3 ms·
I don't entirely understand this 'butterfly' effect people like to claim in regards to things like this. Take for instance the most recent US election. Nearly 1
by rjf72 7y ago
I don't entirely understand this 'butterfly' effect people like to claim in regards to things like this. Take for instance the most recent US election. Nearly 100% of the mainstream media was against the person who ended up being elected. This included nonstop negative coverage as well as polls, which we can now see were quite severely flawed, including one prominent source claiming he had less than a 1% chance of being elected [1] - something that could discourage voters. This seems to have had no effect, or even a paradoxically positive effect (for the person they were attempting to discredit).
In terms of scope, scale, and reach you're talking about the difference between a butterfly flapping its wings, and a nuclear weapon. And the butterfly is supposed to come out on top? I think many people simply lack the empathy to understand that people can see things in very different ways without in any way being misinformed, and so they look for explanations for why the other person 'must be wrong.'
For instance two things are both true: migration can help improve the economy and overall wealth of a nation; migration can hurt workers in affected fields within a nation. Instead people who are partisan focus exclusively on one side and simply pretend the other does not exist. This leads to an inability for people to grasp with why people would see things differently. It's because they intentionally avoid seeing the negative sides of their own views, or the positive sides of views they disagree with. So it leads to people mutually arguing that the other side only believes what they do because they're being lied to and manipulated, or alternatively - that they're idiots.
[1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-princeton-election-consortium-poll-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-victory-a7399671.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sam-wang-p...
- spiralx 7y agoThe conversation wasn't about the MSM, but still... > Nearly 100% of the mainstream media was against the person who ended up being elected. Including Fox News and other right-leaning news outlets? I would suspect that for people who voted for Trump their news content was close to 100% in support of him, with negative news and polling basically either ignored, minimised or re-framed as being another sign of "the elites" being contemptuous and/or scared of Trump and by extension his supporters. Why would you assume that people are consuming political news they don't like when every indication is that they don't? You even say this yourself later on in the post: > Instead people who are partisan focus exclusively on one side and simply pretend the other does not exist. When you consume content that is unabashedly partisan in nature you are far less likely to subject it to any kind of critical analysis, and even small amounts of reinforcement from other sources you align with can give enough credibility to establish a particular "fact". See pizzagate or the Q-anon conspiracy theories for instance.