4 ms·

is there such a thing as “liberal low-information voters” and if so, what bad policies were enacted as a result of such voters? Or is this just a high-brow way

is there such a thing as “liberal low-information voters” and if so, what bad policies were enacted as a result of such voters? Or is this just a high-brow way of saying “the people who disagree with us are stupid”?

satvikpendem 4y ago
Perhaps those who lean liberal but dislike nuclear energy?
- Arnt 4y ago
  Nah, that's people like me. We say "nuclear has high and increasing costs, requires state-subsidised liability insurance and isn't even getting closer to solving its waste problem" and think that learning to live with cheap fickle solar is a smaller problem. Even if you disagree, I don't think you'll call it a a low-information attitude.
  - creato 4y ago
    You proved yourself to be low information on at least one point (the waste problem). Your other points may be “true” but in a rather hollow way. We’re all subsidizing the impact of fossil fuel waste for example, it just isn’t correctly accounted for. > and think that learning to live with cheap fickle solar is a smaller problem Even if we accept this to be true now, we will have been burning fossil fuels for over a century by the time we actually learn to live with solar at a scale relevant to climate change. I place blame for that squarely on low information liberals.
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      > (the waste problem). The waste problem isn't solved. It's entirely a political problem rather than a technical problem, but it's still a problem. > we will have been burning fossil fuels for over a century by the time we actually learn to live with solar at a scale relevant to climate change. In 2015, wind&solar was 5.7% of US electricity generation. In 2021 it was 13%. In 2022 it was 16.5%. How can you extrapolate from that and come up with a century?
      - creato 4y ago
        Nuclear has been stalled in favor of fossil fuels for at least 50 years already.
    - Arnt 4y ago
      I think you overlook the central point: The assessment that x>y is based on learned information about x and y, and the assessment that a is a smaller problem than b ditto. You may argue that the x, y, a and b are wrong, and therefore the conclusions is wrong. Well, fine, as you please. What I'm saying is that learning about x, y, a and b, then forming conclusions, is a high-information mode.
mcphage 4y ago
> is there such a thing as “liberal low-information voters” It isn't necessarily the case that low-information voters are distributed equally across the political spectrum. > what bad policies were enacted as a result of such voters It's not a legal policy, but consider usage of the word "latinx" which most Americans of Latin American heritage strongly dislike.
- MaxLeiter 4y ago
  > but consider usage of the word "latinx" which most Americans of Latin American heritage strongly dislike. Last I saw, the majority don’t care: https://news.gallup.com/poll/353000/no-preferred-racial-term-among-black-hispanic-adults.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/353000/no-preferred-racial-term...
- discreteevent 4y ago
  "Although it is not true that all Conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are Conservative." - John Stewart Mill
analog31 4y ago
I don't want to throw mud, but something I've thought of is that there has never been a viable liberal talk radio show that came anywhere close to competing with Rush Limbaugh, and there is no liberal analogue to Fox News with anywhere near the success.
- idrathernot 4y ago
  Perhaps this is a result of the center-left stance held by most national media corporations and their affiliated commentators. Fox has a monopoly on “conservative msm news” at a national level so they don’t have to share the pie like “liberal msm news”.
rapind 4y ago
It’s not “low information”, if anything we all have way too much information. It’s the overwhelming quantity of “low quality information” that’s breaking us. Combine this with the decimation of the middle class and democracy has a big problem.
gwking 4y ago
There certainly are. I grew up in a very liberal area and have met lots of people that fit the description. Picture a guy who was raised by ex-hippies and doesn't read the news or care about politics.
- idrathernot 4y ago
  Not reading the “news” and not partaking in flavor of the week national political topics are both positive indicators of intelligence in my opinion. It at least takes some meaningful wisdom to not impulsively form a binary conclusion on every topic mentioned by news reporters.
ttul 4y ago
Sure, there definitely are liberal low-information voters. Consider the mask-opposed anti-vax crusader who nonetheless eats vegan and votes Democrat, for instance. The average person has an IQ of 100. Given that average IQ is defined as being one standard deviation of average, the vast majority of voters are between low intelligence and average intelligence. About 84% of voters thus have low-to-average intelligence (68% fits in one standard deviation of average; 68/2 + 50 = 84%). Regardless of your political leaning, I think it’s worthwhile accepting that most governments are elected by people who aren’t as smart as the typical HN contributor.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Fairly sure your maths is off there...IQ is supposed to have normal distribution, hence ~50% have below-average intelligence, 50% above-average: how can 84% possibly have low-to-average? Either way, even if it's true that some significant percentage of voters have below-average IQ, how strong is the evidence that they'll make a "worse" collective choice of government than those with above-average IQs? That's basically assuming that the properties of candidates that will ensure they can act as part of an effective government are somehow "too hard" to accurately judge unless you have above average IQ. It seems just as possible the opposite is true - i.e. those with above average IQ aren't good at judging the sorts of properties candidates need to be govern effectively - at least partly because that implies being able to govern in way that works well for those in the below-average-IQ group (i.e. those in the above-average-IQ group will probably do reasonably well for themselves regardless of the quality of government).
  - wahern 4y ago
    The comment uses a definition of average as scores within one standard deviation of the mean. (The comment also uses average as the mean score, 100, which makes it confusing--two meanings of average. NB: Mean is also median in normal distributions.)
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      I suppose it's the redefinition of average to include IQs up to "115" that I'd say was the issue then...
creato 4y ago
The examples I can think of are going to be arguable, but: - Antivaccine politics (before covid) was mostly liberal. - Progressive regulation of housing construction/affordable housing policies in liberal cities are (probably) well intentioned but economically naive - Some environmental policies (banning plastic straws, grocery bags, some water conservation efforts) are again well intentioned but a complete waste of breath for either side.

satvikpendem 4y ago

Perhaps those who lean liberal but dislike nuclear energy?

Arnt 4y ago
Nah, that's people like me. We say "nuclear has high and increasing costs, requires state-subsidised liability insurance and isn't even getting closer to solving its waste problem" and think that learning to live with cheap fickle solar is a smaller problem. Even if you disagree, I don't think you'll call it a a low-information attitude.
- creato 4y ago
  You proved yourself to be low information on at least one point (the waste problem). Your other points may be “true” but in a rather hollow way. We’re all subsidizing the impact of fossil fuel waste for example, it just isn’t correctly accounted for. > and think that learning to live with cheap fickle solar is a smaller problem Even if we accept this to be true now, we will have been burning fossil fuels for over a century by the time we actually learn to live with solar at a scale relevant to climate change. I place blame for that squarely on low information liberals.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    > (the waste problem). The waste problem isn't solved. It's entirely a political problem rather than a technical problem, but it's still a problem. > we will have been burning fossil fuels for over a century by the time we actually learn to live with solar at a scale relevant to climate change. In 2015, wind&solar was 5.7% of US electricity generation. In 2021 it was 13%. In 2022 it was 16.5%. How can you extrapolate from that and come up with a century?
    - creato 4y ago
      Nuclear has been stalled in favor of fossil fuels for at least 50 years already.
  - Arnt 4y ago
    I think you overlook the central point: The assessment that x>y is based on learned information about x and y, and the assessment that a is a smaller problem than b ditto. You may argue that the x, y, a and b are wrong, and therefore the conclusions is wrong. Well, fine, as you please. What I'm saying is that learning about x, y, a and b, then forming conclusions, is a high-information mode.

mcphage 4y ago

> is there such a thing as “liberal low-information voters” It isn't necessarily the case that low-information voters are distributed equally across the political spectrum. > what bad policies were enacted as a result of such voters It's not a legal policy, but consider usage of the word "latinx" which most Americans of Latin American heritage strongly dislike.

MaxLeiter 4y ago
> but consider usage of the word "latinx" which most Americans of Latin American heritage strongly dislike. Last I saw, the majority don’t care: https://news.gallup.com/poll/353000/no-preferred-racial-term-among-black-hispanic-adults.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/353000/no-preferred-racial-term...
discreteevent 4y ago
"Although it is not true that all Conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are Conservative." - John Stewart Mill

analog31 4y ago

I don't want to throw mud, but something I've thought of is that there has never been a viable liberal talk radio show that came anywhere close to competing with Rush Limbaugh, and there is no liberal analogue to Fox News with anywhere near the success.

idrathernot 4y ago
Perhaps this is a result of the center-left stance held by most national media corporations and their affiliated commentators. Fox has a monopoly on “conservative msm news” at a national level so they don’t have to share the pie like “liberal msm news”.

rapind 4y ago

It’s not “low information”, if anything we all have way too much information. It’s the overwhelming quantity of “low quality information” that’s breaking us. Combine this with the decimation of the middle class and democracy has a big problem.

gwking 4y ago

There certainly are. I grew up in a very liberal area and have met lots of people that fit the description. Picture a guy who was raised by ex-hippies and doesn't read the news or care about politics.

idrathernot 4y ago
Not reading the “news” and not partaking in flavor of the week national political topics are both positive indicators of intelligence in my opinion. It at least takes some meaningful wisdom to not impulsively form a binary conclusion on every topic mentioned by news reporters.

ttul 4y ago

Sure, there definitely are liberal low-information voters. Consider the mask-opposed anti-vax crusader who nonetheless eats vegan and votes Democrat, for instance. The average person has an IQ of 100. Given that average IQ is defined as being one standard deviation of average, the vast majority of voters are between low intelligence and average intelligence. About 84% of voters thus have low-to-average intelligence (68% fits in one standard deviation of average; 68/2 + 50 = 84%). Regardless of your political leaning, I think it’s worthwhile accepting that most governments are elected by people who aren’t as smart as the typical HN contributor.

wizofaus 4y ago
Fairly sure your maths is off there...IQ is supposed to have normal distribution, hence ~50% have below-average intelligence, 50% above-average: how can 84% possibly have low-to-average? Either way, even if it's true that some significant percentage of voters have below-average IQ, how strong is the evidence that they'll make a "worse" collective choice of government than those with above-average IQs? That's basically assuming that the properties of candidates that will ensure they can act as part of an effective government are somehow "too hard" to accurately judge unless you have above average IQ. It seems just as possible the opposite is true - i.e. those with above average IQ aren't good at judging the sorts of properties candidates need to be govern effectively - at least partly because that implies being able to govern in way that works well for those in the below-average-IQ group (i.e. those in the above-average-IQ group will probably do reasonably well for themselves regardless of the quality of government).
- wahern 4y ago
  The comment uses a definition of average as scores within one standard deviation of the mean. (The comment also uses average as the mean score, 100, which makes it confusing--two meanings of average. NB: Mean is also median in normal distributions.)
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    I suppose it's the redefinition of average to include IQs up to "115" that I'd say was the issue then...

creato 4y ago

The examples I can think of are going to be arguable, but: - Antivaccine politics (before covid) was mostly liberal. - Progressive regulation of housing construction/affordable housing policies in liberal cities are (probably) well intentioned but economically naive - Some environmental policies (banning plastic straws, grocery bags, some water conservation efforts) are again well intentioned but a complete waste of breath for either side.