"The Partisan Mind"

[longsuffering]

A great OP-ED piece in the NYT today.

Up to a point, American politics reflects abiding philosophical divisions. But people who follow politics closely — whether voters, activists or pundits — are often partisans first and ideologues second. Instead of assessing every policy on the merits, we tend to reverse-engineer the arguments required to justify whatever our own side happens to be doing. Our ideological convictions may be real enough, but our deepest conviction is often that the other guys can’t be trusted.

In 2006, Gallup asked the public whether the government posed an “immediate threat” to Americans. Only 21 percent of Republicans agreed, versus 57 percent of Democrats. In 2010, they asked again. This time, 21 percent of Democrats said yes, compared with 66 percent of Republicans.

You can read the full piece here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/op...29douthat.html

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

A great OP-ED piece in the NYT today.

You can read the full piece here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/op...29douthat.html

This is basically the same, well-established physchology seen in "Hostile Media Effect" and "Confirmation Bias" that I've referenced in the past in this forum.

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles...ation_bias.htm

and

The hostile media effect, sometimes called the hostile media phenomenon, refers to the finding that people with strong biases toward an issue (partisans) perceive media coverage as biased against their opinions, regardless of the reality. Proponents of the hostile media effect argue that this finding cannot be attributed to the presence of bias in the news reports, since partisans from opposing sides of an issue rate the same coverage as biased against their side and biased in favor of the opposing side.[1] The phenomenon was first proposed and studied experimentally by Robert Vallone, Lee Ross and Mark Lepper.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect

I was actually wondering how long it would take for someone to notice how the left treated Homeland Security warnings in the Bush era versus the Obama era.

In terms of the occasional warnings, it doesn't look like much has changed from one administration to the other - as it probably shouldn't - but the way they're perceived by various sides certainly has.

Bookmark that op-ed piece in the Times today. Both hilarious and sad at the same time. Great job by the author.

Cowperson

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

This is basically the same, well-established physchology seen in "Hostile Media Effect" and "Confirmation Bias" that I've referenced in the past in this forum.

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles...ation_bias.htm

and

The hostile media effect, sometimes called the hostile media phenomenon, refers to the finding that people with strong biases toward an issue (partisans) perceive media coverage as biased against their opinions, regardless of the reality. Proponents of the hostile media effect argue that this finding cannot be attributed to the presence of bias in the news reports, since partisans from opposing sides of an issue rate the same coverage as biased against their side and biased in favor of the opposing side.[1] The phenomenon was first proposed and studied experimentally by Robert Vallone, Lee Ross and Mark Lepper.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect

I was actually wondering how long it would take for someone to notice how the left treated Homeland Security warnings in the Bush era versus the Obama era.

In terms of the occasional warnings, it doesn't look like much has changed from one administration to the other - as it probably shouldn't - but the way they're perceived by various sides certainly has.

Bookmark that op-ed piece in the Times today. Both hilarious and sad at the same time. Great job by the author.

Cowperson

Confirmation bias and the hostile media effect (especially) are seen quite openly and regularly in the Fire On Ice forum in a sports format.

Good article. Me like.

[Flabbibulin]

Like Chris Rock said- "I'm conservative about some things, and liberal about others- When it comes to crime, I'm conservative... When it comes to prostitution, I'm liberal!!"

[mikey_the_redneck]

This is what many Americans don't understand, and why real positive change is difficult to achieve.

Thanks in large to the corporate media, Americans are so caught up in partisanship that they don't see how special corporate interest runs the government no matter what party is voted into power.....

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

This is what many Americans don't understand, and why real positive change is difficult to achieve.

Thanks in large to the corporate media, Americans are so caught up in partisanship that they don't see how special corporate interest runs the government no matter what party is voted into power.....

Neat avatar.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Neat avatar.

Woooosh.....I don't get it.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Woooosh.....I don't get it.

I'm fairly sure you can figure it out.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

I'm fairly sure you can figure it out.

I wouldn't be so sure.

[HotHotHeat]

I'm trying that whole optimistic thing.

[SeeBass]

wait for it....wait for it...any minute now

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

This is what many Americans don't understand, and why real positive change is difficult to achieve.

Thanks in large to the corporate media, Americans are so caught up in partisanship that they don't see how special corporate interest runs the government no matter what party is voted into power.....

"Corporate" media really doesn't have a lot to do with it, as the original test cases for "Hostile Media Bias" demonstrates.

In that study, people watched identical coverage and came to different conclusions as to bias, dependent on their own pre-conceived points of view.

In our current world, people have far greater access to different information sources and differing opinions than has been the case at any point in history.

However, that freedom also allows us to find and gravitate towards information sources and opinions that confirm our pre-conceived notions, moreso than at any point in the past.

Now, with the success of FOX, media as businesses are noticing there might be greater profit in bias even as the rapidly fading CNN serves as an example that trying to take the middle road is increasingly less likely to generate a good balance sheet.

The ascendance of alternative opinion/news sources like The Huffington Post, clearly left-wing, is another example of new media.

The lesson though is that we, as consumers, deliberately choose biased news sources as a warm blanket, a sort of comfort food, because it confirms what we already believe and makes us feel smarter and more sure.

The common consumer of news doesn't generally use his/her greater freedom to explore both sides of an issue. Quite the opposite. There aren't a lot of people who flip between MSNBC and FOX just to get both sides of an issue.

The new, expansive media environment seems to reinforce partisanship rather than free us from it.

Cowperson

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

This is what many Americans don't understand, and why real positive change is difficult to achieve.

Not a shred of self-awareness.
You lecturing people about not understanding an article that I would sum up with the following quote:

[Partisanship] corrupts the intellect and poisons the wells of human sympathy. Honor belongs to the people who resist partisanship’s pull, instead of rowing with it.

...this lecture being delivered by the authour of the following:

-TSA scanners, click link for context

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Welcome to the police state America!!

-same sex marriage

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

In 20 years at this rate, ..people will be allowed to marry anyone or anything. You want to marry an elephant? Sure, why not?

-on feminism

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Feminism convinced women that marriage and family were oppresive, and that pursuing a career like a man is the path to fullfillment. It has done a great job of creating dysfunction in the family.

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

LOL at the idiots who think America cares about womens rights in Afghanistan.

-Gulf oil spill

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Yeah it's a joke. It is like the leaders don't want to clean up the mess. It's like they want it to worsen..
I can't help but think that they want it to get real bad so they can use this "spill" for some kind of political leverage, ...maybe to pass some green economy legislation or something.

-on police

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Usually the useless government revenue collector cops don't show up for awhile.

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I'm surprised the cops didn't taze her after she fell to the ground. The reason cop abuse is sparking more and more anger among people is because it seems to be happening more and more.

-politics

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I have a feeling that the mainstream will attach racism to all criticism of Obama as tensions heighten while he forges ahead with carbon taxes, more economic stimulus, war spending, and globalization. Race is such a dividing issue in the United States, so this is easy to manipulate if the media is on your side.

-quote edited liberally, click link for context

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

CNN for example, would never want to "promote" the tea party because the tea party would bring the troops home. CNN however is owned by corporations that also make money on selling weapons and war machines.....

Glenn Beck is not part of the tea party. He is simply a moron.

And that black guy you are refering to is doing an awful job. His ratings are terrible.

-on Obama's future phantom false-flag operation

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Obama should be a one term president, but I could see Americans rallying around him if another "terrorist attack" should happen.....

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

The US Department of Agriculture is so corrupted it is stupid.

-on giving half his money to charity

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Bill Gates is a piece of crap.

He pushes the man-made global warming scam, and actually supports de-populating the planet with vaccines and other methods in order to reduce CO2 emmissions and pollution. He supports cap/trade, carbon taxes and all that crap.

-net neutrality

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

The internet in North America will soon be locked down and carefully filtered much like in China, to keep the net from airing the dirty laundry of people in power.

-defending Iran

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

This "wiped off the map" comment that Ahmadinejad supposedly said has been mis-interpreted and used as propaganda here in North America.

-on 9/11

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Oh yeah well muslims did play the role of front-man for the job, that much is obvious....that's what I meant with "bad optics"..

-refuting 9/11 explanations

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

You should be afraid to use your barbeque, the heat over a period of time could cause it to suddenly collapse.

Back to mikey's real obstacles to progress.

[mikey_the_redneck]

So you see me as conservative?

Hey, I like Canadian health care.

The only point I was trying to make was that voting for either party is futile, and partisanship is a charade designed to divide people, and distract them from the real problem.

You really went out of your way there....

9/11 explanations?? Pffft....what explanations?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

So you see me as conservative?

No, like the rest of us on this board, we think you're a complete and utter clown who will stop at nothing to pander your views. No compromise or middle ground from you, just nonsense and noise.

In short, you're part of the problem, because you represent that fringe 5% who are stopping intellectual and social progress.

DIACF.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

No, like the rest of us on this board, we think you're a complete and utter clown who will stop at nothing to pander your views. No compromise or middle ground from you, just nonsense and noise.

In short, you're part of the problem, because you represent that fringe 5% who are stopping intellectual and social progress.

DIACF.

Wow, that was dramatic...

If my posts on CP are "stopping intellectual and social progress" for you, than you need to get out of mom's basement more often.....

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Wow, that was dramatic...

If my posts on CP are "stopping intellectual and social progress" for you, than you need to get out of mom's basement more often.....

Mix in a little bit of reading comprehension with that post Michael and get back to me.

[rubecube]

Sort of a Canadian perspective on the same thing (from a few months back):

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articl...shout-doctrine

An argument, in politics or anything else, can be approached at least two ways. If we agree with the position, we are inclined to identify with the argument, tucking it away for future use. This is what fancy theorists call a hermeneutics of belief. If, by contrast, we disagree with the position, we tend to investigate the argument, looking for where it went wrong. Call this a hermeneutics of suspicion. The irony is that the latter stretches the mind far more than the former, but most people do not turn the tables and investigate their own ideas. Yet only by doing so can we come to see the weaknesses, as well as the strengths, of what we already believe.