983
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
983 points (98.1% liked)
politics
19148 readers
2090 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Don't be dense. Those are types of biases anyway. Now tell me the biases you're talking about.
I don't know how to be any less ambiguous here... I'm literally, deliberately, and intentionally referring to any and all mental hangups which made people think that sticking with Biden would have been better than switching. That switching improved the Democrats chances should have been extremely obvious even without the benefit of hindsight, and the folks who thought otherwise were wrong and should reckon with this so that they can be less wrong in the future.
What part of this is unclear to you?
This is the part that is confusing:
"Biden supporters had biases that prevented them see the big picture."
Ok, what biases?
"Anchoring bias, blah, blah"
That's like saying "there are many reasons why that engine doesn't fit for that car" and then when someone asks you "what reason?" you reply "a technical reason, a mechanical stress reason, an electrical failure reason," ok, but GIVE ME SOMETHING CONCRETE. Is that red cable sticking out of the engine too thin and it risks catching fire?
Ok, name ONE example bias that you can say it is "anchoring bias" in this case.
That's all I want, man.
"Democrats have a Status Quo bias because they do this and they do that."
I already tried listing all possible biases that might be involved in the misconception and you complained about a lack of specificity.
Oh, I think I understand now. You don't want to think about Biden supporters as a generalized class who might take any number of different routes to reach the same wrong conclusion, you just want me to explain how psychological bias works.
Fine. Anchoring bias occurs when an individuals' judgements or decisions are influenced by a reference point that may be entirely unrelated to the question at hand.
For example, people who took "Biden is the most progressive president ever" as a reference for their judgement that he shouldn't step down from the race. Regardless of the truth-value of the statement, the reference point was entirely immaterial to the actual question, whether or not another candidate would have improved the partys' chances in the election, because it tells us nothing about how Biden compared with his electoral competition.
Thus, persons who relied on this anchor to justify their opposition to Biden dropping out did so for fallacious reasons, and an honest reckoning with this might have led them to an opinion which more accurately reflected reality.
Thanks, man. Yes, I think we were referring to two similar things, but definitely not the same.
When you said biases, you were referring to clinical, psychological ones, just like you said.
When I said biases, I was referring to those based on interests or an individual's experience. For example, a person might say that she has a bias for black kittens when trying to pick up on at the rescue shelter, because she grew up with one (you probably mentioned that kind of bias in the big list you shared - I just don't know how it's called.)
And I agree with you. Some people thought that Biden "is the most progressive president ever," or held other equally fallacious statements.
Particularly, my "bias," if we can call it that way, is that, at least up until the moment Biden bowed down, the Republicans seemed like a very unified party, whereas the Democrats didn't know what to do with themselves, and they didn't seem to be as unified. For example, Hillary Clinton (in sprite of winning the popular vote) didn't win enough votes because some party members protested by not voting. No unity whatsoever. And my bias, or fear, was that if Biden bowed down, the party would be like little ants scattering around - giving Trump the win.
Thankfully that was not the case in the end, and I happily stand corrected.
Anyway. Thanks. Nice discussion.
Indeed, it's always nice when folks stick around long enough to really understand the weirdness that is an ADHD/Autistic person's idea of a realistic perspective on politics.
It doesn't seem to matter how accurate my models are, most folks (regardless of their politics) just want to hear their own opinions reflected back at them. And I get it, it's frustrating when reality contradicts the assumptions one has held as the truth, but I've never been able to understand how folks can get so emotionally invested in an idea of how the world works that they take personal offense to the existence of contradictory evidence. XD
It's really hard to admit when one's world view is not what it seems. I've been there, and at the beginning it was hard to do. But it gets easier with time. Enlightening, even.
I will debate you to death if I am truly convinced that I am right. But if you prove me wrong, for me that's an awesome moment, and I'll feel like I learn something truly new.