The Science of Political Bias.

[jsktrogdor]

Repeat the following aloud, to yourself...

I'm a good person. I'm kind to small animals. Sometimes i hold the door open for other people.

Good.

You have just been "inoculated against bias". You are now in a better state of mind to read & discuss the following.

When pollsters ask Republicans and Democrats whether the president can do anything about high gas prices, the answers reflect the usual partisan divisions in the country. About two-thirds of Republicans say the president can do something about high gas prices, and about two-thirds of Democrats say he can't.

But six years ago, with a Republican president in the White House, the numbers were reversed: Three-fourths of Democrats said President Bush could do something about high gas prices, while the majority of Republicans said gas prices were clearly outside the president's control.

The flipped perceptions on gas prices isn't an aberration, said Dartmouth College political scientist Brendan Nyhan. On a range of issues, partisans seem partial to their political loyalties over the facts. When those loyalties demand changing their views of the facts, he said, partisans seem willing to throw even consistency overboard.

Note the difference between 2006 & 2012.

Nyhan also contrasted the outrage in 2004 among Democrats who felt that Bush was politicizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks for political gain, and the outrage today among Republicans who feel the Obama re-election campaign is exploiting the killing of Osama bin Laden.

"The whole political landscape has flipped," Nyhan said.

We all figured this already. The real question the NPR story asks is why...

Along with Jason Reifler at Georgia State University, Nyhan said, he's exploring the possibility that partisans reject facts because they produce cognitive dissonance — the psychological experience of having to hold inconsistent ideas in one's head.

So basically, your brain has difficulty maintaining the notions that "Bush was an ok guy and didnt afraid of anything" and the fact that "he destroyed the nation" simultaneously. Your overly emotional, fragile Republican mind pushes the logic out & focuses on the emotional anchor. The same way it has issues reconciling the fact of Obama's being the greatest US president & the concept that it dislikes dark people.

Fact vs Emotion.


Of course this is all from the hyperbolic, lamestream mediatards at NPR & the research is done by arugula eating, liberal, elitest, brain washing college snobs. So its probably all wrong anyway.

You can listen & or read the NPR story here.

[Big War Bird]

Also in the news: Sky is blue, Earth is round, I like pizza.

It never ceases to amaze me how so much scientific effort is wasted confirming our humanity.

[jsktrogdor]

Also in the news: Sky is blue, Earth is round, I like pizza.

It never ceases to amaze me how so much scientific effort is wasted confirming our humanity.

It never ceases to amaze me how so much scientific effort is misrepresented or misunderstood.

Like I said, its more about the why.

Why the sky is blue & the earth round are actually pretty important scientific questions.

[Big War Bird]

The why was already apparent to me, something along the lines "Nobody likes hard truths."

Where's my Nobel prize in psychology?

[jsktrogdor]

The why was already apparent to me, something along the lines "Nobody likes hard truths."

Where's my Nobel prize in psychology?

Well... if you had read the op... It was saying that the brain has difficulty maintaining contradicting notions simultaneously. And when given a choice between an emotional option and a more logical one people tend towards the emotional.

Hardly "nobody likes hard truths".

[Col. Tartleton]

Well... if you had read the op... It was saying that the brain has difficulty maintaining contradicting notions simultaneously. And when given a choice between an emotional option and a more logical one people tend towards the emotional.

Hardly "nobody likes hard truths".

So I'm not biased because I can say that I like aspects of Bush as a guy but dislike many of his policies, while I dislike Obama and his policies. His being all white would not help because I think Joe Biden is a putz and Howard Dean is unfit to be spat upon.

As I like to say, applaud me for my reason and forgive me my passions.

[xcorps]

The why was already apparent to me, something along the lines "Nobody likes hard truths."

Where's my Nobel prize in psychology?

Obama got it.

[Big War Bird]

I thought that was what I said? I think you are having a hard time reconciling the fact that what you thought was interesting science is actually just a long winded version of common sense accessible to anyone.


Edit: I think I'm on to something here. I'm applying for a grant from the NAS in the morning.

[jsktrogdor]

I thought that was what I said? I think you are having a hard time reconciling the fact that what you thought was interesting science is actually just a long winded version of common sense accessible to anyone.


Edit: I think I'm on to something here. I'm applying for a grant from the NAS in the morning.

"People dont like hard truths" isnt a very intelligent assessment of why people ignore facts that go against their bias. The article is about the functioning organization of the brain. How it assess & prioritizes information & makes its decision. Not some porch step, "mm-m-m-m-ama said alligators is always mad cause dey got all dem teef and no toof brush to brush 'em wit" explanation.

That doesnt really explain anything, if anything its just a simplified version of the original assertion that raised the question.

[Adar]

I think it was an interesting article to read and it provide me with some very good examples on bias.

[Rolling Thunder]

And cognitive dissonance (and the sheer lack of self-awareness amongst the average voter) is news how?

[Menelik_I]

Can't some social science departments be transformed in Hamster farms ? I would hardly see the difference.

[Col. Tartleton]

http://www.timgroseclose.com/pq-survey-results/

On a scale of 0-100 with 0 being Completely Conservative and 100 being Completely Liberal and the average American being a 50.4.

For example Nancy Pelosi being about 100.7 and Michelle Bachman being around -4.1. Arlen Specter was about 50.6 so he's considered an example of moderate. (However that's really just an average of his career, he's drifted more and more left over time. His 2009 score was over 60. He's an example of left wing American drift in action.)

Naturally I'm a 3 (my buddy Ron Paul is a 31.8 to give some perspective, but the test is pretty much just fiscal issues, I'd probably be more liberal if there was more social issues discussed) so I'm about as far right as you can go without being Michelle Bachmann because she's off the chart. However the average among American Journalists is heavily biased Left. No one is shocked that MSNBC is basically on point with the left of the Democratic Party. The weird thing is that FOX News the dreaded propaganda wing of the Republican party is on a proper right leaning news program about a 40... but some as little as 60. In fairness, center-right of a center-right country. So when they're saying they're "Fair and Balanced" they aren't lying. That's roughly where the middle is. So if you watch Fox for a fair length of time and then conclude it's right wing, that means you're actually skewed left.

He's gone on to show that on data the left can swing the elections as much as 8-10% to the left by being the medium by which we get our information. So their severe bias, because it is masked as being the middle by virtue of being the vast majority, is able to enter our heads as being objective instead of biased (which is fine, because I'm an ideologue too). So while it could effect a 3 like me into a 13 (Dun Dun Dun) and barely effect me, when we're talking about an inherently moderate pool like a country, the changes are huge. Given an impartial media we have John McCain crushing Barack Obama in a landslide and given a right wing bias of the same degree as the left you'd have an effective 1 party rule every year.

He's basically shown that the current representative state (Iowa) is the middle in accordance to the undertow of the left. He said the actual representative state is more demographically Texas.

[greenbeard]

http://www.timgroseclose.com/pq-survey-results/

On a scale of 0-100 with 0 being Completely Conservative and 100 being Completely Liberal and the average American being a 50.4.

For example Nancy Pelosi being about 100.7 and Michelle Bachman being around -4.1. Arlen Specter was about 50.6 so he's considered an example of moderate. (However that's really just an average of his career, he's drifted more and more left over time. His 2009 score was over 60. He's an example of left wing American drift in action.)

Hahaha are you for real? This is the first determine-your-political-orientation quiz I've ever heard of that just flat-out pretends socialists don't exist. But based on the hard-right bent of that site, I'm guessing they think Democrats are socialists anyway.

Honestly, if you think America is moving to the left when Democrats are increasingly pro-privatization, pro-war, pro-business, pro-police-state, etc, etc, etc, then I don't even know what to tell you. Except that you probably don't even know what left is.

[Col. Tartleton]

Hahaha are you for real? This is the first determine-your-political-orientation quiz I've ever heard of that just flat-out pretends socialists don't exist. But based on the hard-right bent of that site, I'm guessing they think Democrats are socialists anyway.

Honestly, if you think America is moving to the left when Democrats are increasingly pro-privatization, pro-war, pro-business, pro-police-state, etc, etc, etc, then I don't even know what to tell you. Except that you probably don't even know what left is.

Before you scoff, what did you score?

It's a spectrum of American political views... the rest of the world is irrelevant.

[greenbeard]

Before you scoff, what did you score?

It's a spectrum of American political views... the rest of the world is irrelevant.

It's a load of crap is what it is. It just asks you if you would or would not favor certain bills. So if the Democrats propose a bill that I think doesn't go nearly far enough and I choose the option for not favoring the bill, I get counted as a Republican. Even though I'm left of the Democrats. Does that make any sense at all to you?

And anyway, socialism has been around in the U.S. for well over a century, even if it's not as popular as it was in the WWI era. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) calls himself a socialist, and I think a U.S. Senator is part of the American political system.

[Col. Tartleton]

It's a load of crap is what it is. It just asks you if you would or would not favor certain bills. So if the Democrats propose a bill that I think doesn't go nearly far enough and I choose the option for not favoring the bill, I get counted as a Republican. Even though I'm left of the Democrats. Does that make any sense at all to you?

And anyway, socialism has been around in the U.S. for well over a century, even if it's not as popular as it was in the WWI era. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) calls himself a socialist, and I think a U.S. Senator is part of the American political system.

You could easily use that and decide to vote for the more social democratic positions if you're to the left of the questions... Yes, there are socialists in America. Most of the left (and a lot of the right) are just corporatists though. Sanders also caucuses as a Democrat. He's just an independent in terms of finances and all that. He isn't the Democratic sponsored candidate. As opposed to say Ron Paul who historically is a Libertarian who does run as the Republican sponsored candidate. Plus it's Vermont. Most Americans are opposed to Vermont being a state...

Socialism used to be popular before people took it to its inevitable conclusions of totalitarianism. Classic Liberalism taken to its inevitable conclusion is either minarchy or anarchy.

[Rolling Thunder]

It's a spectrum of American political views... reality is irrelevant.

Fixed for you.

[jsktrogdor]

He's gone on to show that on data the left can swing the elections as much as 8-10% to the left by being the medium by which we get our information. So their severe bias, because it is masked as being the middle by virtue of being the vast majority, is able to enter our heads as being objective instead of biased (which is fine, because I'm an ideologue too). So while it could effect a 3 like me into a 13 (Dun Dun Dun) and barely effect me, when we're talking about an inherently moderate pool like a country, the changes are huge. Given an impartial media we have John McCain crushing Barack Obama in a landslide and given a right wing bias of the same degree as the left you'd have an effective 1 party rule every year.

So a partial media has swayed results by 8-10%??


How much does the partial source of that statistic sway the result that says the results are swayed??

[Rolling Thunder]

"Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts The American Mind"

Because this will be a completely accurate and honest assessment. Totes.