Comments on: Moderating Political Opinions

By: raylider

raylider — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 05:17:06 +0000

I see a lot of complaining about Obama and Romney. You say they both lie a lot, you say you’re forced to chose the “lesser” of two evils, as if there are no other choices. Judging from this blog post and the comments, it appears as though there were only two candidates. Did no one here vote for Gary Johnson? Did no one here want to vote for a candidate that actually does what he says? Did no one here want to vote for a candidate that wouldn’t bomb other countries? That had any chance of bringing peace?

By: ccbowers

ccbowers — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:56:54 +0000

“My son immersed himself in American politics over the past few months and his conclusion was that Obama would win confortably, and that Romney never had any real chance of winning, and that the popular vote would be close but go narrowly to Obama.”

That was close to the concensus view of most informed and reasonable people going into the election (but most allowed for a small chance for Romney to win if a few ‘swing states’ went his way- since many of those states were quite close), but of course with most close elections carried enough uncertainty. I wonder how common it is in your part of the world to follow American politics?- I can tell you that the reverse is not too common

By: BillyJoe7

BillyJoe7 — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:30:39 +0000

“Dick Morris demonstrated confirmation bias very well by predicting a Romney landslide for months, and even giving him 325 electoral votes just 2 days ago”

My son immersed himself in American politics over the past few months and his conclusion was that Obama would win confortably, and that Romney never had any real chance of winning, and that the popular vote would be close but go narrowly to Obama.

I not sure if that last prediction has been decided yet but, on last view, Obama was indeed narrowly ahead.

By: ccbowers

ccbowers — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:20:34 +0000

Dick Morris demonstrated confirmation bias very well by predicting a Romney landslide for months, and even giving him 325 electoral votes just 2 days ago, while those who attempt to look at the data dispassionately and systematically did very well in predicting the results (Nate Silver may have gotten 50/50 right but he’s not the only one who did well). Cherry picking polls and going with your “gut” do not stand up to reality- despite how hard some people try we are not entitled to our own facts

By: BillyJoe7

BillyJoe7 — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:33:00 +0000

mufi,

We’re on the same boat.

“When I cast my ballot for Obama this morning, I had in mind what the person stands for.”
That’s what I meant, don’t vote for the person, vote for the policies.

“I voted for the person who I believe most shares my values.”
Again, that’s what I meant, vote for the values, not the hip pocket.

And congratulations on our man getting in.
(except that I was unable to vote)

By: ccbowers

ccbowers — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 20:14:34 +0000

mufi-

“It’s simply much more efficient to stick with the information sources that we’ve already come to trust as reliable (albeit, fallible).”

I agree, but my point was that there are people who are very averse to contradictory information, even if that information is clearly correct. Of course we all have moments in which we are not ready or willing to acknowledge contradictory information due to fatigue or current state, but I’ve noticed substantial difference between individuals… I believe our last 2 presidents are very different in this regard.

By: mufi

mufi — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 14:58:11 +0000

BillyJoe7: When I cast my ballot for Obama this morning, I had in mind what the person stands for.

First and foremost, I think what Obama stands for is a particular set of values (or priorities), which differs significantly from that which Romney stands for. More to the point, I believe that their policy differences (which are sharper in “domestic” category than they are in “foreign” category) follow from those different value (or priority) sets.

In that sense, I voted for the person who I believe most shares my values.

[Note that I did not say "interests", as the term often suggests egoism, whereas I think of my values as being altruistic, as well.]

Heptron: Yes, that’s how it works in the US, as well. That’s why, even though the US added jobs last month, the unemployment rate rose (by a decimal point, if I recall correctly), because more out-of-work people were actually back in the job-seeking market.

ccbowers: Contemplative/reflective/analytical thought consumes time and energy that’s often not available to us – even if we possess the will or desire to overcome our tribal instincts. It’s simply much more efficient to stick with the information sources that we’ve already come to trust as reliable (albeit, fallible).

By: ccbowers

ccbowers — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 02:09:23 +0000

From my experience applying skepticism to topics tends to result in more nuanced and accurate understanding – viewing this as moderate is a less accurate approximation of nuance in many situations. I don’t think there is symmetry with respect to the “two sides” of our political system, because nuanced thinking is definitely more common on the left in the US at this time.

I have found though, that many people do not like to be put in situations in which they are forced to think contemplatively or abstractly, because it forces them to reevaluate matters in which they previously settled on an “answer.” Although this “answer” may not be correct, it was compatible with their ideological committments and worldview, and there is a strong tendency to dismiss information that doesn’t mesh well with this. Of course I just discribed confirmation bias, which means that getting people to apply skepticism is a solution to our polarization problem. How to do that is the real question

By: Heptron

Heptron — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 01:09:44 +0000

Let me preface this post by saying that I’m Canadian, so I’m less in the loop about voting in the US… Maybe.
One thing that I’ve noticed is that people assume that policies put into place are in effect instantly. They forget that if you want to enact big changes it takes a long time. It was described to me in an economics class as the ‘fool in the shower’. You jump in the shower and it’s cold, so you turn it up. The water doesn’t get hot right away, so you turn it up more. The water warms up… But then gets too hot so you turn it down, but it’s still hot so you turn it down more, and repeat. This is why it bugs me when people hold current government completely accountable for the situations they are in. Maybe the reason that the US was losing jobs into Obama’s first 4 years was because it took time for the previous government’s plans to come into play, then time to change them. Why this bugs me is that if Romney gets elected and things are heading in the right direction, he gets credit. (Yes I am a little biased based on my views, but I feel like Obama was dealt a garbage hand and it takes a while to fix things)
How do others feel about this? Am I guilty of logical fallacies?
Speaking of jobs, it bothers me when people quote unemployment numbers. My understanding is that unemployment doesn’t factor in people who have stopped looking for work. So when more jobs are created or the economy turns around, more people get back to looking for work, which means an increase in the unemployment rate. Conversely, when the economy slumps, people stop looking for work and the unemployment rate drops since there are fewer people looking for work.
Again, is this the case in the US? Is there something I’m missing here?

By: BillyJoe7

BillyJoe7 — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 22:29:18 +0000

I listen to electioneering by politicians merely as a form of amusement.

In my opinion, if you decide on who to vote for, or which party to vote for, on the basis of what you are told in the election campaign, you will make your decision based on lies, and promises that will be broken. Indeed, some election promises need to be broken because their only purpose was to get elected, not to promote the best interests of the country.

You need to have your mind made up before the election campaign, and it should be on the basis of which party’s policies you feel are in the best interests of the country, not which party’s policies are best for you personally. Which of course means that you are voting for policies, not politicians. Voting for Obama or Romney is exactly the wrong way to vote.

Having said that….GO OBAMA!
(Only because that means that the Republican Party will lose)