3 ms·

> It seems like there's not much actual information in the article other than 80% of the top 10 states for murder rate voted for Trump, which I don't find usefu

> It seems like there's not much actual information in the article other than 80% of the top 10 states for murder rate voted for Trump, which I don't find useful or actionable. I guess it depends on what you mean by actionable. If by actionable, you mean "changing my vote won't necessarily have an impact on the murder rate", I'd very much agree with you. However, I'd say it's actionable as in, "I should stop accepting and/or repeating a false narrative", I think that action is warranted. Sure, if you could find data showing that when you look at the city level, that there was a distinct rise in the murder rate based on partisan leadership that differed from state-level trends, you could maybe make that case. However, it seems incredibly implausible that states with larger cities, cities more often lead by Democrats, and with a larger portion of their population in those cities, would have a lower murder rate and a lower increase in their murder rate, yet the larger trend of increased murders would be due to disproportionate increases in murder in cities lead by Democrats. At the very least, it would require that States that broadly vote Democrat would in aggregate have dramatically lower murders and increases in murders, which would also be in conflict with the partisan narrative. Confirmation bias tends to manifest as a desire for more in-depth analysis for statements that violate one's expectations, but the rational case here is that the prevailing narrative needs far more in-depth analysis to deserve any kind of support.

giantg2 5y ago
What I mean is that if policies are are supposedly linked to increases in crime, then we should be evaluating them at a policy level, not a partisan level. The surface debate is just a bunch of partisan finger pointing and strawmanning (especially for the point of politicians getting their comments on the news), which covers up the real debate about underlying policy. I don't know, but I feel like wanting to have articles that report meaningful information and analysis on the policies is not confirmation bias, but a desire to have informed debate about things that actually matter.
- cbsmith 5y ago
  > What I mean is that if policies are are supposedly linked to increases in crime, then we should be evaluating them at a policy level, not a partisan level. Yes, I would totally agree, but that isn't the nature of the prevailing narrative. > The surface debate is just a bunch of partisan finger pointing and strawmanning (especially for the point of politicians getting their comments on the news), which covers up the real debate about underlying policy. Bingo! You've hit the central point of the article. > I don't know, but I feel like wanting to have articles that report meaningful information and analysis on the policies is not confirmation bias, but a desire to have informed debate about things that actually matter. Agreed, wanting to have more meaningful information & analysis is not about confirmation bias. Wanting to have more meaningful information & analysis before accepting/repeating a narrative is confirmation bias. The article isn't trying to suggest that Republicans or their policies are causing an increase in crime. It's trying to show that if you're looking at national trends in the data, it doesn't point to anything supporting the prevailing narrative. The natural next thought is, "what is the data supporting the prevailing narrative?", and the answer to that ought to raise at least as many questions about the prevailing narrative as it does this article.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "Bingo! You've hit the central point of the article." I'm sorry, but it doesn't read like that for me. If it were really getting at the idea of there being underlying issues then I would expect there to be investigation of them to further support that point. If it's trying to call out the partisan finger pointing and use of "convenient" data, then I don't see why they would also engage in those actions (doesn't seem like satire to me).
    - cbsmith 5y ago
      "I'm sorry, but it doesn't read like that for me. If it were really getting at the idea of there being underlying issues then I would expect there to be investigation of them to further support that point." Umm... the point of the article is about "the surface debate is just a bunchy of partisan finger pointing and strawmanning (especially for the point of politicians getting their comments on the news), which covers up the real debate about underlying policy", then the "problem" would be an investigation of the surface debate, which is what you see here. One can erect a hundred strawmen with a fraction of the resources needed to identify and isolate, let alone communicate the complexity of the underlying issues. Heck, just demonstrating the lack of evidence supporting a strawman requires far more resources. I would argue demanding a detailed investigation about the underlying issues in order to dismiss the partisan finger pointing and strawmanning is a really good way to ensure that the debate is dominated by partisan finger pointing and strawmanning. If you're wondering why the discourse is shaped this way, you're demonstrating the cause. It should be enough to say, "You're right about something here. There is an increase in the murder rate, but it's broad national phenomenon whose underlying cause is not understood; your claims don't even fit the shape of the problem, let alone have credible supporting evidence about an underlying cause". That should be enough for the the narrative to be dismissed. Unfortunately, it's not; thanks to confirmation bias people are much more likely to accept claims with weak or even no evidence that align with their expectations, and will insist on a far higher standard of evidence for anything that doesn't align with their expectations, even if it is simply pointing out that their expectations aren't well supported.
long_time_gone 5y ago
> Confirmation bias tends to manifest as a desire for more in-depth analysis for statements that violate one's expectations, but the rational case here is that the prevailing narrative needs far more in-depth analysis to deserve any kind of support. I have been trying to say this exact thing, but couldn't put it as clearly.

giantg2 5y ago

What I mean is that if policies are are supposedly linked to increases in crime, then we should be evaluating them at a policy level, not a partisan level. The surface debate is just a bunch of partisan finger pointing and strawmanning (especially for the point of politicians getting their comments on the news), which covers up the real debate about underlying policy. I don't know, but I feel like wanting to have articles that report meaningful information and analysis on the policies is not confirmation bias, but a desire to have informed debate about things that actually matter.

cbsmith 5y ago
> What I mean is that if policies are are supposedly linked to increases in crime, then we should be evaluating them at a policy level, not a partisan level. Yes, I would totally agree, but that isn't the nature of the prevailing narrative. > The surface debate is just a bunch of partisan finger pointing and strawmanning (especially for the point of politicians getting their comments on the news), which covers up the real debate about underlying policy. Bingo! You've hit the central point of the article. > I don't know, but I feel like wanting to have articles that report meaningful information and analysis on the policies is not confirmation bias, but a desire to have informed debate about things that actually matter. Agreed, wanting to have more meaningful information & analysis is not about confirmation bias. Wanting to have more meaningful information & analysis before accepting/repeating a narrative is confirmation bias. The article isn't trying to suggest that Republicans or their policies are causing an increase in crime. It's trying to show that if you're looking at national trends in the data, it doesn't point to anything supporting the prevailing narrative. The natural next thought is, "what is the data supporting the prevailing narrative?", and the answer to that ought to raise at least as many questions about the prevailing narrative as it does this article.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "Bingo! You've hit the central point of the article." I'm sorry, but it doesn't read like that for me. If it were really getting at the idea of there being underlying issues then I would expect there to be investigation of them to further support that point. If it's trying to call out the partisan finger pointing and use of "convenient" data, then I don't see why they would also engage in those actions (doesn't seem like satire to me).
  - cbsmith 5y ago
    "I'm sorry, but it doesn't read like that for me. If it were really getting at the idea of there being underlying issues then I would expect there to be investigation of them to further support that point." Umm... the point of the article is about "the surface debate is just a bunchy of partisan finger pointing and strawmanning (especially for the point of politicians getting their comments on the news), which covers up the real debate about underlying policy", then the "problem" would be an investigation of the surface debate, which is what you see here. One can erect a hundred strawmen with a fraction of the resources needed to identify and isolate, let alone communicate the complexity of the underlying issues. Heck, just demonstrating the lack of evidence supporting a strawman requires far more resources. I would argue demanding a detailed investigation about the underlying issues in order to dismiss the partisan finger pointing and strawmanning is a really good way to ensure that the debate is dominated by partisan finger pointing and strawmanning. If you're wondering why the discourse is shaped this way, you're demonstrating the cause. It should be enough to say, "You're right about something here. There is an increase in the murder rate, but it's broad national phenomenon whose underlying cause is not understood; your claims don't even fit the shape of the problem, let alone have credible supporting evidence about an underlying cause". That should be enough for the the narrative to be dismissed. Unfortunately, it's not; thanks to confirmation bias people are much more likely to accept claims with weak or even no evidence that align with their expectations, and will insist on a far higher standard of evidence for anything that doesn't align with their expectations, even if it is simply pointing out that their expectations aren't well supported.

long_time_gone 5y ago

> Confirmation bias tends to manifest as a desire for more in-depth analysis for statements that violate one's expectations, but the rational case here is that the prevailing narrative needs far more in-depth analysis to deserve any kind of support. I have been trying to say this exact thing, but couldn't put it as clearly.