Low Information Voters

[Perknose]

Paywall New Yorker Link.

Bestest Part:

"Fording stated. Low-information voters, he found, are more likely to embrace stereotypes of other groups, and less likely to fact-check claims made by politicians. “Trump was kind of the perfect candidate for them,” he said. After the “Access Hollywood” tape leaked, and voters largely stuck with Trump, Fording dug deeper into the low-information category. He came across a metric in psychology called the “need for cognition” scale. “A question that really caught my attention on the scale is an agree or disagree: ‘Thinking is not my idea of fun,’ ” Fording recalled. He and a colleague ran a study to see whether agreement with the statement correlated with support for Trump. It did.

 

[nakedfrog]

You know, I'd developed this suspicion that there are people out there who do not enjoy thinking, but it felt like a weird question to ask people.

 

[HomerJS]

Easy way to spot a low information voter. They make a declaration, and you hit them with the pesky follow-up question or ask them to defend their statement. They either exit the sandbox, call you a name or just make another unsubstantiated claim.

 

[Indus]

Paywall New Yorker Link.

Bestest Part:

"Fording stated. Low-information voters, he found, are more likely to embrace stereotypes of other groups, and less likely to fact-check claims made by politicians. “Trump was kind of the perfect candidate for them,” he said. After the “Access Hollywood” tape leaked, and voters largely stuck with Trump, Fording dug deeper into the low-information category. He came across a metric in psychology called the “need for cognition” scale. “A question that really caught my attention on the scale is an agree or disagree: ‘Thinking is not my idea of fun,’ ” Fording recalled. He and a colleague ran a study to see whether agreement with the statement correlated with support for Trump. It did.

Somehow I think this is proof for that exact thing:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1827034411063271446

 

[HomerJS]

There is a fallacy that left leaning people have no tolerance for differing opinions. Speaking as one nothing could be further from the truth. I have a low tolerance for opinions based in nothing or unfounded conspiracies.

If you have a good faith opinion, why is it so hard justifying it? We have many in this forum who are guilty of that very thing. Any opinion I have is open to change if you convince me I'm wrong.

I could make a blanket statement we live in a racist country. Having said that I can offer up evidence to support my opinion

I could also make the blanket statement all Republicans are racist but wouldn't because 1. I don't believe it and 2. I don't have the evidence to back it up.

However, we many here who make blanket statement with nothing behind it.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I think we have to qualify -- with some caveats -- the advantage and reliability of free and honest elections.

If there are low-information voters, it increases the odds that election results will either be "sub-optimal" or mistaken.

I accept that, and I still support the concept of democracy because it is the only way I can influence the outcome by some tincture or drop in the bucket, and walk away satisfied even if "my side loses".

. . . . Unless, of course, that the knuckleheads cause the election of a criminal, liar and psychologically disordered misfit.

 

[Moonbeam]

Paywall New Yorker Link.

Bestest Part:

"Fording stated. Low-information voters, he found, are more likely to embrace stereotypes of other groups, and less likely to fact-check claims made by politicians. “Trump was kind of the perfect candidate for them,” he said. After the “Access Hollywood” tape leaked, and voters largely stuck with Trump, Fording dug deeper into the low-information category. He came across a metric in psychology called the “need for cognition” scale. “A question that really caught my attention on the scale is an agree or disagree: ‘Thinking is not my idea of fun,’ ” Fording recalled. He and a colleague ran a study to see whether agreement with the statement correlated with support for Trump. It did.

I find this proposition personally thought provoking. I think that thought is fear so this attitude I have makes me want to gusetion all opinions I have based on that kind of mental process. Thought is baloney we make up as stories we think to ourselves as rationalizations to define who we think we are. Though, in this way is driven by need, identity made us as self justification.

But all of that is all make believe and once done, it is threatening to do any more thinking. Don’t rock the fucking boat. Don’t people need a self justification that makes them great and making America great again certainly does that, right? So why think when the truth is obvious.

The centipede was happy guide
Until the toad is fun said
Pray, which leg goes after which
This worked his mind to such a pitch
He lai distracted in a ditch
Considering how to run.

If you think about thought you will realize that thought is fear, based on a symbolic language that can make up things that do not exist and about which thinking about them will destroy piece of mind. Thought is fear, thought creates time, it is sequential, and thus thought is the source of misery.

So what to do? You are fucked by thinking and fucked if you avoid thinking this through. What to do? Anybody know?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Let’s stop being kind and start calling it what they are. Low IQ voters.

 

[cytg111]

Mmmmm ... Even so, if low-iq voters are turning to Trump for representation I suggest that the high iq voters got some soul searching to do.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think we have to qualify -- with some caveats -- the advantage and reliability of free and honest elections.

If there are low-information voters, it increases the odds that election results will either be "sub-optimal" or mistaken.

I accept that, and I still support the concept of democracy because it is the only way I can influence the outcome by some tincture or drop in the bucket, and walk away satisfied even if "my side loses".

. . . . Unless, of course, that the knuckleheads cause the election of a criminal, liar and psychologically disordered misfit.

Maybe a society, the majority of which would elect such a person, deserves what it will get. We create what we fear and that operates like a pendulum.

 

[HomerJS]

Maybe a society, the majority of which would elect such a person, deserves what it will get. We create what we fear and that operates like a pendulum.

That's the problem. The majority didn't elect that kind of person in 2016 nor would they in 2024.

 

[HomerJS]

Here's Jon Stewert years ago detailing how Fox News uses low information voters to create feedback loops of misinformation.

 

[Moonbeam]

Let’s stop being kind and start calling it what they are. Low IQ voters.

Do you really imagine you could have ever really have been kind if you could made such a switch? Just asking. I know, “Thinking isn’t fun.” Feel free to ignore the question.

Low information people are ignorant for reasons, they have been made to fear being competent information gathers. Your idea is to punish them even more by reminding them of how deserving they were of such scorn as a way to fix them. You stupid asshole!

There, now I’m sure your all fixed, right? Smile.

 

[nakedfrog]

Let’s stop being kind and start calling it what they are. Low IQ voters.

I don't think that's entirely fair, lots of privileged people out there who aren't invested in the process because they don't feel like their vote makes a difference and/or that the end result won't have much impact on their life. If we can roll out ranked choice voting, and maybe voter information packets, I think that would be a positive result.

That's a pipe dream though...

 

[HomerJS]

Here's Jon Stewert years ago detailing how Fox News uses low information voters to create feedback loops of misinformation.

Bill tries to defend himself and Jon just makes him look sillier

 

[Moonbeam]

That's the problem. The majority didn't elect that kind of person in 2016 nor would they in 2024.

Substitute a majority of electors, the basic point doesn’t change seems to me. But your point is valid.

 

[Indus]

Well this probably belongs in my conspiracy theory thread but it's amazing how some pro-Putin and pro-Xi people are very obviously flocking towards Trump, not because they like him but they are playing the long game as willing soldiers for the empire even though they're US citizens.

Unfortunately it's more than a conspiracy theory as you'll find it very common if you travel in Sheepshead Bay, Bensonhurst etc.

I wish I could say the same for my neighborhood but they just have always liked Republicans since the Ronnie Raygun days and won't change.. they'll happily back MTG or Bachman or Bobo before Kam.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I don't think that's entirely fair, lots of privileged people out there who aren't invested in the process because they don't feel like their vote makes a difference and/or that the end result won't have much impact on their life. If we can roll out ranked choice voting, and maybe voter information packets, I think that would be a positive result.

That's a pipe dream though...

Low IQ voters will never be capable of understanding ranked choice.

 

[BoomerD]

If you go to sites that tend to be predominantly right wing, you’ll find that they think “lefty libruls” are the low IQ, low information voters. To a point, they’re right…there ate a LOT of them on our side…just like there are a LOT of them on that side. (damned “both sides equivalence” again.)

Come on over to tfnn.net…lots of folks who were banned from AT hang out there now…Glenn, Someones mind, (however it was spelled) and many others. I’m sure they’d enjoy a swarm of left-leaning libruls challenging their ideas…

 

[HomerJS]

Substitute a majority of electors, the basic point doesn’t change seems to me. But your point is valid.

In other words, the EC is setup to reward low information voters.

 

[nakedfrog]

Low IQ voters will never be capable of understanding ranked choice.

Okay? I was talking about how I don't think it's fair to brand all low information voters as low IQ.

 

[nakedfrog]

If you go to sites that tend to be predominantly right wing, you’ll find that they think “lefty libruls” are the low IQ, low information voters. To a point, they’re right…there ate a LOT of them on our side…just like there are a LOT of them on that side. (damned “both sides equivalence” again.)

Come on over to tfnn.net…lots of folks who were banned from AT hang out there now…Glenn, Someones mind, (however it was spelled) and many others. I’m sure they’d enjoy a swarm of left-leaning libruls challenging their ideas…

I didn't figure someone's mind got banned, I thought he just left of his own accord. Too much casual racism and queerphobia over there for my tastes.

 

[BoomerD]

I didn't figure someone's mind got banned, I thought he just left of his own accord. Too much casual racism and queerphobia over there for my tastes.

I think he left rather than apologize for something he had posted…or something like that.
Ignore the nasty bullshit…come troll everyone…including me!

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Let’s stop being kind and start calling it what they are. Low IQ voters.

IQ is a red herring imo, some of the dumbest fuckers I've met in my life have been 'intelligent', and vice versa. It's not even a trend, it's just random.

I would be willing to go with 'people who have been abused in a certain way or set of ways seek out conservatism, dictators, or both' however.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Low IQ voters will never be capable of understanding ranked choice.

Patently false. 'I'll take spring rolls if they have them, otherwise crab rangoon'. That's all you need to tell them ranked choice is.