Gelman on Zorn and Gill
Andrew Gelman comments on the Zorn and Gill paper on the designated hitter rule.
My first thought is: this is amusing but why is it in a top political science journal? But, reading the article, I realize that it indeed has more general implications. In particular, if we can make the assumption that causality only goes in one direction here—that a change in the view on the designated hitter will not affect one’s political preferences—then this is a clean study, a way of estimating the coherence of political ideology into non-political areas.
More here.