single ideological dimension can prevent us from finding modern solutions to our most pressing problems.

For example, if one of the best solution to the housing crisis was a mix of deregulation and public investment, that solution couldn’t be implemented if each halves of the answer were rejected by one side of the political spectrum. So, on a really practical level, it will be important to grasp how politics can grow to be so polarized.

The problem is that irrespective of how far back in time we glance, we overwhelmingly find that politics has been organized along a significant dimension of ideological conflict: before the clash of left and right, it was Catholics and Protestants, Roundheads and Cavaliers, and all the way in which back to the Optimates and Populares in ancient Rome.

The issues can have modified, but the basic dichotomy has remained the identical. This makes it very difficult to look at the origins of one-dimensional politics. After all, we cannot experiment with entire societies – no less than not in real life.

Simulate societies

To overcome this limitation, we decided to take an unusual approach. We virtual societies createdeach of which is populated by numerous simulated people, so-called agents.

Each agent had a wide range of opinions, represented as coordinates in a multi-dimensional space. We didn’t assign any specific intending to the coordinates or dimensions, but one can consider them as representing unrelated issues akin to defense spending, nationalizing the railroad, or abortion rights.

At the start of every simulation, the positions of the agents were purely random and never organized along a single ideological dimension of left or right. But over time, the agents interacted and influenced one another, organizing themselves into recent collective states.

We subsequently used these simulated societies as a test bed for various theories utilized in political science, akin to the idea that folks are rational. We desired to test whether or not they could explain one-dimensional politics and the emergence of political polarization.

To do that, we translated these theories into computer protocols that guided the agents' interactions and the way in which they adjusted their opinions. We then checked whether these protocols were sufficient to trigger the emergence of a single ideological dimension.

First, we modeled our agents as rational decision makers within the tradition of mainstream political science. When they encountered other agents, they either accommodated them or rejected them. But either way, no unified ideological dimension emerged. The agents either converged on a consensus or remained scattered.

However, politics is just not a purely rational matter. It is commonly shaped by gut feelings and anger. But political science was not at all times successful in Integrating emotions into decision-making models. For inspiration, we turned to considered one of the founders of social psychology.

In the Fifties, the Austrian-born psychologist Fritz Heider coined the term Theory of cognitive balancewhich states that folks strive for consistency of their thought patterns. For example, we discover it disturbing when two of our friends hate one another, or a friend is in love with someone we despise. Likewise, we attempt to avoid disagreement with people we like in the identical way that we avoid agreeing with people we don't like.

We transferred this balancing mechanism to our simulation. When two of our agents met, they first determined how much they agreed or disagreed on various political issues. Then they translated agreement into sympathy and disagreement into dislike. Finally, they adjusted their positions on the problems in a way that increased consistency.

When they met someone with whom they largely agreed, they adjusted their opinions to defuse the remaining disagreement. Conversely, they tried to accentuate their disagreement.

All of this happened in tiny steps at each meeting of the agents. But through a mess of interactions, the agents eventually organized themselves into individual ideological dimensions—no matter what number of issue dimensions we had began the simulation with.

Where exactly individual actors landed on this ideological continuum trusted one crucial factor: the strength of the connection between substantive disagreement and private antipathy.

If this connection is weak – that’s, the agents can dislike one another but still agree, or they will like one another but disagree – the agents stay near the center. If it is robust, the simulated society splits into two opposing camps – it polarizes.

This suggests that polarization is expounded to people's ability to attach with others on a private level. If we lose sight of the undeniable fact that those we disagree with are often decent individuals with good intentions, we may find ourselves drifting further apart on political issues, with less room for compromise.

This is notable at a time when a lot political debate takes place online, through impersonal or anonymous social media accounts. The real world is way more complex than a one-dimensional view of politics suggests. And individuals are way more than the political opinions they share online.

Ultimately, we are going to never have the option to completely eliminate the ability of cognitive balance—any greater than we are able to eliminate gravity. But we are able to find ways to strengthen the private connection between individuals with different political opinions.

Critics of diversity, equity and inclusion programs, commonly referred to by the acronym DEI, are increasingly using Boycotts And Prohibitions To Fight against their useIt is usually argued that this anti-DEI backlash is motivated by race-neutral concerns – for instance, that DEI practices are irrelevant to job performance or too political.

But our current researchpublished within the peer-reviewed Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, suggests that conservative criticism of DEI often boils all the way down to one thing: anti-black racism.

As psychology ResearchersWe wanted to know why people reply to DEI the best way they do. That's why we recruited greater than 1,000 people to take part in three studies.

For each study, we measured participants’ conservatism on a seven-point scale starting from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. Single-point measures like this are is usually utilized by researchers.

We also measured participants’ racism against blacks by Symbolic Racism Scalea well-validated and commonly used measure of anti-Black racism. Research suggests that as overt racism has develop into less acceptable, people are likely to direct their racism toward symbols of racial equality, comparable to DEI. This meant that the Symbolic Racism scale was an excellent measure of anti-Black racism for our purposes.

How we worked

In the primary study, we asked participants to read a job posting from either an organization that values ​​DEI or an organization that values ​​teamwork and good skilled relationships. Participants then rated their interest within the job and the way fair they thought the corporate was. In later studies, in addition they indicated how well they thought they might fit into the corporate.

We found that participants who scored higher on our conservatism measure were significantly less serious about pursuing employment at the corporate that promoted DEI and viewed it as less fair than the corporate that promoted teamwork.

We then included symbolic racism in our statistical model. After that, our measure of conservatism was not capable of predict workplace interest or perceived fairness within the pro-DEI organization.

In other words, symbolic racism accounted for the effect of conservatism on outcomes within the DEI condition. This suggests that conservative participants' responses to DEI aren’t independent of symbolic racism.

We expanded on these findings in our subsequent studies. In the second study, participants were randomly assigned to read descriptions of comparable firms that support DEI or teamwork. In addition, half of the participants were told why the organization supports either DEI or teamwork, while the opposite half weren’t.

We found that participants who scored higher on conservatism were less serious about applying to the pro-DEI company and perceived it as less fair, no matter whether DEI—or teamwork—was clearly tied to job-related criteria.

We estimated statistical models just like those in the primary study. And we again found that negative views of the DEI company disappeared once we included symbolic racism in our statistical model. Thus, negative reactions to the pro-DEI organization looked as if it would reflect racism-related moderately than work-related concerns.

In the third study, participants read job advertisements for an organization that promotes DEI, teamwork, or family values. The company that promotes family values ​​was described as an organization that wishes to preserve traditional values.

We found that participants who were more committed to conservatism were more serious about applying to that company because they felt it was fairer and fit higher within the scenario where family-friendly values ​​were represented. The opposite was true for the corporate that was more committed to DEI.

When we included symbolic racism in our models, we found that positive views of the family-friendly company remained significant, but negative views of the DEI-advocating company disappeared. This suggests that resistance to DEI is rooted in anti-Black racism moderately than political concerns.

Why it will be important

Given the Tense political environmentOrganizations must grapple with criticism of DEI programs. To successfully reply to that criticism, you should grapple with the underlying motive—which our research shows is usually anti-Black racism.

What happens next?

As a part of the recruitment process Pursue And Organizations Ask applicants about their views on DEI or what they’ve done to put it on the market. In our study, we included requests for similar statements.

However, nobody has yet tested whether people's responses to those statements actually predict performance related to DEI. That's what our team wants to research next—whether an individual's expressed views on DEI can predict work outcomes like effective collaboration on diverse teams.

The Research Brief is a summary of interesting scientific papers.

Almost two years have passed for the reason that Supreme Court ruled Dobbs v. Jackson – Women’s Health Organization The ruling struck down federal protections for abortion rights and marked a big victory for anti-abortion activists. This decision was only the start – some anti-abortion groups, reminiscent of Students for Life of America and National Right to Life, subsequently lobbied – in lots of cases successfully – for abortion laws in every state.

According to Dobbs, the anti-abortion activists had a head start of their work in 13 statesincluding Mississippi and South Dakota. Lawmakers there have passed laws banning abortion in recent times, shortly after potentially deciding to overturn Roe v. Wade, which had given constitutional protection to abortion rights since 1973. These laws, referred to as “Trigger laws”, robotically banned abortion in most, if not all, circumstances after Roe is overturned in June 2022.

I’m a American political scientist who has interviewed nearly 50 anti-abortion activists from across the country over the past few years to know how their activism has modified for the reason that Dobbs decision.

Trigger criminal prosecution

Abortion opponents enjoyed political success when some trigger laws quickly went into effect in states reminiscent of Tennessee and Missouri in 2022. However, in other conservative states reminiscent of Kentucky and Utah, lawsuits difficult the trigger laws prevented these laws from being enforced.

Two abortion clinics filed suit against Kentucky's 2019 law in June 2022. Triggering lawwhich banned abortions in any respect stages of pregnancy, with some exceptions related to Health of the pregnant person.

In November 2022, voters in Kentucky also rejected a the change to the state structure that will have strengthened the trigger law even further and completely abolished the state's constitutional right to abortion. A Kentucky abortion opponent I interviewed in May 2023 described “a lot of disappointment, a lot of sad faces” after the failure of this amendment. He stressed that the trigger law could still go into effect because “the ballot initiative was just to make it constitutional.”

Anti-abortionists celebrated a victory in 2023, when Abortion clinics withdrew their lawsuit against Kentucky's trigger law after the state Supreme Court ruled against some narrow points of their case.

“More needs to be done”

In Utah, the state is now Trigger Act 2020 banned abortions in any respect stages of pregnancy, except in just a few limited circumstances, including when the health of the pregnant person is in danger and in reported cases of incest and rape. Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah first challenged this trigger law in court in July 2022.

A Utah anti-abortion activist I interviewed in May 2023 described the atmosphere after Roe: “Unfortunately, there is a certain complacency in some quarters that we have won this victory,” referring to Dobbs. “I think unless you are really involved in what is happening, you may not realize how much work still needs to be done.”

Part of that work is getting the state's trigger law “over the finish line,” the activist said.

While Utah's trigger law stays held up in court because of the lawsuit, the state has one other 2019 Law that prohibits abortion normally after the 18th week of pregnancy and stays effective.

A ban so late in pregnancy is an unacceptable compromise for anti-abortion activists, who see their fight as a fight to guard all unborn life. the trigger law stays on hold in Utah, anti-abortion groups call on their supporters to hope for an end to abortion within the state.

Anti-abortion activists in other states, like Tennessee and Louisianawhich have a few of the strictest deduction laws within the country, have also mobilized their supporters since June 2022 to assist prevent state legislatures from weakening the deduction laws.

Change of strategies and venues

In some states, trigger laws went into effect in June 2022 with none legal challenges or legislative changes. Still, many anti-abortion groups are on the defensive.

The Arkansas Withdrawal Act was in force in June 2022 to make abortion illegal in any respect stages of pregnancy, with just a few exceptions. An Arkansas activist I spoke with in June 2023 said the group was “blessed” to have the support of elected officials, while acknowledging that “illegal abortions are probably happening.”

“Our mission hasn't really changed with the removal of Roe v. Wade,” she said. “But the playing field has changed because in Arkansas we can save babies. So now we're focused on providing services to women we know will get pregnant and educating them about the dangers of the abortion pill.”

Anti-abortion groups in Arkansas recognize the ability of abortion rights ballot initiatives, but change into more frequent in 2023 and 2024.

In 2022 Ozark – Right to Lifean anti-abortion group in Arkansas, asked its supporters to call Kansas residents and encourage them to vote for a Constitutional amendment of the state. The amendment originally proposed by the state legislature would have stated that no right to abortion within the state structure.

About 59% of voters in Kansas rejected the amendment in August 2022.

Abortion opponents in Missouri prepared for a Post-Roe era that will require them to defend existing state laws. In March 2023, Missouri Right to Life posted on Facebook that abortion rights activists desired to put an anti-abortion amendment to the Constitution on the ballot. They asked their supporters to comment on the language of the proposed amendment.

It is unclear what influence anti-abortion groups had on the amendment's wording, however the American Civil Liberties Union sued Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft for using misleading and biased wording within the summary of the amendment. Right to Life in Missouri defended Ashcroft's description, which asked voters whether or not they desired to allow “dangerous, unregulated and unrestricted abortions from conception to live birth, without the requirement of a doctor's license or the risk of medical malpractice.”

In 2023, a judge in Missouri rejected this description and the summary rewritten.

Anti-abortion groups in Arkansas And Missouri at the moment are Conducting “signature denial” campaigns to forestall abortion rights initiatives from appearing on their state ballots in November 2024.

The Ballot initiative in Arkansas would protect the fitting to abortion before the 18th week of pregnancy or in cases of rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormality or to guard the health of the pregnant person. The so-called Missouri Amendment to Reproductive Freedom would allow the state to control abortions based on the viability of the fetus, which will likely be after about 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Despite the efforts of some anti-abortion activists, abortion rights groups in each Arizona And Missouri say they’ve enough signatures to place abortion on the ballot in November and enshrine reproductive rights of their state constitutions.

In view of the outcomes to date from Abortion-related ballot initiativeswhich have largely restored abortion rights, anti-abortion activists face an uphill battle.

Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price appears to be facing recall this 12 months after her opponents cleared the ultimate major hurdle in putting the query before voters on Monday.

Nearly 15 months after taking office, Price must now work to maintain her job after county officials said Monday that the Save Alameda For Everyone recall campaign had submitted valid signatures to force an election. According to Tim Dupuis, the county's registrar of voters, the group submitted 74,757 valid signatures, just barely greater than the 73,195 needed to get the query on a ballot. Another 48,617 signatures were found to be invalid, meaning they may not be considered within the group's try to unseat Price.

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors must now settle on a date for the election.

On Monday, recall organizers hailed the announcement as a pointy rejection of the district attorney's try to overhaul the East Bay's justice system. For greater than a 12 months, they’ve railed against Price's decisions to not impose long prison sentences on defendants – calling such measures too lenient on crime.

Since a recall was nearly as good as possible, they vowed to perform their try to remove Price from office.

“The successful collection of signatures demonstrates the overwhelming support of residents throughout Alameda County for a change in leadership and a renewed commitment to the principles of integrity and public service,” the group’s announcement said.

Messages left as a part of Price's “Protect the Win” campaign weren’t immediately returned.

The move marks the second time in recent times that a recall effort has been made against a Bay Area district attorney. In June 2022, San Francisco voters removed their very own progressive District Attorney Chesa Boudin from office in a nationally watched campaign.

Price has faced vocal opposition for the reason that first months of her term, with opponents first holding a rally in April 2023 to call for her impeachment on the identical courthouse steps where Monday's rally took place. She filed formal paperwork to form a recall committee over the summer and worked from September through early March to gather enough signatures to force an election.

Recall leaders say Price has been too soft on crime since taking office and criticized her efforts to shorten prison sentences and reduce the variety of sentencing enhancements given to defendants. They identified that her handling of several high-profile murder charges – including a plea deal for a person once accused in three murders as an adolescent – was an indication that Price was not tough enough on crime.

However, Price calls the long prison sentences a remnant of the country's racist overreaction to crime – a response that has devastated communities of color and led to the unnecessary mass incarceration of criminals. A vocal critic of law enforcement, she has also taken steps to reopen misconduct cases against police and sheriff's deputies.