4 ms·

Not enough for it to be a meaningful factor. Keep in mind many of the people who voted in Trump also voted in Obama.

grzm 10y ago
Cool. I think it's fair to say that we agree 1) There are facts. 2) Facts have an impact on voters. The open question then is 3) The weight voters give these facts varies from voter to voter and fact to fact. Is that fair? I can certainly agree to that. What do you think?
- ThomPete 10y ago
  I am not sure how to interpret what you mean with 2) I agree that facts impact voters, but thats not really important. Whats important is which facts impact them. I.e. the facts that a Trump voter cares about vs. the ones that a Hillary voter cares about. I don't believe people voted based non-facts. They voted on the facts they know to be true and important to them. I.e. I don't subscribe to some idea of a false consciousness.
  - grzm 10y ago
    I don't have some super secret agenda. 2) is just as it says. And by the rest, "Whats important is which facts impact them. I.e. the facts that a Trump voter cares about vs. the ones that a Hillary voter cares about.", I think you agree with 3). My reaction is solely on the idea that people can't believe facts that aren't true, that they can't be misinformed, and that the news plays no role in misinforming them. This goes back to "Everyone in a democracy is informed, there is no such thing as uninformed voters per se... News fake or not isn't what drive most peoples decisions " The news is a source of information/facts for people. Some of those facts may be false, and people may believe facts that aren't true. People who believe facts that aren't true are uninformed/misinformed. Perhaps a source of misunderstanding is I'm making little distinction between uninformed and misinformed, equating for these purposes misinformed and uninformed of the truth regarding a fact they accept. I do agree that people are subject to confirmation bias, fitting facts to what they believe more often than not. Jonathan Haidt's elephant/rider metaphor seems apt as well. This seems in line with your statements on how facts influence views. I had to look up false consciousness. While I do think there are misinformation and disinformation campaigns (which is what some campaigning seems to be reduced to, nowadays), I don't subscribe to some purposeful, widespread, institutional, systemic propaganda machine. Some may argue that I'm likely just naïve. By the way, I'm trying to reach some shared understanding. I'm not arguing for the sake of argument or just trying to argue against whatever you happen to say. I hope that's clear :) I don't think we're actually all that far off in opinion, if at all. Perhaps we're just prioritizing different parts of the equation. Thanks for sticking with this by the way, and remaining civil. I'm sure you've noticed as well how off the rails a lot of these discussions can go.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      Tell me about it :) I am getting down voted like a mofo. Really wish downvotes had to be accompanied by a comment so I could at least understand why. Anyway yeah I think we are agreeing more than disagreeing. My original point is just an objection to this idea that if only people were better educated we wouldn't have people voting for Trump. Thats not whats actually said but it's in there between the lines. The reality is that we all have our different perspectives and are all right about things and wrong about other things. That you are well educated and have learned critical thinking does not make you a critical thinker and that you are not less likely to be misinformed just because you are better educated and have learned about critical thinking. In some ways although it might be a stretch I would argue that being aware of critical thinking makes you more likely to venture outside areas that you know about because you believe that your critical thinking is going to save you. If this election underlined something once again for me it is that being educated and understanding what critical thinking is doesn't make you immune for that misinformation.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Keep in mind many of the people who voted in Trump also voted in Obama. Evidence that this meets any reasonable definition of many voters? Even in the states that flipped, the numbers aren't such that mathematically many (or even any) voters need to have switched that direction. There's probably some, but I haven't seen any indictation in any source that suggests substantial numbers.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/obama-trump-counties/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-electi...
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Nothing in that article makes the case (there's a subhead which assumes it, but all the details talk about counties, not people.) With new voters coming of age, old voters dying, far less than 100% turnout so even of the people who could vote in both elections those who actually do might not be the same, counties can switch without people switching. So, yeah, I'm sure there are some Obama/Trump voters, but I haven't seen a coherent case that there are a lot, just generous application of the fallacy of division.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      Unless you have evidence that somehow those areas changed voters then I don't see what exactly you are questioning. 1/3 of Mexicans voted on Trump, Hillary only got 10% more female voters. Nothing indicates that the voters changed completely from one election to another.

grzm 10y ago

Cool. I think it's fair to say that we agree 1) There are facts. 2) Facts have an impact on voters. The open question then is 3) The weight voters give these facts varies from voter to voter and fact to fact. Is that fair? I can certainly agree to that. What do you think?

ThomPete 10y ago
I am not sure how to interpret what you mean with 2) I agree that facts impact voters, but thats not really important. Whats important is which facts impact them. I.e. the facts that a Trump voter cares about vs. the ones that a Hillary voter cares about. I don't believe people voted based non-facts. They voted on the facts they know to be true and important to them. I.e. I don't subscribe to some idea of a false consciousness.
- grzm 10y ago
  I don't have some super secret agenda. 2) is just as it says. And by the rest, "Whats important is which facts impact them. I.e. the facts that a Trump voter cares about vs. the ones that a Hillary voter cares about.", I think you agree with 3). My reaction is solely on the idea that people can't believe facts that aren't true, that they can't be misinformed, and that the news plays no role in misinforming them. This goes back to "Everyone in a democracy is informed, there is no such thing as uninformed voters per se... News fake or not isn't what drive most peoples decisions " The news is a source of information/facts for people. Some of those facts may be false, and people may believe facts that aren't true. People who believe facts that aren't true are uninformed/misinformed. Perhaps a source of misunderstanding is I'm making little distinction between uninformed and misinformed, equating for these purposes misinformed and uninformed of the truth regarding a fact they accept. I do agree that people are subject to confirmation bias, fitting facts to what they believe more often than not. Jonathan Haidt's elephant/rider metaphor seems apt as well. This seems in line with your statements on how facts influence views. I had to look up false consciousness. While I do think there are misinformation and disinformation campaigns (which is what some campaigning seems to be reduced to, nowadays), I don't subscribe to some purposeful, widespread, institutional, systemic propaganda machine. Some may argue that I'm likely just naïve. By the way, I'm trying to reach some shared understanding. I'm not arguing for the sake of argument or just trying to argue against whatever you happen to say. I hope that's clear :) I don't think we're actually all that far off in opinion, if at all. Perhaps we're just prioritizing different parts of the equation. Thanks for sticking with this by the way, and remaining civil. I'm sure you've noticed as well how off the rails a lot of these discussions can go.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    Tell me about it :) I am getting down voted like a mofo. Really wish downvotes had to be accompanied by a comment so I could at least understand why. Anyway yeah I think we are agreeing more than disagreeing. My original point is just an objection to this idea that if only people were better educated we wouldn't have people voting for Trump. Thats not whats actually said but it's in there between the lines. The reality is that we all have our different perspectives and are all right about things and wrong about other things. That you are well educated and have learned critical thinking does not make you a critical thinker and that you are not less likely to be misinformed just because you are better educated and have learned about critical thinking. In some ways although it might be a stretch I would argue that being aware of critical thinking makes you more likely to venture outside areas that you know about because you believe that your critical thinking is going to save you. If this election underlined something once again for me it is that being educated and understanding what critical thinking is doesn't make you immune for that misinformation.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Keep in mind many of the people who voted in Trump also voted in Obama. Evidence that this meets any reasonable definition of many voters? Even in the states that flipped, the numbers aren't such that mathematically many (or even any) voters need to have switched that direction. There's probably some, but I haven't seen any indictation in any source that suggests substantial numbers.

ThomPete 10y ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/obama-trump-counties/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-electi...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Nothing in that article makes the case (there's a subhead which assumes it, but all the details talk about counties, not people.) With new voters coming of age, old voters dying, far less than 100% turnout so even of the people who could vote in both elections those who actually do might not be the same, counties can switch without people switching. So, yeah, I'm sure there are some Obama/Trump voters, but I haven't seen a coherent case that there are a lot, just generous application of the fallacy of division.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    Unless you have evidence that somehow those areas changed voters then I don't see what exactly you are questioning. 1/3 of Mexicans voted on Trump, Hillary only got 10% more female voters. Nothing indicates that the voters changed completely from one election to another.