VOX 9 essential lessons from psychology to understand the Trump era Motivated reasoning, bias, fake news, conspiracy theories, and more, explained.
A very interesting piece that I will need to get back to when I get a chance.
A very interesting piece that I will need to get back to when I get a chance.
67 comments:
There is a simpler, albeit a bit trite and shopworn, explanation:
you created us
Jerry's Link for our convenience...
Dear Democrats and Liberals,
I'm noticing that a lot of you aren't graciously accepting the fact that your candidate lost.
In fact you seem to be posting even more hateful things about those of us who voted for Trump.
Some of you are apparently "triggered". Because you are posting how "sick" you feel about the results.
How did this happen you ask.
You created "us" when you attacked our freedom of speech.
You created "us" when you attacked our right to bear arms.
You created "us" when you attacked our Christian beliefs.
You created "us" when you constantly referred to us as racists.
You created "us" when you constantly called us xenophobic.
You created "us" when you told us to get on board or get out of the way.
You created "us" when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating.
You created "us" when you allowed our jobs to continue to leave our country.
You created "us" when you attacked our flag.
You created "us" when you confused women's rights with feminism.
You created "us" when you began to emasculate men.
You created "us" when you decided to make our children soft.
You created "us" when you decided to vote for progressive ideals.
You created "us" when you attacked our way of life.
You created "us" when you decided to let our government get out of control.
You created "us" the silent majority.
And we became fed up and we pushed back and spoke up.
And we did it with ballots, not bullets.
I think I see the VOX messages clearly in the Field and Stream Letter. White males are apparently truly scared of competition and change. :-)
Here are the social science lessons I keep coming back to, to help me explain what’s happening in America in the Trump era. Perhaps you’ll find them helpful too.
•Rooting for a team alters your perception of the world.
•We can be immune to uncomfortable facts.
•Leaders like Trump have special powers to sway public opinion.
•People don’t often make decisions based on the truth.
•Political opponents are often really, really bad at arguing with one another.
•White people’s fear of being replaced is a powerful political motivator.
•It’s shockingly easy to grow numb to mass suffering.
•Fake news preys on our biases — and will be very hard to stamp out.
•Conspiracy theories may be rampant, but they’re a specific reaction to a dark, uncertain world.
An uncomfortable theme you might notice here is that our leaders, the groups we were born into, and, increasingly, our echo-chambered media ecosystems can bring out the worst psychological biases that exist in all of us.
In other words, no one, be they Democrat or Republican, is inherently stupid. “At the end of the day, we’re all human beings and we use the same psychological processes,” Dominique Brossard, a communications researcher at the University of Wisconsin Madison, says.
All I have to say is ... 2 weeks until mid-terms... This so exciting... :-)
And since Trump knows his True Believers and their fears so well...
WAPO Trump and Republicans settle on fear — and falsehoods — as a midterm strategy
Or he is not creative to come up with something new since this worked in 2016...
The "party of personal responsibility" has become the party of perpetual victimhood. It's sad, really.
My Far Right folks on FB are eating the scary caravan story up hook, line and sinker... It really is a gift to the Right wing.
And yes I agree that it is very sad that citizens on both sides can be so easily manipulated by their chosen leaders.
"You created "us" when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating."
How can both be true?
Moose
If you think Republicans are fear-mongering, I dare you to count the number of scary ads coming out from Democrats and Republicans. The last I looked it was about 20:1 a Democrat thing. I do have some sympathy for them, though, since it is all they have.
And what would you say if it was proven that this "caravan" was being heavily funded by George Soros and the Democrats? Is it still Republican fear-mongering?
"And what would you say if it was proven that this "caravan" was being heavily funded by George Soros and the Democrats?"
This is the sort of irresponsible rhetoric that results in folks putting bombs in George Soros's mailbox.
As the closest thing to a Moderate here...
I rule that Trump and the GOP are the main fear mongers at this time.
The DEMs spend most of their time GOP politicians to Trump...
Though the DEMs do love to threaten Granny with the loss of SS, Medicare and Pre-existing condition coverage...
So maybe it is a wash... They both suck... And we seem to appreciate their efforts since they are doing it for a reason.
I don't think we created "us". They were already there. They have always been always there, vulnerable to claims that they are victims of someone else's intolerance, and the fear that someone regards them as inferior. It's an ancient messaging tactic that still works today.
--Hiram
Thankfully pretty much all I watch is PBS News, Netflix and Amazon Prime... So I miss most of the ads... And I mute almost all the actual commercials that I do see.
I thought it was amusing when someone actually ran a political ad on my favorite radio station... 93X... Usually the ads there are for smoke stores, lawyers, bars, strip clubs, etc...
I think folks are missing the point of the VOX piece... These apply to both tribes...
•Rooting for a team alters your perception of the world.
•We can be immune to uncomfortable facts.
•Leaders like Trump have special powers to sway public opinion.
•People don’t often make decisions based on the truth.
•Political opponents are often really, really bad at arguing with one another.
•White people’s fear of being replaced is a powerful political motivator.
•It’s shockingly easy to grow numb to mass suffering.
•Fake news preys on our biases — and will be very hard to stamp out.
•Conspiracy theories may be rampant, but they’re a specific reaction to a dark, uncertain world.
I don't know that Trump sways public opinion. I think he finds and exploits what's already there.
--Hiram
I like the term "manipulate" to describe what Trump does.
Manipulate: control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously
He is gifted at magnifying the fears and hopes of people to his benefit.
I repeat: "If you think Republicans are fear-mongering, I dare you to count the number of scary ads coming out from Democrats and Republicans. The last I looked it was about 20:1 a Democrat thing. I do have some sympathy for them, though, since it is all they have."
That was a challenge. Can we have an actual source for your opinion to the contrary? Just assuming that all ads are negative, the current Democrat 2:1 advantage in spending says that it is more a Democrat thing, and considering content makes it far worse. My numbers come from an independent academic study of the recent Joni Ernst race.
And by the way, I disagree with at least half of what VOX says. Not only that, but I think we form our issue positions FIRST, and that most of these effects come after. They aren't causal.
"Though the DEMs do love to threaten Granny with the loss of SS, Medicare and Pre-existing condition coverage..."
Gosh, where do Democrats get those ideas?
Let me dive deep into the archives to see how this might have started?
.
.
.
.
Yes, I think I've found something. Here it is. This took place 8 days ago.
Oh, and as for preexisting conditions, do you really think that people have forgotten the literally dozens of votes Republicans held trying to repeal the ACA? Or the fact that their replacement plan would have substantially reduced protections for folks with pre-existing conditions?
Oh, and this happened on Monday.
Those Democrats, where do they get these crazy ideas about what Republicans want to do?
McConnell is telling the inconvenient truth. It isn't that anybody wants to "cut Social Security," it is that unless something is done, SS will cut itself, as well as overwhelming the budget. The question is sort of like, "how will you buy food if you have no money?" Doing nothing is not an option.
As for pre-existing conditions, Every Republican plan for replacing Obamacare has included coverage for pre-existing conditions, not to mention that almost every state had plans for that which were ELIMINATED when Obamacare was passed. All Obamacare did for that situation was to drive up insurance prices for everybody.
I would much prefer that, when trying to divine what Republicans are doing or want to do, to ask Republicans, rather than to listen to Democrat attack ads on the subject. About the only thing I learned from those attack ads is that I should go and seek the truth elsewhere.
"Every Republican plan for replacing Obamacare has included coverage for pre-existing conditions"
Well, sort of. The AHCA required insurers to issue, but it stripped the premium caps off, meaning that many in that circumstance would likely find the insurance available to them to be unaffordable.
"All Obamacare did for that situation was to drive up insurance prices for everybody."
Healthcare inflation has slowed noticeably since the ACA's passage. Marketplace premiums are in-line with the bill's original projections, and the employer market hasn't seen major disruption, with premium increases generally in the 3-5% range.
This is an interesting piece. NR How Political Campaigns are Messing with your Minds
about - As the closest thing to a Moderate here...
I believe I am more moderate than you. If I was in charge I think I would change things less than if you were in charge. I think the spendings cuts you'd impose may be considered drastic or extreme.
Laurie,
Oh give me a break... You wanted to have free education, free healthcare, etc...
Which of course is not free for the people who pay income tax.
You consider me a liberal and make a lot of assumptions about my views. Like I said I think I would increase spending to a smaller extent than you would decrease it. I really don't favor a drastic change or increase in spending.
I am sure I have never advocated for free college as that is not my view and I favor affordable rather than free healthcare.
I only want to decrease spending from ~36% of GDP to ~33% of GDP... That is pretty small...
Jerry is the one who wants to chop spending big time.
what does 3% of GDP equal in dollars? My quick math came up with $500 billion, which sounds like a huge number to me. Why don't you do the math as I am very tired and not confident in my math skills at the moment.
My increases in spending would be much less than $500 billion
If a 10% reduction in spending is such a popular and moderate idea why doesn't our GOP congress and president make these spending cuts?
Trump has just asked every Cabinet head to reduce spending 5%. Rather that is below last year or below baseline (which rises every year) I'm not sure. 3% of $4 Trillion is $120 Billion. 5% is $200 billion. It's going to be difficult without reforming entitlements, but I think it is certainly possible without "cutting" anything critical. If we can balance the budget with successive 1% cuts over five years, then 5% all at once should be equally desirable. It's not like we can keep running deficits forever. That math doesn't work.
Laurie,
Nobody likes program cuts or tax increases that impact them... That is why politicians keep running deficits... The millenials have not figured out the mess we are leaving them and the younger kids don't get to vote.
Spend vs GDP
Total Government Spend in USD
So if $7.6 trillion is 36%
Then ~$7.0 trillion would be about 33%
Therefore your math is pretty close.
The good news is that older folks are living large with lower taxes and higher benefits...
And middle aged folks have a booming economy that is partially paid for with excessive government spending and low tax rates...
It is just our kids that will get screwed in the end...
It seems that $600 billion number is pretty close since the deficit is at $779 billion per year right now.
And if we let the most recent personal tax cuts lapse sooner than later, we may be close to a balanced budget. Remember these graphs that show spending and has been increasing faster than revenues.
Cutting $600 Billion is not moderate. For my spending increases, I supported Clinton's plans rather than Bernie's. I think Hillary proposed $100-200 billion in new spending, which makes the $ amount of changes to the budget I prefer more moderate than what you propose.
Okay... So how do you want to pay for the deficit ($779 B) + your $200 Billion per year?
Please note per the graphs in the link above... Spending is and will continue to out pace revenues... for the foreseeable future.
Here is a piece on Hillary and Trump's plan costs and tax impacts.
Of course, in the two years since that piece, Trump has not only delivered a massive tax cut but has increased spending (contrary to his plan).
I think the public just has an emotional aversion to the word "cuts," a notion deliberately planted by Democrats to keep their fantasyland economics going. Here are two mathematical facts: 1) you cannot forever spend more than you take in, even if you are the US government, and 2) If we simply freeze spending at current levels, the deficit goes away in 5 years. Wish all you want, these facts do not go away. Economic growth (created by tax cuts) helps, but if interest levels rise, it becomes even more important to reduce spending. Fix the deficit quickly, so we can start worrying about the $100-150 TRILLION in "unfunded liabilities."
I don't think the problem with the term "cuts" are it's emotional connotations. It's a simple word we use every day in all sorts of different contexts. In political terms, the problem is that it's a simple word that is used to describe applied to complex and fluid situations.
"1) you cannot forever spend more than you take in, even if you are the US government,"
As far as it goes, I would agree. But the problem is in deciding what we are spending, and what we are taking in. The fact is expenses do not go away. It's a question of how and who pays for them. Republicans, for example, want the government to pay less of America's health care bill so that they can lower taxes. But that doesn't mean the health care bill goes away, or isn't paid. It's just paid in different ways, possibly more expensive ways. Americans will get stuck with the same bill, it just might not be in the form of taxes.
"2) If we simply freeze spending at current levels, the deficit goes away in 5 years."
Freeze is a slightly more loaded term than cut. And it's also one chosen by people seeking to gloss over and avoid the real policy issues. Our finances are not fixed, they are fluid and they change. So when we "freeze" spending, what do we mean by that? Do we not increase spending in proportion to the population increase? There is nothing frozen about population. How about health care. Do we freeze spending there. What drives health care spending is the aging of the population. Can we freeze that also?
--Hiram
HIram, I think you are wrong on the first and right on the second. The problem with the word "cut" is that it has been corrupted by the Left to mean "spending less than we want to spend but more than what we currently are spending." Therefore a simple "freeze" becomes a "big cut" to the left.
And of course, if you freeze spending at current dollar levels, inflation will reduce the "real dollars" available for spending, requiring actual "cuts" to the budget. If that is done in some sort of across-the-board, indiscriminate way, some people will be adversely affected. If you do it by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse, inefficacious spending, overhead and duplication, and by adding true reform, people will notice but probably be better off financially. Bills must be paid, but having government make all the spending decisions is not good for the economy, or for people.
I think doctors charge to much, so in my view, they engage in waste, fraud, and abuse, WFA for short. And one thing I like about all Republicans health care plans is that they are patient centered. That means (I think) that patients get to decide what they should pay for the health care they receive, not doctors. An excellent idea.
--Hiram
Another way to phrase that would be "free market" in health care. And yes, GOP plans are more like that ideal than socialized medicine-- the Democrat plans-- are. And if we not get federal spending for health care under control we are economically doomed. It just so happens that getting government out of health care solves both the budget and health care cost/quality/availability problems.
Jerry,
The USA has the most expensive healthcare system of OECD countries, relatively poor outcomes and they have high government controlled systems...
How do you rationalize this?
Don't you want lower costs and healthier Americans?
"Don't you want lower costs and healthier Americans?"
That's an easy answer. Like all right-wingers, he favor corporate profits over pretty much anything else.
Moose
Moose,
You really should think more and write less... :-)
Conservatives including myself are not obsessed with corporate profits. We simply believe that people should learn work and pay for their own services. And by doing so they will make better choices.
Whereas Liberals seem to think people should be given stuff that others have worked for. :-(
"You really should think more and write less... :-)"
I write very little compared to you and jerry.
Moose
That is true... Then maybe you should assume good intent more often...
Usually I have found that folks want to do the right thing for our country and citizens...
The path to hell...
Instead of good intentions, why don’t we try for good policy.
Moose
So, if good intentions are what matter, then Obamacare is the right answer. It was supposed to cover everybody, cost less and improve care for everybody. Some of us knew that was absolutely impossible and the reality has proven us rightfully skeptical.
The problem with our politics is that we automatically reject any idea if it comes from the "other side" when what we should be doing is trying to find ideas we can all agree on. That starts with values-- like good quality health care that is affordable for most people. THEN figure out some ways we can agree on, to get there, or part of the way there.
Unfortunately, good policy is in the eye of the beholder...
Liberals like a policy where people get things that others pay for...
Conservatives like policy where poor people have to beg for some things...
Which is good?
Perhaps neither. You assume values that are derogatory to both sides. The difference is not in values, it is in policy. Denigrating the "other side" does nothing to advance solutions or even a proper definition of the problem for which a solution might be sought.
Denigrate: "criticize unfairly; disparage."
How are those statements denigrating?
You support charity where people have to ask for help and Moose supports government entitlements... They seem pretty accurate...
That's not the way you said it the first time, and I'm not sure you have been fair THIS time around, either. Best not to try to characterize somebody else's views at all. Disagree as you will with the actual policy, but if you want to know what somebody thinks, ask THEM to describe or define it.
Jerry,
You can rationalize your preferred policies and pick apart my words all you want...
However your desire to end government entitlements including Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Social Security Survivors Benefits and Social Security Disability as we know them will result in more poor / desperate people.
Therefore your policy will make them into beggars who are reliant on charity. Now whether this good or bad is a matter of perception.
"However your desire to end government entitlements including Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Social Security Survivors Benefits and Social Security Disability as we know them will result in more poor / desperate people."
You just did it again. You presume that my desire to balance the budget (without harming people) is somehow with the /intent/, first and foremost, to "harm" people. You confuse policy with values. Anybody that disagrees with your policy preferences is either evil or stupid, or both. At least you are nice enough not to say it outright.
I never commented on your intent... I commented on the consequence of your preferred policies.
"will result in more poor / desperate people."
Of course if you believe it will end in different consequences, then I consider you are naïve or self deceiving.
We know based on history what things looked like before the entitlements... A lot of people were suffering terribly. And you support turning back the clock...
If my intent is to break a window by throwing a rock through it, even though I know there may be someone sitting just inside the window, and that rock strikes the person, and that person dies, am I responsible for the death of that person even though that was not my intent?
Moose
I am not sure it is quite the same thing since the rock has no free will, and the "thrower" did take a physical action.
Manslaughter: the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice
Wrongful Death: Any fatality caused by the wrongful acts of another may result in a wrongful death claim. Many wrongful death claims are based upon death resulting from negligence, for example following a motor vehicle accident caused by another driver, a dangerous roadway or defective vehicle, or medical malpractice.[2] Dangerous roadway claims result from deaths caused in whole or in part by the condition of the roadway
I think the question is Clear and Present Danger...
When Trump calls our media Enemies of the State.
Or Moose calls Conservatives many different names...
How are these participants of the continually building animosity responsible for the actions of individuals who are exposed?
Since Trump has a much bigger loudspeaker, I think he has a greater responsibility...
I mean Moose can say things all day long and have little impact... :-)
"Of course if you believe it will end in different consequences, then I consider you are naïve or self deceiving."
Oh, much better. If I believe in balancing the budget, I am either foolish or stupid, and evil doesn't enter into it? More simply, criticizing my policy preferences without logically showing how those preferences are less desirable than the alternative YOU offer for the same problem, is a personal offense, every time.
It is this name-calling, this tribalism, however disguised, that PREVENTS us coming together and solving problems.
jerry said that the intent of passing the new policy is not to harm people.
the intent of my rock throwing was not to harm someone.
jerry's policy harms people
my rock harmed someone
jerry is responsible
I am resoponsible
jerry's policy also has no free will
it would be negligent for jerry to pass a policy that is well known to harm people.
Moose
It is your unwillingness to recognize that the things you fight for directly hurt people that PREVENTS good people from believing your intent.
Moose
Jerry,
There are 2 ways to balance the budget.
Moose,
So do you think the intent of the people who launched the WAR on Poverty policies was to in essence decimate the family structure of Black Americans?
I mean folks like you launched that rock 50+ years ago and now 72% of Black Babies are born to single parents and live in poor dependent households.
Let us suppose that we reform Social Security, phasing in privatization over the next 40 years. Have I harmed anybody? If Chile is any indication, the economy will grow, people will retire earlier and with more money that THEY control, independent of government, and government deficit financing of old age assistance quickly goes away.
It is standard liberal tactics to suggest a false choice-- balance the budget or push granny over the cliff-- but they are FALSE choices. The solution is the one that works best for the most people and doesn't deliberately harm anybody. Not that it can be considered in our polarized government.
Post a Comment