It has become increasingly common for academics to use social media to communicate with wider audiences. Twitter, like many other social platforms, typically measures success in terms of numbers of followers, likes and retweets, but this only tells us something about the spreading of messages but not necessarily whether the content of the messages is understood or embraced. One way to ascertain this is through network and language analysis, which, used together, can tell us how effective the communication is. Economists tweet less, mention fewer people and have fewer conversations with strangers than a comparable group of experts in the sciences, and use less accessible language with words that are more complex, with more abbreviations and with a more distant tone. Their tweets are less personal and less inclusive than those used by scientists. This is what appeared in April 2017 when we gathered data on tens of thousands of tweets from the Twitter accounts of both the top 25 economists and 25 scientists as identified by IDEAS and Science, including the top three economists at the time, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Erik Brynjolfsson and, on the other side, the top three scientists, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, and Richard Dawkins. At that time those accounts covered roughly two thirds of all the following. The timing is significant because 2016 has been declared the year of post-truth politics, the year in which appeals to emotions (pathos) superseded the significance of factual evidence-based information (logos), affecting people's constructions and interpretations of events. This has been accompanied by the growing prominence of political "alt" movements (e.g. UKIP, the Alt-right) and their aggressive, provocative, and populist narratives, and "fake news" leading to political shock events such as Brexit and the Trump election. The relatively low traction of economists in these public debates has been and continues to be an important issue. Does the public not trust economists? Don't they understand... Question: Why was paul analyzed === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- because he's in economics
- because he is famous
- because he's smart
because he is famous

The dumbest thing that actually worked? I joined Tinder. Reason I say it was the dumbest is because I still acknowledge that it's not my kind of dating scene even though I ended up meeting the love of my life through the app. Other than that? Nothing was wrong or dumb. I have done nothing much because the man I am currently dating sent me a superlike after I was on the app for less than 12 hours. I joined, created profile, went through possible matches, and then went to bed. I didn't have enough time to do something dumb. Now my boyfriend on the other hand was on the app for 45 months prior to me joining and him finding me. His story is that he had been in there long enough to end up matching with some bots (robots that somehow end up joining or hacking the app. I have not a clue how) that he would have conversations with to test if they were legitimate people. He would also match with different people who would either immediately block him because he came as weird or he would block them because they came off as weird. When he found me, what he saw in my profile was that I was local, I was a legitimate person because I knew someone that he knew through Facebook, and I had multiple pictures of myself that looked genuine. I also had a description where I stated my intention for using the app which was that I was looking for a serious relationship. What he did after I connected with him was talk to me and then test me as the conversation progressed. How did he test me? He told a corny joke which I laughed to. If I hadn't have found his joke funny, he probably wouldn't have asked me out on a date. I hope that answers your question. I know it wasn't very. eventful. Question: Why was the boyfriend interested? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- She was from his college town
- She went to the same kindergarten
- not enough information
- They had a mutual friend

Answer: They had a mutual friend

While I was in training, my class was 2 months out from graduation. We were in class, reviewing skills such as antenna theory, radios and map reading. Our instructor walks in and pulls a candidate, we'll leave nameless, aside. He walks him out of the classroom. I never really thought anything of it as instructors would often pull guys aside for reviews, specific instructions or taskings. I don't know how much time passed but the candidate walked back in. He gathered his things and left the room. Guys asked if everything was cool but he didn't say a word. The instructor came in and sat on the desk at the front of the room. We asked if everything was alright, and he told us that the day prior, the The candidate's wife had gone into labor however there were complications with the baby but the complications were unknown. He was reporting to the commander to let him know whether he wanted to stay in training or leave because the military does not consider a spouse's pregnancy to be an emergency even though the complication should be. If he were to leave he would have to drop from the TACP pipeline with a possibility of either starting it over from the beginning of quitting all together. The instructor shook his head and I could honestly see it was a difficult task for him to tell the candidate. It's rare to see an instructor be emotional but it was something that brought reality into the room for us. The candidate was given 24 hours to call the hospital, talk to his wife, learn more of the situation and make a decision. He ended up staying in the pipeline and graduated. His child was born with minor complications but is healthy to this day. It may not be an exact teacher to a student scenario, but it hits pretty damn close to those of us who went through military training. Question: Where would he have to drop out from? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- Military.
- not enough information
- School.
- The TACP pipeline.
The TACP pipeline.